By unusual, I would mean these teachings here (in addition to the planet Kolob teaching). My source cited Mormon material chapter and verse.
-Heaven is divided into several levels. Men have multiple wives in the highest one
- Jehovah is one with Jesus, but not God the father
-Jesus and Satan are brothers
-Garden of Eden was in Missouri
-God has a human body
-Angels are resurrected beings
-Polygamy is permissable for Christians, perhaps even commanded
-Baptism of the dead
Pearl of Great Price
There are strong indications that the source material of the Book of Abraham is an Egyptian funerary text. That aside, I would consider these teachings to be unusual:
- Blacks are inherently cursed by God.
-man pre existed
-repeated plural references to God
Has any non Mormon confirmed the authenticity of the Book of Abraham?
I don't have it in me, right now, to address each alleged “belief” one by one. I will say that some of them are entirely false, some of them are badly distorted versions of recognizable Mormon beliefs, some of them are recognizable distortions of things that have been, in the past, believed by individual Mormons but never officially taught by the church, and a few are more or less correct.
Some of these “unusual beliefs” can be found backed up by the Bible.
As for the authenticity of the
Book of Abraham, if it is a hoax, then I'd have to admit that there is a convenient lack of evidence by which to authenticate or falsify it.
At some point in the early history of the church, Joseph Smith availed himself of the opportunity to purchase a collection of ancient Egyptian artifacts. I'm not going to go looking for the sources right now, but I know that this purchase and the contents of this collection were well-documented and verified, to have included a number of mummies, an assortment of scraps of papyrus in varying conditions, and two, exceptionally well-preserved papyrus scrolls. Joseph Smith stated that one of these scrolls was a record of Joseph the son of Jacob/Israel (famous for the
Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat), and that the other was a record kept by Abraham. It is from the latter that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the
Book of Abraham.
After Joseph Smith's death, the collection was sold, and was last believed to have been in a museum in Chicago, which was destroyed in the Great Fire of 1871.
Much, much more recently, a piece of cardboard came to light, with some scraps of papyrus glued to it, and an assortment of notes and doodles. I'm aware of a claim that a handwriting expert has verified that these notes and doodles were written by Joseph Smith, and that Egytptologists have identified the papyrus fragments as being part of a funerary text.
This item has been offered as evidence against the
Book of Abraham, but there are some problems with this use of it:
- Assuming that we can take this item at face value, it clearly was in the possession of Joseph Smith at one time, and it is now in a condition similar to that in which it was when he possessed it.
- Joseph Smith is known to have been in possession of two very-well-preserved scrolls, one of which he claimed as the source for the Book of Abraham.
- This item, very clearly is not a well-preserved scroll, and was not when Joseph Smith possessed it.
These scraps of parchment glued to cardboard are very clearly not the source for the
Book of Abraham, and are not useful for authenticating nor falsifying it. At most, it suggests a possibility that if it was part of that collection, and it was not destroyed in the 1871 fire, that perhaps there's a chance that other items in that collection also survived, and may yet come to light. Should two well-preserved papyrus scrolls ever be found, and should it be proven that they are the same that Joseph Smith was known to have possessed, then I have no doubt that on examination, they will prove to be exactly what he said they were, and that the
Book of Abraham will prove to be a valid translation of part of one of them.
That is an overstatement on my part. I should have said its been "speculated".
This is based on a commentary that I heard after Bishop Osborne was interviewed on 60 minutes. The commentator noted that Mormonism was moving closer to maisntgreat [sic] Christianity and that the interview given by Osborne indicated that this pattern would continue. He also noted that the D&C had undergone several revisions
The commentator then speculated that D&C and Pearl would be de listed as sacred and accorded the same status of that of saint's writings and early church fathers in catholicism [sic] and eastern orthodoxy. Protesants [sic] have an equivelant [sic] with the writings of protestant reformerss [sic]. These groups consider these types of writing to be authorative [sic] and inspiring, but not sacred scripture.
I accept all Mormon scripture that is taken from the Bible. To my knowledge, The Pearl of Great Price and D&C both contain portions that are derived from the Bible.
I do not know who this Bishop Osborne is of whom you speak, or by what authority he claims to make such statements.
No, the D&C has not undergone several revisions, and no, neither it nor the Pearl of Great Price are at all likely to be
“de listed as sacred”.
During Joseph Smith's time, and for a short time afterward, new numbered sections were added in accordance with revelations received by him or his immediate successors. Two “Official Declarations” were added long after that, one in (I think) 1901, and one in 1978. Other than that, no significant change in the content.
There was a substantial effort, in the 1980s, to update our scriptures. Part of the impetus for this was when we gained access to some of Joseph Smith's original manuscripts, which were in the possession and control of the Community of Christ*; giving is the opportunity to compare and correct the texts we had with this source material. A great deal of typographical, spelling,and grammar correction occurred, chapter headings were revised, and a great body of cross-referenced footnotes added. None of this changed the meaning of any of the content.
None of what you are saying about the church
“moving closer to maisntgreat [sic] Christianity” rings at all true to me, as a practicing member of this church. It does remind of some things I had long ago heard about the CoC, but I haven't followed them closely enough to judge whether there's any truth to it regarding them. I don't think they've ever tried to identify as “Mormon”, and I've long had a sense that they desired to distance themselves as much as they reasonably could from us; and that the change of name form “The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” to “The Community of Christ” was largely driven by that desire.
* The Community of Christ (SOC), formerly called The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), is one of the various offshoots of Mormonism. They came out of a conflict that arose after Joseph Smith was killed. There were some who believed that leadership of the church was supposed to pass from father to son. Joseph Smith III was about three years old at the time, so this group, which included much of Joseph Smith's immediate family, laid low until Joseph III was old enough to lead them, and then formed this organization which remained in Missouri, while the “Brighamites” were driven out of the country, and eventually left to settle in Utah. Of course, they kept possession of most of Joseph Smith's belongings, including these essential manuscripts.
