People they fall apart
No one can stop us now
‘Cause we are all made of stars
– Moby
As we talked about last post, the universe started with a Big Bang. From this, hydrogen, deuterium, and helium were created. But we see many more elements than those around us, and in fact, we are made of more. So how did those get there?
Stars.
While it appears that stars are just points of light around us, stars are as unique as you and me. Stars have lives – they are born, they go through middle age, they get old, and they die. There are generations of stars. There are star nurseries, as shown in the picture at the beginning of this post, where new stars are created. There are red stars and blue stars and white stars and black stars and brown stars. And there are innumerable stars. 
The picture here is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image formed by focusing the telescope on an “empty” area of space for 11 days. It shows galaxies from 13 billion years ago, and has an estimated 10,000 galaxies in this image alone. NOTE: Every “dot” in this image is a galaxy, with an estimated average of 100 BILLION stars per galaxy, or 1000 trillion stars in this image alone.
Star formation has been well studied and is fairly complex. There are some “simplified” descriptions around. Basically, large clouds of hydrogen with a bit of deuterium and helium form areas that are slightly more dense than others. Gravity causes these areas to collapse and become more dense. Things become more and more dense, which increases the pressure and temperature of the gas. Eventually, it gets hot and dense enough to ignite hydrogen fusion as we talked about in post #3, creating helium and causing the star to “shine”. If there are the right conditions present, helium atoms can undergo fusion as well to form heavier atoms with higher atomic numbers. This continues making carbon, neon, silicon, oxygen and iron. Up to this point, combining two atoms releases energy making the process go forward – the atoms can still “burn”. But after this, things stop. 
Depending on several different characteristics, stars can collapse or explode, and they can ultimately end up as white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes.
In our world, and in our bodies, there are elements with atomic numbers higher than iron. So how did those get there. Supernovas. It takes a great deal of energy to combine elements to create ones above iron, and this energy comes from exploding stars. Elements are created and spread throughout the universe. These atoms eventually find themselves into other clouds of gas which condense and form stars and systems like our solar system. These atoms literally make life possible on earth. We could not exist without exploding stars and colliding galaxies. So Moby, and many others, were right.
What does religion tell us about stars? To be honest, it is fairly limited. In the Creation stories, which were written thousands of years ago, the stars were fixed points of light in the firmament. The sun was a ball of fire dragged through the sky by a chariot. It was a glowing orb which could stop in its place. The universe was a fixed place – a static place.
Stars are mentioned in a few places. In Job 9 we read: Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. In Hebrews 11, the stars are counted as “innumerable”. And in Moses 7 we are told: “And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning of the number of thy creations”.
More information was given by Joseph Smith in the Book of Abraham. We will have a discussion about time in a later post, but he did talk about stars. He states that Kolob is the creation (star/planet?) which is closest to God. Next to Kolob is Oliblish, which is a “grand governing creation” which has the “key of power also, pertaining to other planets”. “Raukeeyang” is the firmament of the heavens. I will quote Facsimile #2, Figure 5 in its entirety:
Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob
I’m not really sure what to make of this. I’m not sure how light, or power, flows throughout the universe from Kolob to other governing planets/stars to our solar system. I’m not sure how our Sun borrows its light from Kolob through a medium.
So, with regard to stars, what science tells us makes sense to me. If I were God, and I wanted to create Man, I would need atoms to make him. Looking at what percentage of our bodies are made up of various elements, I would need oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), nitrogen (3%), calcium (1.5%), phosphorus (1.0%), potassium (0.35%), sulfur (0.25%), sodium (0.15%), magnesium (0.05%), copper, zinc, selenium, molybdenum, fluorine, chlorine, iodine, manganese, cobalt, iron, lithium, strontium, aluminum, silicon, lead, vanadium, arsenic and bromine (trace amounts). Without these, I couldn’t make Man.
To get these, if I were God, I would create stars. I would create large, fast burning stars that burnt through their hydrogen quickly and exploded, spreading different types of atoms throughout the universe. I would want galaxies to crash into each other and trigger more star formation. I would want it to be a violent place. I would want the stars to be a LONG way from each other. (A supernova releases so much energy that one exploding within 100 light-years of the earth would likely be catastrophic. This is 587,849,981,000,000 miles.) And eventually, after stars have been born, have lived, and have died, I would want a cloud of gas with the right mixture of elements to start to condense. I would want a star to start shining. I would want a rocky planet to form. And I would want to make a home for my children.
In case you’re just getting here, this is post #8 in a series on Science & Religion. The posts build up on each other to an extent. If you’re interested in reading any of the other posts in the series, click on Mike S in the Author Section to the right. The next few posts are going to talk about Where God lives, Time and Relativity, and Strings/Spirits/Multiple dimensions. So stay tuned…
Questions:
- Looking up at a starry night in a clear Lake Powell sky, the universe does appear as fixed as the ancients pictured it. Isn’t it amazing how much is really going on out there?
- What are your thoughts on the fact that we literally are made of stars that have died and exploded? Does this fit with your view of how God created Man?
- Ancients pictured stars as innumerable. Joseph Smith brought this to another level in Moses. Science has confirmed these magnitudes. Can your mind even conceive the numbers we’re talking about here?
- To be honest, I am completely baffled by what Joseph Smith said in the Book of Abraham. I’ve read everything I can find about it, but nothing has really made sense to me. Can anyone explain what he meant? Or do we just need to ask him someday?
Wheat & Tares 
“To be honest, I am completely baffled by what Joseph Smith said in the Book of Abraham.”
Egypt was a big fad in the 1830s and ’40s. A parallel to context into which the Book of Abraham was introduced, would be if a new religious movement in the 1970s came out with a scripture set on the continent of Atlantis.
I really enjoyed the post, except that I found it interesting that while discussing things discovered through testing empirically testable proof, but then you quote the book of Abraham, which has been proven to not be what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.
re: star stuff
I think Carl Sagan said it best
re: Book of Abr.
Many people have spent many years writing on these issues. The issues and the background necessary to understand them are non-trivial. Egyptology –the scholarly understanding of the language, culture, and religion of ancient Egypt– has changed tremendously over the last centuries. We have piles of “definitive answers” in the field filling a metaphorical scrap heap, and I suspect that we haven’t finished discarding hypotheses.
