Why Not Just "Drop" the Book of Abraham?

[ben_dy]

OK - deep breath…

Since it first found it’s way into the standard works of the LDS church, the “Book of Abraham” has been a great stumbling block for bringing the Mormon church into a more ‘mainstream’ form of Christianity.

There are other stumbling blocks, of course, but it seems to me, having read the standard works, the JoD, and various other LDS publication, that the Book of Abraham - particularly since the late 1960’s and 1970’s - has certainly been ‘dropped’ as a regular topic of education and discourse and is, in short, an embarrassment that cannot be explained except by saying that - in this case, at least - Jos. Smith, Jun. was ‘mistaken’.

And items from the JoD could just be eliminated. When Brigham Young speaks:

“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.”

• it could simply be dropped from subsequent editions.

It doesn’t seem to me that this type of editing even need be controversial - it is, after all, only the Mormon ‘fundamentalists’, I believe, who continue to hold some of the controversial doctrines as actual ‘doctrines’, and only the same fundamentalists that hold that a president and prophet can speak ‘infallibly’ - the most common rejoinder from LDS apologists when confronted with ALL presidents and prophets - including JS - is that they are as fallible as the next man.

So - wouldn’t the wisest course of having to defend doctrine which has either proved to be the work of imagination (such as the Book of Abraham) or have proved to be ‘non-inspired’ revelation is to simply do away with those stumbling blocks?

There is such great appeal in much LDS doctrine - giving spirits already born a tabernacle, that after death men will be gods themselves with many wives and children and have worlds of their own, the emphasis on family and morals and good works being necessary to enjoy that greatest celestial kingdom, the pacifist idea that murder is THE blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, getting re-baptized as many times as you feel the need, the emphasis on charity towards the poor, the wisdom (no pun intended) of eating and drinking that which does less harm to the body (only eating meat in winter or in time of famine, for instance, instead of a double Whopper or a couple of Big Macs daily)… the list of extremely positive and appealing doctrines is endless! And the very WORST you can do in an afterlife if you prove to be a ‘bad’ Mormon in this life is to be a serving angel - better a waiter or waitress than burning in a lake of fire.

What do you think? LDS doctrine has undergone some quick changes in the past and THRIVED. Just start by eliminating the Book of Abraham and doctrines supported by it, declare it to be neither a true translation or a true revelation, and you’ve done away with a great number of doctrines which aid those who call the LDS a ‘cult’ (in the pejorative sense of the word).

OK, so I realize that no one here is likely a member of the First Presidency (maybe one of the Quorum of the Twelve?) BUT to you LDS men and women out there - wouldn’t these first few steps stop some of the questions that might dissuade some from becoming members of the LDS church? And aren’t the majority of the doctrines drawn from or fortified by the Book of Abraham no longer doctrine?

Eagerly awaiting a response (and still wondering if my Book of Abraham has a typo when it speaks of the celestial bodies of ‘Kolob’ as well as ‘Kokob’?).

(Pardon if grammar and spelling are incorrect - power is out and laptop battery is running low: thank goodness landlines are up!)

Ben

 

[ben_dy]

Well, OK, then…

I suppose that since there’s been no response to my question, no one - LDS, Catholic, or otherwise - gives a hoot as to whether the Book of Abraham is looked upon as an inspired translation or not and that its’ removal from the standard works of the LDS would not have any affect on the LDS message in any way.

Interesting! No one defends it, no one rejects it!

 

[Casen]

So much of what you said above is wrong I’m not sure if it’s worth the trouble of responding. The Book of Abraham certainly hasn’t been dropped from LDS religion classes so I’m not sure where you got that idea.

Having personally studied it in Seminary classes as a teenager, religion classes at BYU and adult institute classes more recently I think you’re totally wrong. I haven’t seen any backing away or changing of the curriculum in recent years to deemphasize it. I hear a lot of anti-mormon criticisms of it on the internet but the focus is almost exclusively on the circumstances of its origin rather than the content.

