I love how they try to get around the fact that the Book of Abraham’s teaching on astronomy is bogus.
1) “The Lord tends to speak to humans within the limits of their understanding.” Yea, we’ve heard this before, too many times. It is a convenient “out” whenever those stubborn facts get in the way of religious belief.
2) Well maybe the earth really is the center of the universe! Just because this model has been replaced doesn’t mean it is wrong. You can sense a desire to have it both ways. Again, the “no fault” system for Smith is securely in place.
They spent forever and a day trying to prove Abraham 3:1-11 isn’t referring to a supernatural vision, but they don’t clarify the importance of this point.
They then describe the geocentric worldview in four forms. I have always understood this model to refer to the earth as the center of the universe. They describe different variations without making it clear whether or not the other three require this point. They argue that the Book of Abraham best represents the third version (“The third version of geocentric cosmology was the transfer of this celestial hierarchy to a series of multiple differentiated heavens”) but admit that this variation is already explicit in both the Old and New Testaments.
Apparently their whole argument is that, “the Book of Abraham presents a clear indication of a geocentric cosmology with a celestial hierarchy, and probably differentiated heavens.” Gee, a celestial hierarchy with differentiated heavens? This is supposed to be “striking” evidence, especially considering Smith’s doctrine of multiple heavens which he interpreted from Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians?
They then go on to talk about how several ancient civilizations have held to some form of geocentric view, completely ignoring the fact that people in 19th century America also believed it. I mean this is a crucial dodge, since their entire purpose here is to undermine the thesis that the Book of Abraham was a product of 19th century ideas.
by the nineteenth century, all western astronomy was Copernican and Newtonian. Even the nineteenth-century occultists and astrologers, who maintained more elements of the archaic worldviews than any other segments of nineteenth-century society, accepted heliocentricity and modified their practices and theories accordingly. Thus, Joseph Smith lived in a world universally dominated by heliocentric, Copernican, and Newtonian cosmology. If Joseph is to be considered the author of the Book of Abraham under the influences of the astronomical speculations of his day, we would expect to see a heliocentric worldview espoused in the text.
This is question begging. They ignore the fact that Joseph Smith was a religious enthusiast who had a propensity for biblical literalism (e.g. anthropomorphism, baptisms for the dead, multiple heavens, etc). They also ignore the fact that Geocentrism was very much alive and well in the 19th century, just as it is in the 21st century. Those who cling to this model are typically religious fundamentalists who, like Smith, lean toward biblical literalism. But our authors neglect to inform readers of this, all the while calling Geocentrism “ancient” in order to credit the proposal that the Book of Abraham is an ancient document.
Then they perform surgery on chapter three, trying to dig up some kind of references to geocentrism.
The clearest indication of this geocentricity is found in the frequent references to a hierarchy of celestial bodies, each one higher than the preceding and all above the earth. The most explicit statement of this comes from Abraham 3:17: "Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it." Likewise, the moon is elsewhere stated to be above the earth: "[The moon] is above or greater than that [the earth] upon which thou standest" (Abraham 3:5). Furthermore, we find that "one planet [is] above another" (Abraham 3:9). The text does not describe any object as being below "the earth upon which thou standest" (Abraham 3:5, 7). To us it seems very difficult to interpret this language as anything other than geocentric, and this alone should suffice to prove the geocentric perspective of the text. However, there is a great deal of additional evidence pointing to the geocentric perspective.
Yes, according to the text all other celestial bodies are above the earth, sure. So how does this translate to the earth being the center of the universe? Without this, there is no geocentric model at play.
The higher position of the various planets or stars correlates to a longer time span. Thus, we find that "the set time of the lesser light [the moon] is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest" (Abraham 3:7). The higher the planet or star, the greater the length of its reckoning. Thus, "there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still; And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob" (Abraham 3:8–9). The basis of the reckoning of time is given with the example of Kolob "according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof" (Abraham 3:4). Thus, the length of the reckoning of a planet is based on its revolution (and not rotation). Those planets or stars that are higher have a greater "point of calculation, for it moveth in order more slow" (Abraham 3:5). It therefore moves in revolution above the earth. This is a geocentric description.
To speak of celestial bodies existing “higher” than the earth is natural given the perspective from anyone looking “up,” but this in itself doesn’t demonstrate a geocentric model whereby all celestial bodies revolve around the earth. It could just as well be that all celestial bodies revolve around the Throne of God, as was said in Thomas Dick’s book for which Smith clearly relied upon in his “intelligences” doctrine. This also makes more sense when considering Abraham 3:5 which speaks of the planets and stars moving slower the higher or further away they are from earth.
For example, if we use the earth’s rotation as an analogy, someone standing on the equator is moving faster than all other humans standing at different latitudes, since they are at the outermost point. Likewise, standing on the north or south poles means you will move as slow as possible. So if the earth is moving faster than all other celestial bodies, then it must therefore be located at the outermost point of the cycle. Thus, the Throne of God is the center of the universe and the earth is the further point. Our authors refer to Kolob’s revolution in verse 4, but nothing indicates it revolves around the earth. The verse also says that one revolution was one day unto the Lord. This suggests one revolution around the throne of God which it is nearest. If the earth is located at the outer most point of the universe, as opposed to its center, then it makes sense that to say one thousand earth years is equal to one day on Kolob. Our authors figured out the pieces to the puzzle, but I am not sure they put it together properly. There is clearly enough data in Abraham chapter 3 to conclude a line of celestial bodies, one greater than the other. However it is doubtful that this translates to the earth sitting at the Universe’s center. At this point they decide to pull a Nibley and leap to an illicit conclusion for apologetic purposes.
