Book of Abraham Astronomy

[_CaliforniaKid]

Is anybody aware of an online response to the claim by Gee, Peterson, and Hamblin that the Book of Abraham's astronomy is geocentric? Hamblin just linked to said argument (in the first chapter of Astronomy, Papyrus, Covenant) over on MADB. I'd rather not have to expend a lot of time and energy writing my own rebuttal if I can avoid it by linking to somebody else's stuff. Thanks,

-CK

[_Who Knows]

I don't know. Does it need a rebuttal? In other words, if Joseph Smith were making a document purported to be about Abraham's views of the universe, wouldn't it be geocentric?

Sorry for any ignorance here, just thinking out loud.

[_dartagnan]

Probably the most relevant counter-argument on the web-

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/essays/M ... BOA_8.html

Where is the link he provided to you?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Thanks, Kevin. That link is actually the one that started the thread. The link to the Hamblin/Peterson/Gee paper is here: http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... chapid=161

WK: The apologists argue for a geocentric astronomy in the Book of Abraham in order to try to defuse parallels to 19th-century Newtonian astronomy (and particularly to Thomas Dick's book Philosophy of a Future State, which we know was available to Joseph Smith). The Newtonian parallels are really quite compelling, which is why we get a collaborative article arguing for geocentrism from three of Mormon apologetics' heaviest hitters.

I'm quite convinced that the Book of Abraham does not envision a geocentric astronomy. The best piece I've read on the subject is "Joseph Smith's Scriptural Cosmology," an essay by Vogel and Metcalfe in Word of God. But there's nothing comparable online. The closest thing is the chapter from Mathie's book on the Zarahemla site.

By the way, Mathie's book is really quite good. I highly recommend it to anyone who's interested in the subject.

[_dartagnan]

Typical FARMS apologetics. Notice of course that this piece doesn’t even begin to scrape the surface of the evidences provided by Vogel and Metcalfe, but still they decided to make snide passing comments like:

“Vogel and Metcalfe are disturbed by the fact that the Sun is called a ‘moving planet,’ which of course does not fit with nineteenth-century ideas but which perfectly matches geocentric thought.”

This is the typical method of avoiding compelling arguments and poisoning the well by talking down to them as if nothing they wrote was worth addressing in detail. It serves the purpose of diverting would be Latter-day Saints from reading those arguments in their book since the authors have presumably been discredited as agenda driven anti-Mormons.

And of course the big whammy against their position is the striking parallel between the Book of Abraham and Thomas Dick’s book, whereby the concept of “intelligences” is mentioned. That was the nail in the coffin, yet how many times this was addressed in this long winded, 9,000+ word article? Zero.

And the argument that the Book of Abraham represents a geocentric model is not only obviously weak, but rests on several convoluted assumptions and interpretations that only desperate apologists could muster. It is hard to believe they actually think they accomplished something of value in this article.

[_truth dancer]

Wow... just when I think I have heard it all something new comes to light.

I had never heard of Dick's book...

Pretty unbelievable... actually no, it is clearly just more of the same pattern.

:-(

~dancer~

[_Who Knows]

WK: The apologists argue for a geocentric astronomy in the Book of Abraham in order to try to defuse parallels to 19th-century Newtonian astronomy (and particularly to Thomas Dick's book Philosophy of a Future State, which we know was available to Joseph Smith). The Newtonian parallels are really quite compelling, which is why we get a collaborative article arguing for geocentrism from three of Mormon apologetics' heaviest hitters.

Ah, I see. They basically argue geocentric - only to rebut the critical argument - not as a way of saying anything about the 'truthfulness' of the Book of Abraham.

My point - what I was trying to say - was that if I were to write a document and say it was the writings of some ancient person - I would probably use some type of geocentric model - as that was (if i'm not mistaken) the generally accepted view back then.

[_Runtu]

Wow... just when I think I have heard it all something new comes to light.

I had never heard of Dick's book...

Pretty unbelieveable... actually no, it is clearly just more of the same pattern.

:-(

~dancer~

Joseph Smith's genius makes much more sense when you realize that almost every "innovation" he introduced was something he borrowed from someone else. Hence, the Book of Abraham reliance on Dick, the adoption of Swedenborg's three kingdoms of heaven, the clearly Masonic temple ceremonies, and so on, ad infinitum.

[Guest]

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.

[_CaliforniaKid]

The notion that Kolob-- which "last pertaining to measurement of time-- might be the farthest planet out there positively militates against the meaning of the entire passage. Kolob is first in government, which clearly implies its centrality (the only thing more central is perhaps for the throne of God). I may post more on this subject, but I simply haven't time now. :-(