Occasionally words like “Kolob” are thrown around completely out of context in an effort to raise eyebrows from people that have never read the book but other than that the doctrine is rarely criticized. And since the content of the book, the doctrine itself, is in perfect harmony with the other canonized works of the LDS church I haven’t encountered any active members who have a problem with it. LDS members certainly don’t consider it an embarrassment, don’t think Joseph Smith was “mistaken” and I think there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that it will be dropped from our canonized standard works.

 

[BJRumph]

Sorry, Ben_dy. There just didn’t seem to be much to say about it from my perspective.

If they (the lds church) wishes to eliminate the Book of Abraham (BoAb) as canon, they certainly have precident in the removal of the Lectures on Faith, ie the “Doctrine” of the “Doctrine and Covenants”.

I don’t think that they would want to, as it does have doctrinal import that they do wish to preserve, if not broadcast to potential converts. It also has (had to those who actually research the issue) the import of supporting Smith’s capabilities and claims as divine translator.

Additionally, with the allowance of the church leadership in granting each lds member the “right” to believe whatever they want (which is why there are no “heretics” in mormonism, just “apostates”) as suggested by a few locals here, there is no need to take a potentially embarrasing administrative step in removing something that is just as easy to ignore, and possibly doesn’t play a significant role in their constituent’s faith.

As an aside, I don’t think too many lds will wish to play, as your “example” quote of BY’s gives somewhat an image of a trap.

 

[majick275]

I think I’ve been very clear in my position that the BoA is one of the greatest “proofs” that JS was a fraud. fax # 3 is the most ridiculous “translation” of Egyptian that I have ever encountered in my life.

 

[BJRumph]

heh…

I stand corrected.

 

[BJRumph]

Out of morbid curiosity Casen, just what is the “correct” context for the issue of Kolob?

This isn’t an esoteric or metaphysical point of doctrine, it is quite plain in its meaning.

If you are simply getting aggravated because many people mistake “kolob” as the planet God resides on, rather than a Star, then you are deliberately misunderstanding other’s questions regarding the subject in order to deflect any potential conversation on a plain “fact” presented in your church’s Scripture.

Really, it is silly to avoid it, after all, as an LDS, Kolob presents you with a basic answer that no other Christian has, “Where is Christ’s physical body that he took with him when he ascended?” Granted, I like the Christian answer better; but when you are trying to appeal to those who are literaly or physically minded, yours provides a much easier answer, and it cannot be misunderstood or debated in theology class.

 

[Casen]

OK, I’ll feed your morbid curiosity a little.

Abraham chapter 3 is one of the most defining and important chapters in all of LDS scripture as it defines the important doctrine of preexistence. Kolob may be a real star but it’s also a metaphor for Christ, which becomes obvious if you bother to read the whole chapter. The chapter begins by talking about the stars, Kolob being the “greatest” but then compares these stars to spirits, Christ being the greatest of all. Abraham is then told that God knew him before the world was formed and that he was one of the “noble and great ones”. Perhaps these verses will help put this in context for you.

*2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;
3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.
19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.*

 

[ben_dy]

Casen:

So much of what you said above is wrong I’m not sure if it’s worth the trouble of responding. The Book of Abraham certainly hasn’t been dropped from LDS religion classes so I’m not sure where you got that idea.

Having personally studied it in Seminary classes as a teenager, religion classes at BYU and adult institute classes more recently I think you’re totally wrong. I haven’t seen any backing away or changing of the curriculum in recent years to deemphasize it. I hear a lot of anti-mormon criticisms of it on the internet but the focus is almost exclusively on the circumstances of its origin rather than the content.

Occasionally words like “Kolob” are thrown around completely out of context in an effort to raise eyebrows from people that have never read the book but other than that the doctrine is rarely criticized. And since the content of the book, the doctrine itself, is in perfect harmony with the other canonized works of the LDS church I haven’t encountered any active members who have a problem with it. LDS members certainly don’t consider it an embarrassment, don’t think Joseph Smith was “mistaken” and I think there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that it will be dropped from our canonized standard works.

Well, first - and I’ll say only - you’d have to explain to me just what of “so much of what you said above is wrong” before I’d retract my idea that it would be good for the LDS church to drop the Book of Abraham from the standard works.

