Thank you for taking the time to address these issues. I guess I take the short cut and ask Heaven if the writings are true and if so, then that's good enough for me.
Jerry D GroverAugust 28, 2019
There is no requirement that reformed Egyptian was phonetic. The "manner of speech" can simply refer to sentence structure and syntax, not pronunciation.
MimiAugust 27, 2019
I've come to the realization that everything that was taught to me in primary and seminary was not all that simple, and it's okay. While I am disappointed at the new discoveries that we are finding out about how the Book of Mormon wasn't actually translated from golden plates sitting on a table and the book of Abraham not being translated from the scrolls, these stories have changed my life and perspective for the good. I am excited about all the research being done in our history. This is the Lord's church and we just have to deal with all the hidden and "let's put this away and not talk about it," parts of our past. I truly believe we will be fine if not better for it. We have to wrestle sometimes and it only makes us stronger.
Donna HesslingAugust 26, 2019
In the Islam Koran 21 Sure:52 - one reads how Abram got himself into such a position as shown in the fascimily in the Pearl of Great Price of him lying on the sacrifice alter.
"The scriptures are holy, but ot too wholey, because they are so holey"
HalAugust 26, 2019
I very much appreciated this article. When this topic came up from my cousin and her husband (both devout Baptists), I explained to them (again) that I believe the Book of Abraham is an inspired, true document for the same reason that I believe that the Book of Mormon was translated by the "gift and power of God." The so-called secular "evidence" that the papyri make no mention of Abraham means no more to me than my finding out a few years ago that Joseph Smith often used a seer-stone rather than the Urim and Thumim to translate the gold plates. It does not matter to me how the revelation was received - all that matters to me is that I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that Joseph Smith was called to be the prophet of the restoration. Everything else is mere trivia.
Phillip C SmithAugust 26, 2019
We do not have adequate insight and data from the 1830s to make any conclusive statements about the Book of Abraham. Scholars should admit that we really don't know enough to draw any valid conclusions. I find that the content of the Books of Abraham is so extraordinary and divinely revealing that I continue to accept it as having been inspired of God.
Kelton ToblerAugust 26, 2019
Thank you for this perspective. I have been concerned for the past few years about the Maxwell Institute moving away from thoughtful, well-documented apologetics in a quest for academic credibility "untainted" by valid points and authorities in defense of faith. I don't know what the right balance is, but I appreciate this reminder that it is possible for a bias in favor of academic "purity" to omit well-founded, useful information, distort the whole truth, and damage faith.
Sharee HughesAugust 26, 2019
I consider the Book of Abraham to be our most profound piece of scripture. Whether it was translated from papyri that are now missing or simply by the power of god is, to me, irrelevant.This new volume of the Joseph Smith Papers should be pulled from the market and corrected to remove the subjective bias of the editors.
Charles DefranchiAugust 26, 2019
Dear Brother Lindsay, Many thanks for reconciling the testimony of the Spirit with a reasonably balanced secular knowledge. The LDS Scholars who gave this lecture must have indeed fallen into the trap of "pleasing" our critics at the expense of a more objective truth, thus proving that "being learned does not necessarily make someone wise," (2 Nephi 9:28)
PennieAugust 26, 2019
It seems to me that all these scholars are willing to swallow a camel but are straining at a knat. Altho I understand that scholarly work is needful, the fact remains that Joseph was a prophet, the Book of Mormon is true, and the Book of Abraham is a wonderful book is scripture. Sometimes scholars sound like the Jews who argued every comma and aphosterphe of the Book of the Law with Paul in order to reject Jesus. Listen to the Holy Ghost before you listen to scholarly lectures
essayAugust 26, 2019
Well written article. My question is why didn't the scholars of JSPRT4 take these points into account? Isn't their project supported by the Church?