Here’s a mormon guy who has spent a long time studying and writing about the Egyptology of the PoGP.
http://www.backyardprofessor.com/the_backyard_professor/egyptological_analysis/
He also did 20 episodes of a podcast and several youtube videos talking about it.
It’s interesting (to me). I’m not saying he’s correct; I’m just saying that it’s *interesting* and it was worth checking out for me.
As for the questions:
Yes, amazing.
Yes, being a star baby fits my views.
Yes and no. I think we can be trained to think in powers of ten and get a grasp of these kind of numbers.
No, no one can explain what he meant. Nibley has given the best explanations that I’ve read, but they avoid all specifics like the questions you bring up and focus on the overall messages of life, death, renewal, etc. from the papyri and the hypocephalus.
Btw, after reading this I did a little reading on wikipedia and came across this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Hypocephalus
Doesn’t come close to answering your questions, but it was interesting anyway.
Mike:
Good job of explaining stellar evolution. However, you guys are on your own in dealing with the Book of Abraham. I’m a lot more comfortable when I only have to reconcile theology — be it Mormon, mainstream Christian, or Hindu — with modern cosmology. Trying to force-fit theology into ancient cosmology as well may be a waste of effort.
I think we have here an example of JS reaching beyond the Spirit for new revelatory experiences he wasn’t ready for.
Thomas/Jack:
I agree that there are questions about the Book of Abraham including historical context, translation vs inspiration, etc. It goes back to the method of determining “religious truth” discussed in Post #4 in this series.
In this series, I try to present what science teaches about a particular subject, as well as what religion (primarily LDS Church) presents about the same subject. At timest they will agree. At other times, they may not.
In this context, if the part quoted from Facsimile 2 was “just” a quote from Brigham Young that he gave in conference, it would be easier to discount this as the opinion of a single person. As it is, however, the Book of Abraham is still part of the canonized scripture in the LDS Church.
I still don’t know what JS (&/or Abraham) was talking about.
N:
I agree about Carl Sagan and love reading his work. I loved the series and book Cosmos when I was a kid. “Hidden” in the post as an “easter egg” is actually a link to Carl Sagan’s video about star stuff. See the line, “So Moby, and many others, were right”. 🙂 There is also an easter egg in “supernova”. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the post, but I really like music.
The study of the Book of Abraham has always fascinated me. I have studied both “sides” and am still suspending any judgement for now. I know absolutely nothing about Egyptology and would bomb John Gee’s test. So I make no claims as to the correctness of JS translation.
At the same time, I don’t understand what he was talking about within the context of what modern science has taught us. Perhaps he truly and merely mirrored Abraham’s views on Kolob / stars / etc. Maybe what JS wrote truly reflected Abraham’s thinking from thousands of years ago. In any event, given what we know about nuclear fusion, etc., it is hard to see how the Sun “gets its light” from Kolob through some medium.
The link you provided is interesting. There is a lot to digest there. I’m going to save it and look through it when I have time. Thank you for the information.
geoffsn:
That link was interesting. The interpretation there is certainly different, and seems even less related to this topic.
I agree that we can train ourselves to think in large numbers and different ways. Magnitudes of 10 don’t really bother me. To the extent a finite brain can comprehend it, infinity doesn’t really bother me either. After lots of time spend pondering over the years, I can picture uncollapsed wave functions and higher dimensions. It’s hard to describe (although we’ll try in coming posts), but I do think it’s possible.
I also really like the idea of being a child of the stars.
Like the OP, I am equally amazed by the incredible processes that occur in the formation of the atoms that make up man. I also think that Mormonism is in a unique position to absorb and incorporate those processes into its theology.
Regarding The Book of Abraham,
Atlantis and Egypt are not analogous in this context.
Here is a useful resource for those wanting to interpret Abraham’s astronomy from a faithful LDS perspective: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Astronomy/Kolob-Sun
FireTag:
Theology / modern cosmology / ancient cosmology / etc. It all gets interesting. Some things seem to fit – others, like this, seem to be a square peg in a round hole.
Although I have to accept the Book of Abraham for the canonized scripture that it is in the LDS Church, my own feelings are much more Eastern in flavor. Our lives are pictured as waves on an ocean. We are all part of the same ocean, arising and going away, yet all one. Imagining that we are all bits and pieces of ancient stars, that the atoms in my body may have once been in your body, or Christ’s body, etc. is a very beautiful concept to me. We are all one and interconnected.
I also tend to agree with Eastern teaching that say:
James in Houston:
I checked out the link. I don’t think the people at FAIR have any better idea as to what this all means than I do. That “article” was basically just a series of questions.
An example of their “explanation”: What is Kae-e-vanrash? The Book of Abraham says that it is a “grand Key,” or “governing power.” What does that mean? Is Kae-e-vanrash a term for nuclear reactions, gravitation, cosmic rays? Or is it a more spiritual medium such as priesthood or faith, or an organizational structure, or a means used for administrative communications?
So they basically go off of the assumption that the explanation given by JS is right (a necessary assumption for the FAIR group). They then basically say that just because no one has any idea what this means doesn’t mean it is wrong. That is technically correct logic, but isn’t really helpful.
I do appreciate all this links, however. I’m always interested in seeing all sides of everything – pros & cons, for & against, similarities & discrepancies, etc.
Great post Mike S. as usual. I wish I knew more about cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, etc. Maybe someday.
Frankly, my pathetic mind can barely conceive of airplanes in flight, spacecraft exiting the atmosphere, moon landings, etc. let alone an infinite number of stars and galaxies.
I tend to like eastern thought a bit more as well. Feels more true to real life to me. Last night I learned about an emerging school of thought called Possibilianism. It appeals to me quite a bit as well.
BTW, to the space nerds in the audience, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is launching today.
I think the book of Abraham is clearly tapped into something powerfully spiritual. It has the stamp of the divine on it.
And I don’t really care how Joseph got it. He could have dreamed up the whole thing in a drunken stupor and wrote it on the back of a barroom napkin for all I care. What’s there has all the earmarks of legitimate revelation.