Yes, I would think the first error (if it is an error) needs be the questions and circumstances of its origin - which I think is tantamount before discussing the contents. As an example, if an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew claiming to be the extant signature of the Gospel were to surface and if that Gospel clearly stated that Christ said, “This is simply symbolic of my body”, before I accepted that ‘content’ I would want to be able to ‘prove’ that, at the least, the forensics established some sense of the veracity of the materials, style, etc.I think that this is something that the LDS church itself, after the Hofman forgeries, particularly sensitive?

Even before you get into the Book of Abraham itself, you have an introduction which reads “Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith” and continues “A translation from some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”

Now I was 30 or 31 when the very papyrus was re-found and returned to the LDS church and it was (you’ll recall if you’re close to my age) that it was front-page news at the time. Save for the fact that my father had a secretary who was LDS, that was my very first ‘brush’ with anything LDS. And although I’m sure that the topic has been covered in other messages here, I’ll just say that the papyrus proved impossible to have been written by Abraham and I’m sure you’re familiar with the ‘problems’ it caused the church. I know that Hugh Nibley devoted much of his life trying to explain exactly how JS ‘translated’ what wasn’t there to begin with but I also admit that the last explanation that I have comes from Nibley in the 1980’s, that it didn’t make sense then (even to many, if not most, LDS scholars) and that I don’t know how the church explains the ‘problem’ with the papyri, the facsimiles, and the translated text today - in present seminaries.

If you can point me in the direction of a definitive explanation for the translation of the actual writing of Abraham on 1st century papyri that is inscribed with and illustrated (and erroneously ‘re-illustrated’) with Egyptian funerary text then you can show me my other errors, I hope. As I don’t know you’re age, I can only say that my sources for ‘de-emphasis’ come from two LDS friends, one in her 60’s and another in his 70’s.

(And just as an aside - can you confirm that 3:13 refers to a star called “Kokob” which is a different star than “Kolob”? I am not certain that this is not a typographical error and no bookstore near me has a copy of the PoGP so I’m stuck with the one I have, given to me two years ago.)

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

If they (the lds church) wishes to eliminate the Book of Abraham (BoAb) as canon, they certainly have precident in the removal of the Lectures on Faith, ie the “Doctrine” of the “Doctrine and Covenants”.

I don’t think that they would want to, as it does have doctrinal import that they do wish to preserve, if not broadcast to potential converts. It also has (had to those who actually research the issue) the import of supporting Smith’s capabilities and claims as divine translator.

Great post. Sometimes I don’t vocalize my appreciation enough when great insights are presented like this. It is even more credible coming from a non-fool. A quibble can be made about the has/had dealie, but I am certaintly not the one to make it.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

Funny the things you left out Casen:

"*4.And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

5 And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years.

6 And the Lord said unto me: Now, Abraham, these two facts exist, behold thine eyes see it; it is given unto thee to know the times of reckoning, and the set time, yea, the set time of the earth upon which thou standest, and the set time of the greater light which is set to rule the day, and the set time of the lesser light which is set to rule the night.

7 Now the set time of the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest.

8 And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still;

9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest."*

While I do not deny you your additional context, which is developed later in the discourse, the base context (of astronomical observations) is not made invalid, and still may be addressed without any valid claim of being “out of context”. Just because you wish to emphasise a part other than that which actually interests people, doesn’t invalidate anything but your position in the discussion about the parts you are not interested in.

But, to give you a shot at “proving” me wrong; What then, in your interpretation, does it mean when discussing the revolutions of Christ (whom you say is Kolob)? How is it his revolutions are a measurement to himself (“as to the Lord” suggests that Kolob and its revolutions are something being observered and measured by something else).

**Indeed, to say Kolob “is after the manner of the Lord” is an explicit assertion that Kolob is *distinct from * the Lord as an actual entity, despite its admitted similarity ** in the measuring of Time. This is the scriptural evidence against your implied assertion to an exclusive context. Clearly from the scriptures themselves, there are two distinct, and equally valid, contexts to this chapter.

You are incorrect to deny the “astronomical” context to the exclusive “spiritual” context, and proclaim anyone recognizing the other explicit context to be wrong.

