In my opinion the organization and content of the Book far exceeds any speculative scholarly theories about its origin. See https://latterdaysaintmag.com/abrahams-chiasm/ for reference.
Paul HAugust 28, 2019
It's good to remember that historians give their interpretation of facts that are centuries old and often don't possess an exact knowledge of the facts that really occurred. Therefore, they give an opinion, albeit an educated one, but it still is an opinion. Until one is assured they possess all the facts, they should make certain their statements are conjecture and not anything else. This reminds me of Fawn Brodie and he she was almost worshiped as the best source to consult when it came to anti Joseph Smith "facts" until she wrote about an early American Revolutionist (I think it was Jefferson) and the critics stripped her of all credibility because it was a "hatchet job" was a pre-conceived bias, not based upon facts. Remember the supposed Salamander letter? Same type of thinking. One day we shall know everything that has happened. Until then, be careful what you assume.
JaredAugust 28, 2019
These are excellent articles! I appreciate the careful analysis and perspective including the assumption that Joseph was a prophet and that his translation came as a gift from God.
Is there any chance that these articles could make it into the Joseph Smith Papers project, even as footnotes in the electronic version?
vickieAugust 28, 2019
I didn't bother to read the entire write up on Abraham transcripts...I think that by faith we can know the truth of all things...people reading and transcribing and writing are all different and are variable in intelligence...so....those looking for imperfections will get them but it still proves nothing.....only what they want it to prove....in their own minds.
Comments | Return to Story
Craig FrogleyAugust 29, 2019
In my opinion the organization and content of the Book far exceeds any speculative scholarly theories about its origin. See https://latterdaysaintmag.com/abrahams-chiasm/ for reference.
Paul HAugust 28, 2019
It's good to remember that historians give their interpretation of facts that are centuries old and often don't possess an exact knowledge of the facts that really occurred. Therefore, they give an opinion, albeit an educated one, but it still is an opinion. Until one is assured they possess all the facts, they should make certain their statements are conjecture and not anything else. This reminds me of Fawn Brodie and he she was almost worshiped as the best source to consult when it came to anti Joseph Smith "facts" until she wrote about an early American Revolutionist (I think it was Jefferson) and the critics stripped her of all credibility because it was a "hatchet job" was a pre-conceived bias, not based upon facts. Remember the supposed Salamander letter? Same type of thinking. One day we shall know everything that has happened. Until then, be careful what you assume.
JaredAugust 28, 2019
These are excellent articles! I appreciate the careful analysis and perspective including the assumption that Joseph was a prophet and that his translation came as a gift from God. Is there any chance that these articles could make it into the Joseph Smith Papers project, even as footnotes in the electronic version?
vickieAugust 28, 2019
I didn't bother to read the entire write up on Abraham transcripts...I think that by faith we can know the truth of all things...people reading and transcribing and writing are all different and are variable in intelligence...so....those looking for imperfections will get them but it still proves nothing.....only what they want it to prove....in their own minds.
ADD A COMMENT