As such, the question of whether it matches the Egyptian, or whether it met some modern academic standard of translation, is of little to no interest to me whatsoever.
The Book of Abraham present a spiritually compelling and powerful view of the cosmos that has a great deal of symbolic utility.
Mission accomplished Brother Joseph.
jmb275:
I like that link. I especially like the part: …active exploration of novel possibilities and its emphasis on the necessity of holding multiple positions at once if there is no available data to privilege one over the others…
This is the essence of many things in this series. I accept modern science and religious truth, although in many instances they directly contradict each other. I accept JS’s description of this as the “One True Church” yet also accept that many other faiths offer equally valid paths back to the Divine.
So Possibilianism appeals to me.
Seth R:
Agreed, there are some “divine” concepts in the Book of Abraham. I do think that religious people throughout the ages get glimpses of underlying reality and try, given the limitations of mortality, to bring those glimpses back to Man. Joseph Smith talked of differing times and finer matter. Buddhism talks about 10 dimensions. The Bible talks about a day and a thousand years. Etc. In the next few posts, we’ll touch on a lot of these things.
It still doesn’t change my thoughts that, in regards to this particular post and how stars shine, I have now clue what JS was talking about.
Re Seth R.
I think this is one thing that religion does well – taps into the perspectives of a single individual. I don’t find very much, if anything, compelling in the Book of Abraham from a spiritual point of view. I find many parts of the BoM and D&C compelling though. I think the best measure of the Book of Abraham (as with all religious tools), as Seth suggests, is not how it relates to reality, but how it relates to spirituality.
I think it’s a liberating concept too as it allows me to reach beyond the edges of traditional Mormonism and find other concepts which enlighten me.
Re: the “unique” insights we frequently think are distinctively Mormon, it’s always a good idea to take a moment or two to look into just how original they really are. (Most of my brilliant original insights turn out to have been articulated long ago by some dead philosopher or economist. There’s nothing new under the sun, etc.)
For instance, the notion that miracles are not suspensions of natural law, but rather operations of natural law by processes we don’t yet understand, is often thought to be a distinctively Mormon concept. But it’s straight out of Spinoza:
And then there’s Abraham 3:19:
Right out of Thomas Aquinas’ Quinque viae — the five Thomistic “proofs” of God’s existence:
What’s the point? The point is that before we take as evidence the notion that latter-day scripture contains unique insights that could only have been the product of revelation, we need to see whether those thoughts were already floating around in the general cultural environment, and can be explained by naturalistic means.
And Spinoza got them from Descartes, who claimed that “miracles” also followed natural law. He felt that God ordained the laws of nature, but didn’t actually have a choice because they were the only possible laws.
“Miracle” is a loaded word. I’m sure that an ancient seeing my phone would think it is a miracle. I can look up literally anything on it. I can watch conference live. Perhaps they might even describe it as a miraculous “glass stone” in which all knowledge could be seen.
I do think that many of the “unique” LDS ideas are descended from other ideas and that there are extremely few “new” ideas. I think it is much as Newton claimed: “If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.”
Thomas, I’d take it further than that.
We need to get over the idea that revelation must provide completely original content – AT ALL.
It only makes sense. Even if you believe in God and revelation, it just stands to reason that the same divine spirit would be animating the human race throughout the ages. So you might expect Aquinas, or Spinoza, or Plato to be articulating bona fide spiritual truths.
I saw this in play over on a Christian vs. atheist forum. One of the atheists trotted out this post about how Christianity has similarities to Zoroastrianism, and here he was all proud of himself for supposedly pointing out how Christianity had just copied all its ideas from somewhere else and “you guys aren’t special at all.”
I think he was rather disappointed when the Christians on the forum collectively shrugged their shoulders and said – “so what?”
And really – so what?
Why should the Book of Abraham have stuff in it you can’t get anywhere else? Is God really that stingy?
“Why should the Book of Abraham have stuff in it you can’t get anywhere else? Is God really that stingy?”
Not at all. The point is simply that an argument that the Book of Abraham must be inspired, because its content is original, fails when it’s shown that the content in question is not original.
If the test is whether the Book of Abraham is divine, and by extension Joseph Smith is a Prophet – then finding proof that the content of his work is 1) not original 2) possibly copied; is highly important. So yes, similarity does not equal proof, but if its all you have to go on then it makes more sense to doubt the Book of Abraham than believe it.
Mike #07:
I’m really quite torn over Gee’s test. Ultimately I agree with he and Nibley that it is very difficult to criticize Joseph Smith’s work if you lack Egyptological training. Still, I wouldn’t accept Nibley’s argument that I have failed to bring rope or light to my gave digging, as much as we just can’t all be professional spelunkers. It would be academically disingenuous to encroach on intellectual territory better left to the scholars, but I don’t think that the arguments can solely rest with them.
In the BoM geography debate circles, a former meat salesman named Rodney Meldrum has been making waves in arguing for a great lakes model. Some of his argument is well rounded and requires no special skill, some may require the skill but that skill can be gained independent of a university, and some skills should be strictly kept in the domain of university trained experts. For example, he cites in favor of his model several quotes and inferences from Joseph Smith that the Nephites existed in North America, Zelph, missions to the Lamanites etc. This really doesn’t take an expert as much as just thorough research. He then begins making parallels to geography mentioned in the text, coupled with his observations and finding’s relative to North American geography and climatology. He does not deserve to be immediately treated as an expert here, but his claims and arguments should not be strictly dismissed on the basis that he lacks the appropriate degree. On the other hand, he has also taken a tack where he tries to make arguments based on genetics and his assumptions of how they work based on his limited reading. This goes above his paygrade and no one should give any consideration to his arguments here because a detailed understanding of genetics is not common to the average person – so we have no real means to evaluate his claims.
I get from Nibley and Gee, that they would like to claim final say on these matters. It is further complicated by the fact that every Mormon Egyptologist has an interest in making a case for Joseph Smith, whereas every non-Mormon Egyptologist probably gives the Book of Abraham little if any thought. In other words, Gee and Nibley would prefer to be the final authority on all things BoA.