Ben_dy;
IMHO, “kokob” apparently referrs to the word “star”, rather than being “a” star, notice also that multiple “stars” are called “kokaubeam”. So, no transcriptural error, Kolob is a specific star, like Sol or Algol; but kokob is just a word meaning “star”. At least, that was always my inderstanding when I was a mormon, and still is my reading of that verse.

 

[ben_dy]

BJRumph:

Ben_dy;
IMHO, “kokob” apparently referrs to the word “star”, rather than being “a” star, notice also that multiple “stars” are called “kokaubeam”. So, no transcriptural error, Kolob is a specific star, like Sol or Algol; but kokob is just a word meaning “star”. At least, that was always my inderstanding when I was a mormon, and still is my reading of that verse.

BJR,

Thank you SO much - armed with that info, I read, indeed "“Kokob, which is star.” I think I was just reading “the” into it because of the preceding “Shinehah, which is the sun” and the proceeding “Olea, which is the moon.” And it now makes sense that “Kokaubeam” with the root “kok” signify “all the great lights.”

Although my own writing is no proof, just the thought of typographical errors make me crazy!

 

[Casen]

BJRumph:

Funny the things you left out Casen:

You are incorrect to deny the “astronomical” context to the exclusive “spiritual” context, and proclaim anyone recognizing the other explicit context to be wrong.

Oh BJRumph, no offense but its extremely frustrating discussing things with you because you distort what I’ve said. Do you even understand what a metaphor is?

I didn’t say that Kolob IS Christ. I said Kolob is used in this chapter as a symbol of Christ and the other stars are used to represent our pre-existent spirits. Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand? Is Christ’s parable of the wheat and tares really about wheat or is it possible that it might be about something much more important? How about the parable of the mustard seed, or the budding fig tree?

I didn’t deny that this chapter discusses astronomical objects or that Kolob may be a real star any more than I would deny that wheat and mustard seeds really exist. I was only adding context to the word “Kolob” in this chapter. This chapter is important, not because of the name of a particular star or astronomy in general but because it lays out the LDS doctrine of the pre-existence. Kolob is described as the greatest star in the universe, the brightest star and the star that governs all other stars. Astrology is simply the mechanism used to lay out the doctrine of pre-existence. Kolob is a “type and shadow” for Christ, the brightest, the greatest of all and the governor of the universe. The other stars are used to represent our pre-existent spirits. Abraham is told that God knew him before the creation of the world and that he was one of the “noble and great ones”. That’s why this chapter is so important.

Oh man, I think I’ll take a break for awhile…

 

[BJRumph]

Sorry Casen, reiterating and responding to your position is not a distortion.

Afterall, you were the one who made the point of there being a correct and incorrect context, and that nonlds use the incorrect context when discussing the astronomy (not Astrology) of the BoAb. Are these not your words:

Occasionally words like “Kolob” are thrown around completely out of context in an effort to raise eyebrows from people that have never read the book but other than that the doctrine is rarely criticized.

This statement of yours could only be tied in to Ben_dy’s originating questions from his following statement:

Eagerly awaiting a response (and still wondering if my Book of Abraham has a typo when it speaks of the celestial bodies of ‘Kolob’ as well as ‘Kokob’?).

In retrospect, either you were being belligerent for no good reason, or you were creating a “Straw Man” that you love to accuse non-lds of doing to the lds. Which is it, that I can be correct in properly categorizing your undue response?

“No offense”, but your tactic of repeatedly asserting that your “opponents” are constantly incorrect as to everything without providing any reference to support your assertion is the model of the lds distortion tactic so frequently complained of here.

And, btw, I am quite familliar with metaphor, and I did grant you that the allegorical/metaphorical context is a proper means of interpreting the passage. But, the text itself readily shows that the metaphorical context is in addition to, not a replacement for, the astonomical context, which is largely the only one in which Ben_dy even remotely referred to. As you objected so much to his simple question regarding the spelling “error” of Kokob with a diatribe about incorrect “context” regarding the issue, I can only conclude that you were (if not now) trying to assert that only your metaphorical interpretation is the correct one (as you have demonstrated on several occasions now that you prefer).

