On the Book of Abraham

[All-American]

As has been discussed in depth on this board, the process by which we received the Book of Abraham is heavily disputed. The large part of the problem is that we don’t know what that process was, and what we previously understood about it, we are no longer certain. The mental gymnastics performed by which Mormons have managed to maintain their claim of authenticity have been noted and scorned by those who are not in accord with them.

Here is why that does not matter:

In determining the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, as well as of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and other works produced by Joseph Smith which claim divine and/or ancient sources, Latter-Day Saints have NOT concerned themselves at all with the process by which we received them. Whether Joseph Smith read from the Gold Plates like a book, stuck his head in a hat, or dictated while reclining in an easy-chair is a matter of interest only—the REAL thing we’ve concerned ourselves with is the finished product. Likewise with the Book of Abraham: if modern scholarship shows that the papyri is not what we originally thought it was, that is incidental; we never believed the Book of Abraham to be what it claims to be on the grounds that the story of its origins was really cool.

The reason Latter Day Saints believe the Book of Mormon, as well as the Book of Abraham, is that in spite of our lack of knowledge concerning its production, it passes the tests we put it through for determining scripture. It looks like scripture, reads like scripture, feels like scripture. It leads us to do good, it inspires us, it helps us improve our relationship with God and man, and does all else that scripture is supposed to do. I’ve never heard a more eloquent defense for the Book of Mormon than from a nine year-old boy on the island of Lanzarote. When confronted by a missionary of another religion who told him that the Book of Mormon was of man, and not of God, he responded, “This one makes me feel good, just like that one. This one talks about God, just like that one. How can you tell me that one is true and the other isn’t?”

Just for the sake of making this an academic exercise, we proceed to show another way that the Book of Abraham passes tests of authenticity for scripture. As was cited in an earlier thread discussing Abraham, critics have observed that Joseph Smith obviously copied his Book of Abraham from biblical apocrypha—a real trick, with none available to him at the time. The book of Abraham smacks of both “Testament” type apocryphal works, in which the prophet is caught up into heaven, and the Throne-theophany/Prophetic Commission forms of writings that are seemingly becoming more and more common as the years go by. I recently did a paper comparing the prophetic calls of Moses, Lehi, and Joseph Smith with the prophetic call form suggested by Blake Ostler in a 1986 study, and Abraham’s also conforms quite exactly. The three features which I studied in the three visions were the trial by the adversary, the “pillar of light” wherein the prophet is visited by a divine messenger, and the vision of the council in heaven. Each of the phases can be found in these visions, and it is especially so with the Book of Abraham.

So you’ll have to forgive us if we don’t seem particularly bothered by our inconsistency in studying the origins of these works. As far as I’m concerned, we spend far too much time trying to prove them true instead of reading what they say. Whenever I spend time in the Book of Abraham, I come away believing what I’ve just read could not have come from any man writing in the 1830’s.

[SeattleUte]

Now wait a minute. You just wrote in another thread that if he didn't really see a gold book, etc. it's the most fiendish lie ever. And what's the point of the (unsigned) "testimony" of witnesses?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Now wait a minute. You just wrote in another thread that if he didn't really see a gold book, etc. it's the most fiendish lie ever. And what's the point of the (unsigned) "testimony" of witnesses?

No-- I wrote that if he didn't have the gold plates in front of him while he was translating, it doesn't necessarily matter. Clearly, if there were no Gold Plates, it was a lie.

The bottom line: if it came from God, the manner by which it came from God doesn't necessarily matter. Sorry, I could have been more clear.