Cowboy:
I do agree that it is a difficult situation. I understand where Gee is coming from, but at the same time, as you alluded to, many people over the years have made discoveries outside the entrenched academic world. At the end of the day, ideas need to ultimately rise or fall on their own merit.
I also think there are some flaws in Gee’s claims. If his claims/test were true about the Book of Abraham, then NO ONE should be able to talk about the Book of Mormon. There is NO ONE alive today who has read the Book of Mormon in its original language. And even Joseph Smith generally didn’t look at the plates to translate them, but they were covered up when he dictated to his scribe(s).
Yet, we talk about the Book of Mormon. We discuss where it might have been set. We look for 19th century language in it. We look for Hebraisms in it. We discuss military strategies. We talk about correlations between claims made in the book and archeological findings. Yet none of us are qualified to read “Reformed Egyptian”, likely not even Gee. And even if we could, no one has access to the source materials.
So why can’t we discuss the Book of Abraham? Why can’t we discuss the claims made in there and compare with with archeology and science?
Re: not having sufficient knowledge of Egyptology to have an opinion about whether the Book of Abraham can be reconciled with Egyptology (other than the opinion Gee and Nibley want me to have), an anecdote:
One of my favorite books growing up was the Usborne Book of World History (http://www.amazon.com/Usborne-History-Guided-Discovery-Program/dp/0860209598), a children’s illustrated history book. It had several pages devoted to ancient Egypt.
Those pages contained illustrations that are remarkably similar to two of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham — the “Lion Couch” scene, and the “Abraham sitting on Pharoah’s throne, discussing astronomy” scene. I was struck, when I first ran across the Book of Abraham, at the familiarity of the facsimiles, and immediately remembered where I’d seen them before.
The history book identified the two scenes as, respectively, (1) an illustration of the process of embalming a dead body (with canopic jars surrounding the couch holding the body over which the jackal-masked priest was bending), and (2) a representation of a dead Egyptian being brought before Osiris for judgment.
Now of course reading a children’s history book doesn’t qualify me as an expert on Egyptology. But those illustrations were made based on the best understanding of the actual experts. An expert consensus can of course be wrong — but if the non-LDS Egyptologists can be wrong, so can Nibley and Gee.
For the record, modern faithful Mormon scholarship is starting to point out that the precise Egyptian meaning of the facsimiles is actually largely beside the point. They’re pointing out that the pictures were likely used by a Canaanite redactor/scribe in telling the story. Thus the real question is what the pictographs would have meant to a Canaanite – not an Egyptian.
Seth R:
Do you have any links for that? I’m familiar with the concept that the facsimiles were used and reused to tell different stories by different people, but I’d be curious to see some of the scholarship.
BTW, I looked through the Amazon reviews of the Usborne book. Evidently some Christian homeschooling curriculum recommended it — which resulted in red-faced parents across the country scrambling for their Sharpie pens, to draw Champion running shorts on the nekkid Greek athletes.
Evidently the notion that ancient people didn’t wear as many clothes as we do is not something some homeschooling parents want advertised. Something people should keep in mind, next time someone wants to make fun of BYU for the Rodin incident.
Geoff, I’m pretty sure an article from Kevin Barney summed it up. I’ll see if I can find a link.
When Dan Rather pushed a news story about a document that purportedly showed George W. Bush’s Air National Guard commanders wanted to punish him for going AWOL — a document which looked suspiciously similar to something typed in Times New Roman on a word processor, and which no one was ever able to reproduce on a machine available to a 1960s-era Air National Guard typist — he got fired. “Fake, but accurate” shouldn’t get any traction if truth is a concern.
I am perfectly open to the notion that God could transmit revelation through a person in a drunken stupor, who then wrote it down on a napkin. If that’s what happened, then that’s the truth. True, that method may not impress many of those people who make the decision whether or not to accept a teaching based on authority rather than content, but they ought not to base their acceptance on that sort of thing anyway.
Regarding 25 –
I would be interested in this too. In the spirit of agreement with at least the general idea about looking before one leaps, as per John Gee, I won’t argue against this except to say I find it highly unlikely. I have just run a search for articles by Kevin Barney that may deal with this subject at the Neal A. Maxwell….(blah)…I could not find anything about a Cananite redactor. There are a number of instances where Barney references the popular theory that the artifacts which Joseph Smith possesed were not directly created by Abraham, but later prepared from oral tradition or directly copied by Jewish redactors. Still nothing of this sort. While it is possible that hieroglyphics held different meanings over time, I’m not convinced that the Egyptian Book of Breathings or Book of the Dead, simultaneously translates into the Book of Abraham. This sounds like the familiar grasping for straws theory that the Book of Abraham was written in a code embedded within the common Egyptian texts. Of course, if their is clear way to interpret cananite literature, this should be an easy matter to prove either way. If not, then the theory rests on weak ground.
The best theory for the Book of Abraham still rests in the possibility that it was contained somewhere amongst the roughly 2/3 of papyrus we no longer have in our possession.
Found it:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=40&chapid=168
“What are your thoughts on the fact that we literally are made of stars that have died and exploded?”
I have no idea. Fascinating. I wish I had more to add to your posts Mike S. Great stuff.
Thanks for the link. It’s fairly long so it will take me some time to read it.
In a way, all of the discussion of Egyptian and the Book of Abraham is academic. We already accept the fact that the Book of Mormon isn’t necessarily a “translation” as we generally consider it, where someone reads something in one language and conveys the thoughts in another language. Sources contemporary to Joseph Smith, requoted by Elder Russell M Nelson, suggest that JS wasn’t even looking at the golden plates when he dictated to his scribes. They were generally covered in a blanket or in a box. So they essentially acted as a talisman that caused JS to be a conduit for inspiration from God.
If we accept this, the generation of the Book of Abraham becomes much easier to understand. JS didn’t actually have to be able to read Egyptian, and actually didn’t even need to be looking at the papyrus. Just being in their presence could theoretically have caused him to be inspired enough to bring forth the Book of Abraham.
For the record, on this issue, I go along with Mike S’s train of thought in comment #33.