While there is nothing wrong with preferring, or emphasizing, the allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic interpretations of a given text; it is fully a deceit for you to continually attack anyone who simply preferrs a different, and more strait-forward approach as being categorically “incorrect” without explaination or proof.

It is also not a distortion to point out your own errors in pursuing such. Nor, is it unwarrantly “hostile”.

And you lds guys suggest that *I * make characterizations…

 

[BJRumph]

And in case I haven’t been clear enough, Casen:

Ben_dy had a question about Kokob and its relation to Kolob. You responded with assertations that Kolob is taken out of its correct context. As experience shows, in general, non lds ask about Kolob in its astronomical context, and this is indeed the context which Ben_dy is asking about.

Therefore, the only conclusion I can make from your asserted position is that the astronomical/literal context is what you are decrying as being “incorrect”. If that is not what you were then trying to assert, then you mispoke yourself, and provided us with an incorrect logical statement of your position.

Perhaps, if you would bother providing the points of correction to match your constant referral to our mistakes, instead of making us chase you down for clarification (as was done here), I (as I cannot speak for anyone else) would be more willing to believe that you really are here for “fun” rather than distorting the truths of your religion for the purpose of leading astray those who are sincerily seeking Truth.

This is as plain as it gets. And, just because I disagree with you doesn’t make me a bigot, nor does the fact that I believe in something different than yourself. That you choose to imply (rather than directly accuse) that I or anyone else here is a bigot is more proof of your own bigotry than that of anyone else.

I simply request that the distortions cease, and that the differences are made clear. Only then, with the truth exposed, can anyone make a truly informed decision or opinion regarding the issue.

If this is also your postion, then stop telling everyone how wrong they are, and provide a positive evidence of your own position without us asking for it. This is a simple thing that would be expected from someone sincerily wishing to enlighten others to the beauties of their own faith.

I will refrain from further comment on this, and allow you to reflect a little.

May God provide you with the Light you seek.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

 

[BJRumph]

Casen:

I didn’t say that Kolob IS Christ.

Note that neither did I, nor did I make such an assertion on your behalf. I would suggest re-reading my posts regarding the issue.

My point was, and is, that you cannot claim the metaphorical context of these passages as being somehow the exclusive context of the text, which includes ‘mere’ astronomy as being a correct part of its context.

I have already explained how you did implicate that this plain context was “incorrect” or rather “being taken out of its proper context”.

There was no distortion on my part; you are simply jumping at false dillemmas of your own making.

 

[Casen]

Gosh, I think I touched a nerve.

Regarding you claiming I said Kolob was Christ I was referring to post #11 where you said, “What then, in your interpretation, does it mean when discussing the revolutions of Christ (whom you say is Kolob)? How is it his revolutions are a measurement to himself.”

From this statement I assumed you didn’t understand what a metaphor was and thought I meant that Christ was an actual star or some other such nonsense. That’s why I attempted to clarify that Kolob may be an actual star but its significance in chapter three is that it is used to represent Christ, as are the other stars which represent human spirits. Apparently I didn’t understand your post and I apologize.

Regarding the claim I called you a bigot I must say that I’m confused because I don’t remember ever doing so. Perhaps you can help me out by referring me to the post. I did mention on another thread that bigots occasionally pollute these board but I don’t recall referring to anyone in particular, only that such people drop in at times, polluting the discussion.

Regarding my original post that Kolob is thrown around out of context by our detractors in an effort to raise eyebrows I stand by that statement. Are you claiming that is never done? If you’d like some examples of this I’d be glad to post them later when I have a little more time.

Regarding my original claim that Ben’s first post on this thread had errors I’ll briefly name a few and can go into detail later if you’d like. Actually, I was surprised how much he was able to get wrong in such a short space. Glancing back here’s a short list of what he said that is wrong:

1. Book of Abraham has been a great stumbling block for “mainstreaming” the church with Christianity
2. Book of Abraham has been dropped from church education discourse
3. Dropping the Book of Abraham from the standard works would not be controversial
4. Murder is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
5. You can get re-baptized as often as you like
6. The worst you can get if you are “bad” in LDS doctrine is to be an angel
7. The majority of doctrines drawn from the BoA are no longer doctrine

 

[ben_dy]

1. Book of Abraham has been a great stumbling block for “mainstreaming” the church with Christianity

It is a stumbling block for many - both in the LDS church and potential converts: the fact that so many current LDS members are ‘surprised’ to read - even here - of the controversies both in the origin and the content of the BoA is evidence of that, I think.

