Posts
Abraham's Allegorical Astronomy
Several years ago I highlighted three chapters from the FARMS book, Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant. One of the chapters, "'And I Saw the Stars': The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy," by John Gee, William J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, argues that the Book of Abraham (specifically, chapter 3) is best read in the context of a geocentric astronomy. I've felt that this chapter is an important example of putting scripture into an ancient context that does not fit with modern science, and it is done so by LDS scholars of unquestioned faith.
This week I came across an article that takes this a step further. In his 2009 article, Encircling Astronomy and the Egyptians: An Approach to Abraham 3, BYU Associate Professor of Ancient Scripture and Egyptologist, Kerry Muhlestein, argues that the astronomical paradigm is irrelevant to the meaning of the Book of Abraham.
I think we stumble when we attempt to understand Abraham’s vision in terms of astronomic paradigms. It is quite likely that the Lord was describing astronomy and the heavens allegorically in order to teach doctrinal, not astronomical, principles. While attempting to understand astronomical principles has merit...and while there may be an understandable cosmic paradigm to be teased out of the narrative, it seems that the allegorical teachings are the weightier matters as far as the gospel classroom is concerned.Muhlestein goes on to explain the importance of the planets and stars to the Egyptians and how, in chapter 3, God was preparing Abraham to be able to teach the Egyptians using astronomy as basis for communication.
I was slightly surprised to find that this thesis--a rejection of scriptural literalism and concordism--was published by the Religious Studies Center, an arm of the BYU Religion Department. Good on them. As I have noted on several occasions, other Christians have been taking this basic approach with the creation scriptures for a while now. I know of only a couple of attempts by LDS authors to do similarly, but most Church members would probably consider them unorthodox at best.
Muhlestein's article gives me hope that what's good for Abraham chapter 3 will also be good for chapters 4 and 5.
3 comments:
Ever notice how little interest there is among Latter-day Saints in the Pearl of Great Price? Abraham included? I think that's because they cannot make sense of the astronomical or cosmological elements in light of our current scientific paradigm. Muhlestein is simply an academic assessment of that seeming irrelevance perceived my Mormons. These same church members, scholars and academics also know nothing of Joseph Smith's many statements, some documented, some anecdotal, concerning the cosmology of the ancients. Once one tumbles to the notion that the heavens and the earth before the flood were vastly different than today, dominated by planetary powers and electrified plasmas, all this conjecture and speculation about Abraham disappears. His becomes a straightforward exposition of the appearance of the ancient heavens, as do the many statements, disparaged, maginalize and neglected by mainstream LDS scholars and academics, from the prophet Joseph Smith. I know you are very mainstream. But try to see astronomy and cosmology from the viewpoints espoused by Joseph Smith and the many statements attributed to him by those who were closest to him. If you will suspend judgment and set aside your preconceptions long enough to consider the facts in evidence, I think you will be stunned to learn how relevant and plain Abraham becomes. You'll see why Joseph dedicated so much time and effort to deciphering the Egyptian papyri, and you'll find that our temple rituals and ordinances are based in that same, unorthodox cosmological imagery. Where is the harm in considering the evidence? What do you have to lose?
"What do you have to lose?"
My mind -- if a read any more of that silliness.
The universe that was shown to Abraham has nothing to do with "plasma." It's all about mapping the esoteric -- that which is NOT seen by the natural eye -- utilizing that which IS seen as a symbolic reference. It has very little to do with how celestial orbs actually gyrate and everything to do with how ancient cultural perceptions of the sidereal heavens were patterned after the family of God.
Jack
Anthony,
You may be right about the PofGP. However, it may also be because of the emphasis put on the Book of Mormon, and because the astronomical elements are viewed as peripheral to the core doctrines.
I've looked around on your blog a little bit. Stephen J. Gould's critique of Velikovsky seems apt. In my judgment any scheme purporting to tell the history of the Earth has to do more than reconcile a few collected statements by Joseph Smith and elements of ancient cosmology. However, perhaps you have opened a window into Joseph's thinking. If so, that is interesting in its own right.
Post a Comment