Personally, I don’t believe the BoA was a translation in the literal sense, just like the BoM. Hence, whether or not the “translation” was in the 2/3 we don’t have, or not makes little difference. I think it likely that Joseph felt comfortable calling it a translation because he thought he could translate ancient texts using rocks (like he apparently thought he could use rocks to find treasure). In reality, I think he was receiving revelation on these issues, and perhaps certain items acted as a talisman.
But I also recognize the impact that my conclusion would have on the faithful member who believes the story more literally. And I do think this conclusion has bearing on the truth claims made by the church, but fundamentally, for me, it doesn’t change the spiritual benefit of those revelations.
#33 – 34:
I politely disagree. Joseph Smith was not under the necessity of being separated from the papyrus scrolls while translating. With the Gold Plates Joseph either had been commanded to not show them to anyone (until the witnesses), or he actually never had them – depending on what you believe. In either case, as he was in the room with scribes and had many occasions been among a numerous company, Emma/Cowdrey/Harris/Whitmer – perhaps others, the rock in the hat seemed the best method (assuming the story has been correctly told).
None of the above conditions were required for any of the later scriptural “revelations” that Joseph Smith allegedly received. The fragments of parchment had been displayed, and even reproduced for printing in Times and Seasons, I think.
More importantly however, is Joseph’s own efforts to provide a numbered interpretation on the facsimiles, and to restore portions of the damaged hieroglyphics (particularly facsimile #01). On each of the three facsimiles contained in the Pearl of Great Price, we have a specific explanation attached to discreet characters that relate to Abraham.
For me all of this lends to the idea that Joseph was receiving his “revelation” as a direct translation of the text.
#31 – Thank you for posting the article. I acknowledge that I am not the scholar that Barney is, and will admit that his theory is interesting.
Two challenges I have are first, if J-Red was adopting Egyptian vignettes in such a way as to reinterpret, and he saw facsimile 01 as Abraham on the altar, why would Joseph have incorrectly tried to alter the picture. Wouldn’t he have recreated the original, since the original had already sufficed for J-Red in order to satisfy the Semitic interpretation?
Secondly, we have precedent for cultural adaptation as demonstrated by Barney, but it actually goes farther than that. As has been mentioned here, many theorize that Christianity was copied from theological myths contained in Zoroastrianism. I am not an Egyptologist, but I have read that and seen the demonstrated parallels to the story of Horus and Isis to Christianity. In fact, the story of Hercules and Zeus as per Greek mythology has been said to be a type Christology. So it seems consistent that an unbelievable myth of Abraham striking down sinners from chariot piloted by the Arch Angel Michael (Adam – right), would be adapted from existing texts. More importantly, are we to believe that these texts are true, and that a literal history is contained on one half of the mythical parallel? It seems more consistent that what we have demonstrated is consistency morphing mythology, and that brings us down to the point. It seems more likely to me that Joseph Smith regarding the Egyptian Papyri was just playing the part of C-Red, or M-Red (Christian Redactor, or Mormon Redactor), taking the Egyptian vignettes and reinterpreting them as a story of Abraham.
Outside of theory, it would be nice if we could demonstrate culturally, as Barney asserts that the Book of Abraham reading of the texts probably represents prevalent ancient interpretation, that shows not only could this be plausible, but in facts has cultural support. In other words, are there ancient traditions out there which have interpreted the Book of Breathings as a story related to Abraham? Until then, again politely, it is just apologetic rationalization, high quality nevertheless.
Well, as for me, I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not saying the BoM or BoA weren’t translations of texts (even though I said that). What I really mean, is that they’re not “translations” in the way that word is used (i.e. sit down with text and look at it and produce a replica in another language). The text of the BoM may indeed contain a translation of what was contained on the plates, but the method was clearly not “translation” as that word implies.
Similarly, for the BoA, it may be a translation (though I personally don’t think the BoA is a translation in any sense of the word) even if Joseph didn’t actually translate it (not knowing ancient Egyptian etc.). In other words, I’m saying that no matter what the case is, Joseph *thought* he was translating something whether he sat down next to the text or not (hence the printing in T&S with accompanying “translations”). Apparently, for him, rock gazing (and potentially other methods) was a valid translation mechanism.
To me, the most parsimonious way to interpret the BoA is as a revelation prompted by papyrus scrolls and throw the word “translation” out the window entirely.
For me, I don’t find Joseph’s character to be one of chronic lying. I think he genuinely believed he was translating papyrus and gold plates. Whether he was or wasn’t is unknowable if we claim revelation and have no standard by which to measure (which I think is the case in both the BoM and the BoA). Joseph very well could have thought he was translating papyrus when in reality he was getting a revelation *prompted* by papyrus.
This is a confusing comment.
Cowboy, I’ve heard the “Demotic Magical Papyri” has the name of Abraham under a lion couch scene, though I have no direct experience with that text. Also the English text makes all sorts of claims about Abraham that are nowhere in the Bible, but are extensively present in other ancient literature not available to Joseph Smith.
When I said that the Book of Abraham had the mark of being inspired, I didn’t just mean the spiritual content. Joseph had an uncanny knack for spitting out historical/mythological material that really shouldn’t have been available to even the scholars of his day (and certainly not Joseph himself), and simply nailing it on the head.
I’m told that Volume 1 of the “Studies in the Book of Abraham” series – “Traditions of the Early Life of Abraham” documents a lot of the parallels.
“Joseph had an uncanny knack for spitting out historical/mythological material that really shouldn’t have been available to even the scholars of his day (and certainly not Joseph himself), and simply nailing it on the head.”
This has echoes of Nibley’s “parallelomania.” I’ve never been convinced that it’s a valid method of judging a text’s antiquity. First, the parallel-drawer controls both sides of the equation: He can describe both the subject text, and the alleged parallel, as generally or as loosely as he chooses. I always go back to my experience in a BYU Shakespeare class, where the monstrous regiment of women who comprised most of the students were absolute geniuses at showing how, by jove, Will Shakespeare wrote 20th-century feminism into his plays. That is, the parallel is often in the eyes of the well-motivated beholder. “Nailing it on the head,” in my experience, is often a very generous way of describing what are often less than perfect parallels.