2. Book of Abraham has been dropped from church education discourse

This was confirmed to me by two elderly LDS members and from reading published church teaching literature from the 1950’s compared with the 1990’s, Much that was taught has been “dropped”, other simply “de-emphasized”. Plural “Gods” responsible for creation in Abraham, singular “God” responsible for creation in Moses, etc.

3. Dropping the Book of Abraham from the standard works would not be controversial

This is speculative on my part - it would ‘erase’ much of what is unbelievable for many: the LDS has ‘dropped’ re-written history and scripture a number of times and it only becomes controversial among those who a historians and ‘fundamentalist’ LDS (some of the hundreds of LDS ‘spin-offs’ would fit in that latter category.

4. Murder is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost

Doctrine & Covenants 132: 27: "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord."

If Jos. Smith was in error then I admit, too, my error.

5. You can get re-baptized as often as you like

“I know that in my traveling and preaching, many a time I have stopped by beautiful streams of clear, pure water, and have said to myself, " How delightful it would be to me to go into this, to be baptized for the remission of my sins.” When I got home, Joseph told me it was my privilege. At this time, came a revelation, that the Saints could be baptized and rebaptized when they chose…. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 18, p. 241)"

Now, as I understand it BY was a prophet and a revelator - and this was a revelation and was, in fact, practiced by the early church - “Thousands of rebaptisms were performed for the faithful in the first half of this dispensation to their benefit and blessing,” that Brigham Young was baptized seven times and that just two years before he died he was rebaptized, and that those who are ex-communicated are re-baptized before being re-admitted into the LDS church.

If the revelation is wrong, if the history is wrong, and if the ex-communicated are not re-baptized then I am, indeed, in error.

6. The worst you can get if you are “bad” in LDS doctrine is to be an angel

This is my understanding from the missionaries - that there is no eternal damnation - but that there is ‘eternal progression’ after death and that the least that man could become after death was a “ministering angel”. Those who cannot attain the third degree of celestial glory are not forever damned, but, as D&C 16-17 states: “Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.”

Now if they were wrong - or if I am wrong in my understanding of this scripture, them I am in error.

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

7. The majority of doctrines drawn from the BoA are no longer doctrine

It is my understanding, from talking to current LDS members, from reading LDS teaching curriculum, and from other sources, that:

a. That the BoA is an actual translation written by the hand of Abraham and translated by Joseph Smith from papyri now in the archives of the LDS church, is no longer emphasized.

b. That the discovery of Egypt, originally a land under water, and a daughter of Egyptus, a daughter of the cursed tribe of Ham, is no longer emphasized.

c. That the explanations of the facsimiles reproduced in the BoA, having been found to be of Egyptian funerary origin and portions embellished by Smith, are no longer emphasized.

d. That the actual physical astronomical accuracy of the universe as described to Abraham is no longer emphasized )which would explain, I suppose, why life-long LDS members have “never heard of” the star of Kolob and why you, I believe, noted (when I was inquiring of spelling) that “Occasionally words like “Kolob” are thrown around completely out of context in an effort to raise eyebrows from people that have never read the book but other than that the doctrine is rarely criticized.” If life-long LDS members have never been taught the doctrine, never having heard of the star Kolob, it is no wonder that “the doctrine is rarely criticized.” One cannot criticize that which one has not been taught.

e. That the plurality of “gods” in the story of creation has been downplayed in order to conform with the more ‘acceptable’ monotheistic idea of creation. That this idea of creation is throughout 2 of the 5 chapters of the BoA, it would seem to me more acceptable, in order to gain converts, to do away with the book entirely rather than having to explain the belief of a polytheism rather than the more universally accepted monotheism. This point, I admit, is simply speculative ‘advice’ to those who would win converts to the LDS faith.

