DiscussMormonism.com

I have in 2022 discussed the Book of Abraham with a dozen or so TBMs. All but three insisted I just didn't know, but that BoAbr is true and God would explain it all in due time. The other three are what surprised me. They each conceded that the BoAbr was merely figments of Joseph Smith's imagination. As one put it, "the church doesn't emphasize it anymore." True, it doesn't, but a lot of the current LDS eternal progression, and preexistence, notions are rooted in the BoAbr. These three, while each in his or her own way dismisses the BoAbr, insisted that they yet believed the Book of Mormon to be of divine origin. I am wondering just how long the cafeteria approach to the restored canon can be maintained. Yes, the BoAbr has to weigh heavily on their shelves, but I think this compartmentalizing of the Mormon scriptures is more fascinating.

Does anyone here that yet thinks that the Book of Mormon is of diving origin admit that the BoAbr is not what it and the Mormon church purport it to be? If so, how do you reconcile this?

Do you know much about the background of the three who said it was a figment?

I have a really hard time imagining any TBM I know saying that. I doubt most have ever typed "Book of Abraham" into Google. I guess where I'm stuck is imagining the TBM who knows enough about Book of Abraham issues to understand why it's a problem.

Sock puppet, I know that your question wasn't for me to answer. But I'll take a stab at it and say that a TBM who accepts the Book of Mormon as authentically divine but not the Book of Abraham is a member in transition. Give them some time and they'll descend farther into the gray shades of nuance, possibly never to return.

DCP says there’s no problem at all. Have you tried reading what his friends wrote about it 30 years ago?

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 02, 2023 11:31 pm

Do you know much about the background of the three who said it was a figment?

I have a really hard time imagining any TBM I know saying that. I doubt most have ever typed "Book of Abraham" into Google. I guess where I'm stuck is imagining the TBM who knows enough about Book of Abraham issues to understand why it's a problem.

Only one of them do I know much more of her background than merely a sketch. She was BIC. BYU and a mission. Temple married. Two children Works as a grievance counselor. Her husband is an M.D. Her parents--both passed--were TBMs (at least appeared to be) to the end.

My thoughts are that all three are dipping a toe or two in the pool of complete apostasy. Maybe I should not think of any of the three as a TBM. Each professes that Book of Mormon is of divine origin despite the lack of archaeological corroboration, even though I raised that concern when talking to them. One was convinced that such corroboration will turn up eventually. Each is aware of Joseph Smith's foibles, at least to an extent and acknowledged it. One tried to explain that he thought the reason Joseph Smith abandoned the 'translation' of the papyri at the end of 1835 was that he realized the papyri were not Abraham's writings as Smith had initially thought in the summer of 1835 when Chandler came to Kirtland with the mummies. This person went further to postulate that Smith was becoming nervous about the followers and why God had not communicated with him in years, and was trying probably harder than he should have to reignite it--ergo, the Principle revelation and the resumption of the translation of the papyri. Still, however, clinging to the Book of Mormon being 'true.'

Religion has existed with a cafeteria approach to scriptures for forever. I'm not sure it's a problem for religion, unless of course one views it all in rational terms. When someone first noticed discrepancies, contradictions, crap they don't like in the Bible, everyone was forced to take a cafeteria approach while still maintaining, for the most part, a declaration that the Bible is God's word, or is inspired. Any of your believing friends who say the Book of Abraham isn't important and was simply a product of Joseph's imagination can find in it some inspiration if they so cared. Aside from the silly astrological stuff each teaching in the Book of Abraham can be found elsewhere in their scriptures. It just so happens the one most important or emphasized part of that whole book is best illustrated in it then elsewhere. Yes, Abraham was a noble and great one who existed before the world was, along with Jesus and everyone else. A believer could suggest Joseph made up the story, but the teaching is true anyway. This text simply provides a good illustration...and that's important.

One tried to explain that he thought the reason Joseph Smith abandoned the 'translation' of the papyri at the end of 1835 was that he realized the papyri were not Abraham's writings as Smith had initially thought in the summer of 1835 when Chandler came to Kirtland with the mummies. This person went further to postulate that Smith was becoming nervous about the followers and why God had not communicated with him in years, and was trying probably harder than he should have to reignite it--ergo, the Principle revelation and the resumption of the translation of the papyri. Still, however, clinging to the Book of Mormon being 'true.'

I have to give the person credit for coming up with a totally new apologetic. You have to wonder about facsimile 3 and all the direct revelations about it, but still, not bad.

The rejection of the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon is, for those who remain religious, spiritual, and Mormon, silly, unless one is to reject the Bible and Christianity on exactly the same basis.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 03, 2023 6:51 pm

The rejection of the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon is, for those who remain religious, spiritual, and Mormon, silly, unless one is to reject the Bible and Christianity on exactly the same basis.

That's true as far as it goes, but Mormonism has the handicap that it's a modern religion that can be debunked a lot more easily. The scholarship is divided on Judaism and Christianity because their histories are so far in the past.

So you are saying it’s possible that the earth is 6,000 years old and Jesus did ascend to heaven as the resurrected Son of God?

I don’t think being more or less absurd than these ridiculous claims changes a whole lot.