Second, I wonder just how many basic mythic themes there are out there. Human beings seem drawn, over and over again, to variations on particular mythic narratives. Joseph didn’t have to have had any particular “historical/mythological material” consciously available to him, to produce parallels to ancient Near Eastern myths. Echoes of those myths may have been all around him in the general cultural environment, or even in his basic human DnA.
Thus the Christ/Baldur/Osiris/Mithras parallels, and so forth. That doesn’t mean that none of those stories can’t be a “true myth” (as C.S. Lewis put it), or that one myth must have been derivative of the other. It may rather mean that we are hard-wired to return to certain themes. But just as the parallels aren’t evidence for plagiarism, neither are the parallels evidence that the parallel stories have a common revealed source.
JMB275:
Fair enough. Putting on my believers cap for a moment, yes Joseph Smith’s translating abilities would have been based on revelation, and by nature that introduces a variant into the equation which cannot be currently accounted for in any attempt at determining truth by way of cultural authenticity. I don’t know what Joseph’s personal character was like, but whether he was a liar like his most ardent critics would suggest, or just wildly imaginative like Fawn Broady argued, I’m not convinced that he felt personally beholden to reality. In either case, he seems to have tried to approach the Book of Abraham in at least a somewhat traditional, line-by-line/character-by-character fashion. We disagree, that is fine.
Seth – Fair enough, this is where I need to admit that I don’t have the fare for more rigorous debate. How well did Joseph “nail-it” as you suggest? I can’t definitively say, but I’m unaware of any opinions on that matter which transcend Mormon circles.
Cowboy, I doubt my capacity for in-depth debate is much greater than yours (perhaps significantly less).
Whenever someone brings up the label “parrallelomania” I usually ignore it. It’s a pretty loose concept that I suspect is usually just code for “I don’t like the parallel you just drew.”
Sure, you can throw the same accusation in inverse against me. Whatever. We’re not going to take the discussion anywhere useful on this concept.
“It’s a pretty loose concept that I suspect is usually just code for “I don’t like the parallel you just drew.””
If it’s “code” for anything (btw, calling something “code” is itself code for “I’m going to disregard what you actually said, in favor of what I say you actually meant”), it’s code for “Before relying on parallels as evidence for something, explain why parallels are evidence for that thing.”
Parallel-hunting, in apologetics, rests on the assumption — which I’ve never yet seen supported — that the parallels in question are overwhelmingly unlikely, absent revelation. That may be true, but I’d like to see some firmer statistical analysis of just how unlikely these extraordinary coincidences are. Because, counterintuitively, it would be extraordinarily unlikely for there never to be any extraordinary coincidences.
Shrug.
Most of the parallels I’ve read about provide evidence for themselves.
Whether that evidence is accepted or not may very well depend on the ideological preferences of the viewer.
Which kind of just reinforces my earlier impression that the word “parallelomania” really has no function in normal debate other than to reinforce the biases of the person using it. It’s parameters and boundaries are so loose and vague, that it’s almost impossible to discuss it usefully.
It’s kind of the equivalent of a novice Mormon on the Internet “bearing testimony” to a hostile audience.
It’s a conversation stopper.
So yeah… I don’t really feel bad about disregarding it and carrying on with actually useful discussion.
“Most of the parallels I’ve read about provide evidence for themselves.”
Why?
There is an assumption here, that because there is a parallel, there must be a connection. That assumption needs to be justified.
I mean, there is a parallel between “Elkanah” and “El Cajon,” if you say the words fast enough. But that doesn’t mean Joseph Smith had been to San Diego.
I think Thomas’s example of his experience in college studying Shakespear, adequately presents the problems of parallel. Related to this issue, the last time I saw reference to the word Parallelomania, was in a Deseret News article last week from Mike Ash, a regular FAIR and MormonTimes contributor:
The article is referenced as “The Errors in Holley’s Map” and can be accessed here: http://www.mormontimes.com/article/18633/The-errors-of-Holleys-map?s_cid=newsline
In 1983 a Book of Mormon critic named Vernal Holley wrote critical examination of The Book of Mormon, where he presented an alternative explanation for it drawing heavily of the Spalding-Rigdon theory. Additionally Holley notes the similarities between BoM geography and name places, to those of the Great Lakes areas, and suggests that the parallels are just too convenient to pass as mere coincidence. Ash dismisses Holley’s theory by randomly drawing out similarities to the BoM based on a map of Virginia. He concludes that parallels are really proof of nothing.
I don’t generally want to dump all apologists into the same tank, ie, making Barney accountable for Ash, but part of the problem with parallels is that their relevance is left strictly to the bias of the observor. When we want to see parallels as proof, they are. When we need to pass them off as incomplete or coincidence, we do. We fuel our biases from them, but are truly no step closer to the truth then the hypothesis stage. A necessary phase of discovery no doubt, but a far cry from truth.
If you don’t like “parallelomania,” by the way, what shorthand term for “searching for parallels between latter-day scripture and ancient texts, and presenting the parallels as evidence for a connection” would you prefer?
“Whether that evidence is accepted or not may very well depend on the ideological preferences of the viewer.”
Ideally, evidence is accepted or not because it is convincing.
Unfortunately, since we’re human, bias does creep in. Conscientious people strive to minimize or mitigate it.
I see an tendency lately in LDS apologetics, to swerve sometimes towards the postmodernists, who argue that human bias is so insurmountable an obstacle that reason is useless, and absolute truth can’t be known. I don’t like this one little bit. There is a difference between acknowledging that reason is fallible, and throwing it completely out the window.
Maybe I’m being hypersensitive here, but when I see a line like “Whether that evidence is accepted or not may very well depend on the ideological preferences of the viewer,” the subtext I hear is “dude, this evidence is so bone-jarringly obvious that you have to be an obstinate reprobate with an ax to grind not to see things the way I do.” This is how philosophical differences are blown up into moral differences, and no good comes from it.
Cowboy, from Br. Ash’s article:
“Probably” = “I pulled the odds out of a hat.” This is why I really would like to see some statistical analysis of the probability of parallels, before I take parallels as evidence of anything.
Thomas, I already pointed out this was a pointless line of argument.