Now, while these 5 points may not constitute a ‘majority’ of all doctrine contained within the BoA, item #1 remains so great a stumbling block that a number of those who left or were excommunicated by the church from the 1970’s through the 1990’s - members of the hierarchy, scholars, etc., did so because they came to believe that the BofA was a fraudulent work of Joseph Smith (and yet many who thought this remained faithful in their belief of Smith as prophet and the Book of Mormon as an authentic and inspired translation).

One thing, Casen: I do not mind being proved wrong - if I have misunderstood then I hope to be proved wrong because that can only serve to enhance my understanding, clarify my knowledge. In the case of numbers 4, 5, and the alphabetic “a.”, however, you would have to prove to me that that which is recorded in the JoD and in the D&C is wrong, and, in the latter case, that there is an explanation as to why - disregarding any appeal to faith alone - the BoA should be seen as anything but a work of the man Joseph Smith and not a translation of papyri written by the hand of Abraham.

 

[BJRumph]

Regarding my original post that Kolob is thrown around out of context by our detractors in an effort to raise eyebrows I stand by that statement. Are you claiming that is never done? If you’d like some examples of this I’d be glad to post them later when I have a little more time.

Yes, I positively state that you are wrong in this. Kolob raises eyebrows because, to anyone but the lds, it is inherently strange. To make the claim that God’s home planet (or residence if you preferr, or even simply “nearest to my throne/me”) is elsewhere (or anywhere in Christian thought) is a plainly ‘bizzare’ to anyone who does not adopt out of hand the “truthfullness” of your church’s teachings.

It is not in “how” it is used that raises eyebrows as you suggest. It is the fact of the *teaching itself * that raises the eyebrows.

I guess what you would need to define for us is what is the incorrect context you are suggesting it is being used in, or can exist (as we have already covered both the literal and metaphorical contexts).

However, I see no point to you doing so, because I am weary of having to chase you down for something that you should be providing with your claims without needing to be asked. So, no need to respond to me on this particular; that I had to ask has already proven my point about you made in my previous responses.

My question regarding your interpretation of the Revolutions of Kolob is to draw out, and cause you to question, your assertion that the metaphorical context was the only “correct” one to be applied to the text, as the sentence (in full) reveals. I have already shown you how such was your case until it was proved erroneous. Again, careful reading of my responses should have revealed that to you.

That you carefully veil your responses to maintain “credible deniability” does not mean that I, and others, cannot see your aims or understand your message. No “nerve” struck, just my not letting you off the hook. This is because you have positively, and publicly, posited that Catholics engage in the very thing that I have shown you to be practicing, and were subtly ‘praised’ for it. That I “fell” for your Kolob straw-man does not mitigate, or otherwise eliminate, **your ** introduction of it. It is followed so much by myself here to help dig out your role in the creation of this tactic that you supposedly revile, and let it wither in the Light.

Again, simply stating that someone is in error is a pointless measure, as you already know. To allow someone to persist in their error without explaining to them such, is also not especially Christian. Therefore it can only be surmised, based upon the positive evidence of your expressed behavior, that you are not here to help those in error, but rather to smugly revel and wallow in the error you preceive them to be in. I suppose you could prove me wrong here by actually explaining yourself and your points, as we have ours (here and elsewhere). If I am genuinely mistaken as to your aims and position, I would suggest fully stating your position, rather than having us rely on half-truths that you are apparently presenting us, here and elsewhere. Should this happen, then I would *have to * abandon such a ‘mistaken’ assessment of your arguments and presence for one more accurate. As suggested even prior to this, if I am mistaken in my assessment, it is because of faulty information from which to base it upon.

For instance, you say Ben_dy’s assertion “And the very WORST you can do in an afterlife if you prove to be a ‘bad’ Mormon in this life is to be a serving angel…” is wrong, but provide no rationale or evidence to support your, what can only be called, baseless assertion of error. Your promise of future elaboration is counterproductive, as it requires even more discussion and ‘chasing’ to get you to validate your position on this single (of seven you posted) point. How many more posts do you require of those you are supposedly ‘conversing’ with before the respective points can be made? How many more does it take before your position becomes clarified and known in a reasonable manner?

Anyway, my points have been made, so I will retire from this thread unless something substantial develops.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas