The Gospel According to Jeffrey

(This is part two of my explanation of the Book of Abraham. Of course,  part one  is also available.) As discussed previously, the most significant problem with the Book of Abraham is that each of the three Facsimiles found therewith have been translated by Egyptologists—both Latter-day–Saint and otherwise—and the result has been unanimous: Joseph Smith’s interpretation of these writings have absolutely nothing to do with their actual translation. When these hieroglyphs were first authored by our ancient Egyptian cousins, they had nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham or even Judeo-Christianity; they dealt with Egyptian mythology and beliefs, and that’s all there is to it. End of story. The problem with this thinking is that it overlooks an important, even essential issue: when Joseph Smith Jr. set forth the meaning of these texts, what, exactly, was he interpreting? Let’s return to the Book itself. The Book of Abraham is a not an Egyptian document. Everyone agrees that ...

As mentioned in my last post , I would like to take the time to respond to Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid Podcast: specifically, Decrypting the Book of Abraham . But first, let’s be fair: Skeptoid is a ten-minute show, so Brian’s treatment thereof is certainly not on the same level as the volumes and volumes that have been written on the subject. Perhaps it is for this reason that he has ignored several well-established facts that would detract from his argument, and I expect that I, being limited by time and reasonable space, shall do the same. However, I think we need to return to the context I so often speak of. Brian, this one is for you. Brian begins his Podcast by giving a brief history of the papyri which, after being purchased by the Church of the Latter Day Saints (as it was then, inexplicably, known), resulted in a translation of a portion of the Book of Abraham. To be frank, this history is probably the most accurate summary I’ve seen, in so few words. Yes, there are a few mista...

I was checking out my Facebook page, this morning, when I saw an update from my “friend” Brian Dunning. (I put “friend” in quotes because he’s really more of an acquaintance, but he seems to be a genuinely nice guy and I’m therefore happy to call him “friend” on Facebook.) Brian is a big name in the FileMaker world, in part because he maintains a very popular Custom Function repository . Furthermore, since he’s good IRL friends with the partners at Excelisys, we’ve met a few times at the FileMaker Developers Conference. Somehow, though, I’ve missed something big: in clicking on his Facebook page, I discovered that he also runs a very successful Podcast called “ Skeptoid ” that has managed to remain below my radar until now. The concept of Skeptoid is a simple one: each week, Brian takes an aspect of religion, pseudoscience, pop culture, etc., and debunks it in about ten minutes. At least, that’s the intention. I decided to see if Brian had anything to say about The Church of Je...

For those of you that aren’t familiar with Michael R. Ash , you don’t know what you’re missing. Mike Ash is a member of FAIR (the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) and the author of Shaken Faith Syndrome , a great book for those that have some basic unanswered questions about the Church. Mike also has a column on Mormon Times entitled Challenging Issues, Keeping the Faith , and it is this last one that brings us to this blog entry. In Mr. Ash’s latest column, Book of Mormon DNA issue one of science, not theology , Ash points out that “it’s ironic that critics—who do not believe in LDS prophets—claim Mormons must accept every word spoken by every LDS general authority as the inerrant word of God.” While I wholeheartedly agree with his assessment (as did President George Albert Smith, who expressly refuted the idea that “when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done”), I couldn’t help but disagree with one of his examples. I therefore post an open letter to Mr...

As a young boy growing up in Whitney, Idaho, young Ezra Taft Benson (or “T,” as he was known) learned to love the song I Am a Mormon Boy . Even eight or nine decades later, when “T” served as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he “often delighted youngsters of another generation by singing all three verses… in his clear tenor voice” ( President Ezra Taft Benson: A Sure Voice of Faith , Ensign 24:7:8 ff .). So why does it rub me the wrong way? Over the last few months, I’ve noticed what I can only describe as a rash of inappropriate use of the term “Mormon” on the web. The Church’s own media Style Guide is pretty explicit on what they will and won’t accept, but even Church-owned and -operated sites ( e.g. the Church News ) have started falling victim to the errors. I’ve sent multiple emails to Church News editor Gerry Avant—who incidentally agrees with me—but have been forced to content myself with responses such as the following email, dated 19 November 2009...

For the last couple of mornings, I’ve been studying Lesson 3 of the Gospel Principles manual. (Yes, I know; I’m behind. So what? I read almost the whole thing, last summer.) But before I tell you about that, I’ll have to explain something else: the way I study the scriptures. The first time I read the Old Testament all the way through was in Seminary . I was determined to get through the entire volume during the course of the school year, and I did—though partly because I couldn’t attend much of Seminary, I’m not sure I got much out of it. Then, during the summer between high school and college, I did the same with the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church —with similar results. During my freshman year at IU , I took a full-year Institute class on the New Testament . This marked a turning point in the way I studied scripture: my professor, Brother Robert Marrott, was a student of Hugh Nibley and acted like it. He taught me how to get the most out of the scriptures, how to actuall...

I just came across another Answerbag post that I’m pretty pleased with. The question was as follows: Mormons: This statement from Joseph Smith has always puzzled me, "A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge…" ( History of the Church , 5:588) What does it mean? Here’s my response: First of all, let’s put this in a little more context: As far as we degenerate from God, we descend to the devil and lose knowledge, and without knowledge we cannot be saved…. A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God (HC 5:588). So let’s establish first what President Smith is not saying. I think we need to recognize that he is certainly not talking about salvation from physical death—which i...