Anyone can throw labels around. I’ve thrown mine, you’ve thrown yours. I’m willing to simply leave it there.
A lot of that depends on how one approaches it, though this post is correct.
I’ve done a lot of artificial myth construction and work with heroquests for simulations and for other contexts.
It is interesting how the Book of Abraham is so strong to some who understand it.
#50-
Which is what is so great about probabilities, because so much of what we “figure” in terms of odds, cannot be reasonably calculated. It makes me think of some of the old atheist attempts at quantifying the probability of God.
I tend to be on board with Thomas on this. Do we think that the several examples of chiasmus in The Book of the Law of the Lord which were plates given to Moses which were translated by James Strang are proof of their divine origin? Or is it just statistically likely that such things occur in all writings?
http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm
http://www.strangite.org/Law.htm
Doesn’t mean we can’t believe that there was inspiration in the Book of Abraham, simply that we need to be careful what we call evidence.
Re Cowboy
Oh dang, I thought that’s what we were doing the whole time.
To the believer, I think this is the rub. It’s easy to hold out belief in the translations precisely because of the revelation caveat.
Well, we certainly agree here. An objective view of the BoA as a translation, and having it not add up, is precisely one of the things that led to my faith crisis. So I’m in the same boat. I was speaking from the POV of a believer who I think, within the theology, can easily pull the revelation card. And, as Seth points out, if it inspires people (like him) then it certainly has that value.
“An objective view of the BoA as a translation, and having it not add up, is precisely one of the things that led to my faith crisis”
Interesting… honestly I’m fascinated by this phenomenon – it seems very common. I think the real “faith crisis” for me was cemented by things like Prop 8 – when I realized that I couldn’t just sit and take in whatever church leaders were saying – that sometimes I would disagree – even intensely so – which made things a lot less comfortable. In the end it has made me more responsible for my own beliefs and religion, but it hasn’t been as easy!
Parallelism. It is hard to use this as evidence for much, as our observations are necessarily influenced by our prejudices.
To an apologist, parallelism between the Book of Mormon and Hebrew is “proof” of its truthfulness. To a detractor, parallelism between the Book of Mormon and Shakespeare is “proof” of its falsehood. This could be extended with examples on both sides.
Even something like chiasmus, which is often held up as a great parallelism with ancient literature isn’t unique.
“Ask not what your country
Can do for you
But what you
Can do for your country”
Or Ben Johnson in the 1500’s:
“Men that talk of their own benefits
are not believed to talk of them
because they have done them,
but to have done them
because they might talk of them.”
Even on a larger scale as suggested in some Book of Mormon passages, see Beowulf:
A: Preliminaries
Grendel approaching
Grendel rejoicing
Grendel devouring Handscioh
B: Grendel’s wish to flee (“fingers cracked”)
C: Uproar in hall; Danes stricken with terror
HEOROT IN DANGER OF FALLING
C’: Uproar in hall; Danes stricken with terror
B’: “Joints burst”; Grendel forced to flee
A’: Aftermath
Grendel slinking back toward fens
Beowulf rejoicing
Beowulf left with Grendel’s arm
Granted there are parallels with Abraham and selected Egyptian things, but there are also contradictions. There are parallels between Buddha’s birth/life/teachings and Christ’s several centuries later. There are parallels between Muslim concepts and LDS concepts. There are thousands and thousands of examples.
Our brains are wired to find patterns. See Bruce’s recent post. We try to find patterns in the world around us to predict what may happen in the future. But the parallels we find say more about us than the actual thing we are studying.
JMB275:
Fair enough, we agree.
On the “we are stars” concept it reminds me of the fact that while the earth has a greater human population now than ever, it still weighs the same. People are very directly comprised “of this world.”
I think the problem with the BofA (and the BofM) is symbolic of issues in the Church in general. People are inherently smart. They “get it”. But the Church wants to dumb things down to the least common denominator.
It is easy to teach that JS “translated” the BofM and the BofA. In people’s minds, they picture every other instance they have seen of translation. Someone listens to a talk and translates it. Ancient scribes worked with copies of the Bible and translated it into English so we could read it. We find some ancient artifacts and, with things like the Rosetta stone, translate what people wrote.
JS’s method of bringing forth scripture was much more complex than this. He didn’t really look at the plates when he dictated. He was inspired in what to dictate/write, but is it technically “translation”?
And was generating the BofA “translation”? If what we have doesn’t match the papyri, do we say there are “hidden” meanings, do we say we are “missing” some parts, or do we accept the precedent set by JS with the BofM and say that “translation” may just have been “inspiration”.
I don’t think anyone would ever argue with the fact that there is truth in the BofM or BofA. There are passages in both that resonate with my soul. I think that JS and many others serve as conduits to this deeper meaning, and that he was inspired in many things (although not necessarily everything – but even he admitted that).
So, I think that the Church would be better off teaching that JS was inspired when he brought forth these books, much like prophets throughout the ages have been inspired when they brought forth their various writings. But clinging to the notion that these are “translations” in the modern and generally accepted definition of that word can actually cause a fair amount of harm.
hawkgrrl:
The notion that we are all made of the same atoms as stars and each other is very deep. We continually eat food which is incorporated into proteins, fats, cells, etc. The atoms in our bodies turn over at different rates depending on the tissue, but on average, the atoms completely turn over every 7 years. So we are, quite literally, a completely different person than we were 7 years ago!
So what are we? We truly are just a pattern of atoms that temporarily comprise our “self”. We truly are “dust of the earth”. And we’re not even the same dust that we were 7 years ago.
There are some implications that conflict with LDS theology, but a beautiful picture of this is the following quote:
Looked at in this regard, it truly makes me wonder why people treat each other the way that they do, from the smallest personal interaction to the macro interaction of countries and religions.
Re Cowboy
Wait, Cowboy, are you trying to get rid of me? 😉
Re AdamF
Well, note that I said “one of the things.” Actually, the initial impetus was precisely Prop 8 as I was in NorCal at the time and dealt with it. That was my first experience with what I call the “that’s not what I see when I look out my window” phenomenon. What you describe here led to a deeper exploration of Mormon history from which further cog dis mounted and eventually boiled over. Many of my historical concerns lessened when I modified my expectations. But others, when I step back and look at the reality of the stories, just don’t seem plausible to me, and I have to admit I’m a skeptic.