Richard WinmillAugust 26, 2019
Meanwhile, in the "hard sciences" they admit at least among themselves that "dispute is science" and may always be until confirming experiments lend more light. It appears that the subject of JSPRT4, dependent as it is now on correcting the editorial work must rely either on personal revelation or much more clear evidence. Else the "dispute" will be unresolved until "that which is perfect comes." The editors of the present Volume 4 ought to admit that. George Musser speaking about the "hard science" he reports on for the Scientific American said: "We expect scientists to speak as one, but the very idea of speaking as one is alien to science. Scientists tend not to discuss this aspect of their profession. They often describe their disputes as dirty laundry best not aired in public (and complain when journalists do so). But if you don’t air disputes, what’s left to air? Science is dispute." To Jeff's comment perhaps we must air this laundry.
George Musser, Spooky Action at a Distance: The Phenomenon That Reimagines Space and Time--and What It Means for Black Holes, the Big Bang, and Theories of Everything (p. 211). Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
But, of course, the soft scholarly work of writers and historians are a much different than scientific inquiry. I found this e-mail discussion between Dan Vogel and Brian Hales much before one of the editors for Volume 4 let off steam on Dan Vogel's FB page--I found these excerpts quite illuminating in the present discussion:
Dan Vogel to Brian Hales: “You are attempting to take advantage of a silence in the historical record …”
Dan Vogel to Brian Hales: I’m only focusing on the logic and arguments … since … the documentation is scarce for either side, it becomes imperative to get the thinking right. Historians often argue from the known to the undocumented and build probabilistic cases."
Brian Hales to Vogel ” You follow the path so common among (Mormon) critics. They don’t have hard evidence, so they wonder or speculate and then condemn … based upon their speculations. It isn’t a position of strength in polemics, but you need to go with whatever evidence you have (or don’t have).”
DAN VOGEL to Brian: I don’t have any new sources for you. I said my discussion would focus on the logic of your position. Silence is silence. You don’t know the reason for the silence. You don’t even know who knew what." Indeed!
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-joseph-smith-papers-project-stumbles/
Comments | Return to Story
MEGAugust 31, 2019
Thank you for taking the time to address these issues. I guess I take the short cut and ask Heaven if the writings are true and if so, then that's good enough for me.
Jerry D GroverAugust 28, 2019
There is no requirement that reformed Egyptian was phonetic. The "manner of speech" can simply refer to sentence structure and syntax, not pronunciation.
MimiAugust 27, 2019
I've come to the realization that everything that was taught to me in primary and seminary was not all that simple, and it's okay. While I am disappointed at the new discoveries that we are finding out about how the Book of Mormon wasn't actually translated from golden plates sitting on a table and the book of Abraham not being translated from the scrolls, these stories have changed my life and perspective for the good. I am excited about all the research being done in our history. This is the Lord's church and we just have to deal with all the hidden and "let's put this away and not talk about it," parts of our past. I truly believe we will be fine if not better for it. We have to wrestle sometimes and it only makes us stronger.
Donna HesslingAugust 26, 2019
In the Islam Koran 21 Sure:52 - one reads how Abram got himself into such a position as shown in the fascimily in the Pearl of Great Price of him lying on the sacrifice alter. "The scriptures are holy, but ot too wholey, because they are so holey"
HalAugust 26, 2019
I very much appreciated this article. When this topic came up from my cousin and her husband (both devout Baptists), I explained to them (again) that I believe the Book of Abraham is an inspired, true document for the same reason that I believe that the Book of Mormon was translated by the "gift and power of God." The so-called secular "evidence" that the papyri make no mention of Abraham means no more to me than my finding out a few years ago that Joseph Smith often used a seer-stone rather than the Urim and Thumim to translate the gold plates. It does not matter to me how the revelation was received - all that matters to me is that I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that Joseph Smith was called to be the prophet of the restoration. Everything else is mere trivia.
Phillip C SmithAugust 26, 2019
We do not have adequate insight and data from the 1830s to make any conclusive statements about the Book of Abraham. Scholars should admit that we really don't know enough to draw any valid conclusions. I find that the content of the Books of Abraham is so extraordinary and divinely revealing that I continue to accept it as having been inspired of God.
Kelton ToblerAugust 26, 2019
Thank you for this perspective. I have been concerned for the past few years about the Maxwell Institute moving away from thoughtful, well-documented apologetics in a quest for academic credibility "untainted" by valid points and authorities in defense of faith. I don't know what the right balance is, but I appreciate this reminder that it is possible for a bias in favor of academic "purity" to omit well-founded, useful information, distort the whole truth, and damage faith.
Sharee HughesAugust 26, 2019
I consider the Book of Abraham to be our most profound piece of scripture. Whether it was translated from papyri that are now missing or simply by the power of god is, to me, irrelevant.This new volume of the Joseph Smith Papers should be pulled from the market and corrected to remove the subjective bias of the editors.
Charles DefranchiAugust 26, 2019
Dear Brother Lindsay, Many thanks for reconciling the testimony of the Spirit with a reasonably balanced secular knowledge. The LDS Scholars who gave this lecture must have indeed fallen into the trap of "pleasing" our critics at the expense of a more objective truth, thus proving that "being learned does not necessarily make someone wise," (2 Nephi 9:28)
PennieAugust 26, 2019
It seems to me that all these scholars are willing to swallow a camel but are straining at a knat. Altho I understand that scholarly work is needful, the fact remains that Joseph was a prophet, the Book of Mormon is true, and the Book of Abraham is a wonderful book is scripture. Sometimes scholars sound like the Jews who argued every comma and aphosterphe of the Book of the Law with Paul in order to reject Jesus. Listen to the Holy Ghost before you listen to scholarly lectures
essayAugust 26, 2019
Well written article. My question is why didn't the scholars of JSPRT4 take these points into account? Isn't their project supported by the Church?
Richard WinmillAugust 26, 2019
Meanwhile, in the "hard sciences" they admit at least among themselves that "dispute is science" and may always be until confirming experiments lend more light. It appears that the subject of JSPRT4, dependent as it is now on correcting the editorial work must rely either on personal revelation or much more clear evidence. Else the "dispute" will be unresolved until "that which is perfect comes." The editors of the present Volume 4 ought to admit that. George Musser speaking about the "hard science" he reports on for the Scientific American said: "We expect scientists to speak as one, but the very idea of speaking as one is alien to science. Scientists tend not to discuss this aspect of their profession. They often describe their disputes as dirty laundry best not aired in public (and complain when journalists do so). But if you don’t air disputes, what’s left to air? Science is dispute." To Jeff's comment perhaps we must air this laundry. George Musser, Spooky Action at a Distance: The Phenomenon That Reimagines Space and Time--and What It Means for Black Holes, the Big Bang, and Theories of Everything (p. 211). Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. But, of course, the soft scholarly work of writers and historians are a much different than scientific inquiry. I found this e-mail discussion between Dan Vogel and Brian Hales much before one of the editors for Volume 4 let off steam on Dan Vogel's FB page--I found these excerpts quite illuminating in the present discussion: Dan Vogel to Brian Hales: “You are attempting to take advantage of a silence in the historical record …” Dan Vogel to Brian Hales: I’m only focusing on the logic and arguments … since … the documentation is scarce for either side, it becomes imperative to get the thinking right. Historians often argue from the known to the undocumented and build probabilistic cases." Brian Hales to Vogel ” You follow the path so common among (Mormon) critics. They don’t have hard evidence, so they wonder or speculate and then condemn … based upon their speculations. It isn’t a position of strength in polemics, but you need to go with whatever evidence you have (or don’t have).” DAN VOGEL to Brian: I don’t have any new sources for you. I said my discussion would focus on the logic of your position. Silence is silence. You don’t know the reason for the silence. You don’t even know who knew what." Indeed! https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-joseph-smith-papers-project-stumbles/
ADD A COMMENT