It is very common, which is why I harp on it a lot. From StayLDS I still get 2 to 3 emails per week from people who start this process just like me (though the details are often different).
This, ultimately, is my resolution as well and is why I’m able to stay in the church. Many feel that if they lose belief it’s dishonest for them to stay. I don’t feel that way. I think I should stay as long as I benefit from it (and I do, in many ways, even spiritually).
For me, I’d already learned to distinguish between my belief in the Gospel and my belief in “the Church” on my mission, and come to terms with maintaining a degree of loyalty to both anyway.
So Prop 8 wasn’t going to change my situation much one way or the other.
Re: 63 – I think I had done the same thing with “the Church” as well as past leaders… Prop 8 just brought the issue of separating the church and “the gospel” with current leadership, something that I had not experienced up to that point. Disagreeing with a past prophet is something most members do. Disagreeing with a current prophet is not a comfortable thing to do. We’re not allowed to say “they speak with limited light and knowledge” or “they are a product of their time and situation” like we can about past leaders.
64 Adam – But in time we will be able to say those things when/if a future Prophet who we won’t be able to question during his term, contradicts the man who can’t be wrong only in the here and now.
The corporate management style which shuns accountability, pontificates from on high, and communicates only in a PR fashion, is what got me looking.
The crux point for me came when a general authority (Seventy) visited our mission and came in and showed complete ignorance of what our mission was doing, lack of knowledge of our policies, complete disregard for the indigenous culture, and embarrassed our Mission President in front of half his missionaries. The guy was totally off-base and out of line. That much was completely clear. And here he was – supposed to be the Lord’s representative.
It brought a lot of things into sharp focus for me at age 21.
I survived that at that young and impressionable age. I can certainly survive Prop 8 now that I’ve mellowed out more.
Seth – Yeah, I can relate to that. Even on a less-extreme level, I LOVED my mission president, but even just realizing that sometimes he made mistakes, sometimes he had us do stuff that wasn’t effective, etc. etc. was a helpful lesson at 19.
Just to clarify – I was saying the SEVENTY was in the wrong – not my Mission President.
Yeah, I got that. 🙂
I thought you might have. I just wasn’t 100% sure.
A gauntlet, not a label. You say parallels are evidence of connection. I invite you to justify that contention.
Well of course they are “evidence” of connection Thomas.
What you are really asking is whether they are valid evidence, or whether they are strong evidence.
That would kind of depend on an in-depth look on the parallel now, wouldn’t it?
“What you are really asking is whether they are valid evidence, or whether they are strong evidence.”
I’m not sure I understand the distinction. If evidence isn’t “valid evidence,” then it’s not evidence at all.
As far as I can tell, there is an unexamined assumption behind the parallel-hunting method: the assumption that parallels are more unlikely than not, absent a connection.
Here’s where the lawyer says “lack of foundation.” Before we descend into an “in-depth look on the parallel,” we first have to answer the threshold question of whether the assumption is correct — whether the existence of a parallel is more likely than not the result of a connection.
I’ve never seen any parallel-hunting apologist (btw, feel free to substitute your shorthand of choice) make that initial showing.
Parallels are not evidence, at best they clues gumshoe. Some clues lead to evidence, and others only to dead ends.
Perhaps we don’t all have the same definitions of “evidence”… ? I don’t think something is either “evidence” or “not evidence” – it seems more better to put it on a spectrum, incorporating the likelihoods and whatnot.
Parallels are fraught with error as I briefly mentioned above.
Parts of the Book of Mormon are parallel to things in the Jewish world (ie. teachings, chiasm, the name “Alma”, etc.). Apologists use these parallelisms to “prove” the BofM is true.
Parts of the Book of Mormon are parallel to Shakespeare, mistranslations in the KJV, 19th century thoughts, etc. Others use these parallelisms to “prove” the BofM is false.
Who is right? Doesn’t it all smack of already “knowing” what is right and picking out things that might be parallel?
Mike S. Re: 10
Sorry to take so long to respond to your points here. I think most of us actually place more authority in experience and reason than on Scripture, not just those with Eastern beliefs. After all, we use experience and reason (at least as taught us by our cultural community) to establish our canons in the first place. The LDS D&C is not the same as the CofChrist D&C; our canons are very divergent from other mainstream Christians, and so on.
I just sneezed. Evidence, or not evidence, that William Shakespeare was the real author of the plays credited to him?
#79 – I’m sorry, I don’t know what that means. Your lawyerly ways are beyond my reach – can you explain a little more about your sneeze and Shakespeare?
Adam — The point is that some things truly are Not Evidence of other things. There’s no “spectrum” involved — my sneeze has nothing to do with Shakespeare.
For the sneeze to be evidence of something, I would first have to show, somehow, that the fact I sneezed makes it more likely that the thing is true. If the question is “Do I have a cold?”, then the sneeze could be evidence. If the question is most anything else, it isn’t evidence.
That’s where I’m going here. Before parallels can be offered as evidence, there needs to be demonstrated some grounds for believing that the existence of a parallel demonstrates the existence of a connection, or renders the possibility of a connection more likely than not. To do that, I think that at minimum, you need to show that the odds of the parallel existing are lower than ought to be expected based on random coincidence.
That’s a project for some ambitious person with better training in statistics than I have.
Thanks – I really was lost. I thought you were sneezing because of my comment, haha. I didn’t have enough evidence (any?) to the contrary. 🙂
I guess I was going on a tangent and not really even talking about parallels per se, but “evidence.” I’m trying hard to put it into psych terms so I can make sense of it…
“you need to show that the odds of the parallel existing are lower than ought to be expected based on random coincidence.”
I totally agree with this.
Not necessarilly a statistician here, but I have some training. It would be nearly impossible to create a model for most of things, particularly when we are dealing loosely with ideas and concepts instead of words. The best statistical approaches that could be made are the word-print studies, as they at least correlate directly to word combinations, etc. Even these however are ultimately flawed, as JMB275 has pointed out – revelation as translation throws comparability out the window.