
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The Book of Abraham quote cited in the criticism above has inspired both faithful attempts at explanation, as well as critical attempts, including the interpretation found on the web site where this criticism appeared. The wording of Joseph Smith’s explanation of Figure 5 in Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham is, in fact, very difficult to interpret. Let’s see what some of our options are. | The Book of Abraham quote cited in the criticism above has inspired both faithful attempts at explanation, as well as critical attempts, including the interpretation found on the web site where this criticism appeared. The wording of Joseph Smith’s explanation of Figure 5 in Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham is, in fact, very difficult to interpret. Let’s see what some of our options are. | ||
*In the Solar System, we observe that planets and moons that do not give off their own visible light reflect the light that they receive from the Sun. However, we note that Jupiter itself, being very large, and having other sources of energy internally gives off more energy than it receives from the Sun in the form of heat and so forth ([http://nineplanets.org/jupiter.html]). But this fact still does not stop it from being true that Jupiter does indeed receive visible light from the Sun. Jupiter, earth, and the other planets of the Solar System do indeed receive light from other stars, even though we receive ''most'' of our light from the Sun. Now, if we extrapolate further from these facts that we have just noted, it is also true that the Sun receives light from other stars, just like we do on earth, because they are visible to us in the night sky. But that light is miniscule compared to the light that the Sun puts out on its own power from its own internal sources (just as in the case of Jupiter). So, just because a celestial orb has its own power source internally, it ''still does borrow light from other celestial orbs''. So, just because the light the Sun receives from other stars is miniscule, ''it is still true that it does receive such light''. Whether that light that it receives from those stars in miniscule amounts is reflected back out, is not known. The Book of Abraham may be referring only to the light that is reflected or borrowed, and is simply not focusing on the light or energy that is internally generated. | *In the Solar System, we observe that planets and moons that do not give off their own visible light reflect the light that they receive from the Sun. However, we note that Jupiter itself, being very large, and having other sources of energy internally gives off more energy than it receives from the Sun in the form of heat and so forth ([http://nineplanets.org/jupiter.html]). But this fact still does not stop it from being true that Jupiter does indeed receive visible light from the Sun. Jupiter, earth, and the other planets of the Solar System do indeed receive light from other stars, even though we receive ''most'' of our light from the Sun. Now, if we extrapolate further from these facts that we have just noted, it is also true that the Sun receives light from other stars, just like we do on earth, because they are visible to us in the night sky. But that light is miniscule compared to the light that the Sun puts out on its own power from its own internal sources (just as in the case of Jupiter). So, just because a celestial orb has its own power source internally, it ''still does borrow light from other celestial orbs''. So, just because the light the Sun receives from other stars is miniscule, ''it is still true that it does receive such light''. Whether that light that it receives from those stars in miniscule amounts is reflected or emitted back out in some way, is not known. The Book of Abraham may be referring only to the light that is reflected or borrowed, and is simply not focusing on the light or energy that is internally generated. It is known that Joseph Smith hid his seer-stone in a hat, and somehow he was able to view some kind of light that emitted from it. That light theoretically came from somewhere, and the stone clearly had no internal light source. Seer stones have been referred to as a type of Urim and Thummim. The scriptures tell us that celestial planets will be great Urims and Thummims (D&C 130: 8-10). When a star explodes, sometimes the remnant left over is known as a "white dwarf." This remnant is actually star's original solid core that used to be in the center of the star before the explosion ([http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/dwarfs.html]). Recent science has demonstrated that white dwarfs are actually composed of highly compressed carbon, making it a large diamond ([http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3492919.stm]). If it is true that a rock such as a seer-stone can receive light somehow, and that light is discernible in a dark place like a hat, then it is no more far-fetched to suggest that a star's solid core that is a diamond can act as a Urim and Thummim to receive and re-emit light received from some other source. | ||
*Another suggestion is this: To “borrow” means to receive with the intention of returning, especially said of a material object or substance. It may also mean to take and adopt as one’s own, especially said of abstractions or ideas, as in “the composer borrowed his harmonic structure from Bach’s Fugue in D Major.” So what does it mean for the sun to “borrow” its light from Kolob? Is light a material or an abstraction? Does the Sun intend to repay the light it borrowed? | *Another suggestion is this: To “borrow” means to receive with the intention of returning, especially said of a material object or substance. It may also mean to take and adopt as one’s own, especially said of abstractions or ideas, as in “the composer borrowed his harmonic structure from Bach’s Fugue in D Major.” So what does it mean for the sun to “borrow” its light from Kolob? Is light a material or an abstraction? Does the Sun intend to repay the light it borrowed? | ||
| Answers portal |
| The Book of Abraham |
|
FAQ:
Book of Abraham content: Production: |
|
== The Book of Abraham states that “the sun [is said] 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 (Abraham Fac 2,Fig 5),” while astrophysics has shown that “The Sun shines ... because of thermonuclear fusion. It does not get its light from any other star.”
To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here
==== There are many scriptures or statements by the prophets that seem to have scientific implications. Unfortunately, they are never couched in modern scientific terms and their meanings are often very obscure. Some faithful saints have made attempts to interpret such things in a way that tries to harmonize them with some current view of science. While some may think that is not the best thing to do, because it is very speculative, at least these faithful explanations have been made in good faith. For example, some saints have made attempts to harmonize the theory of evolution with the gospel. Another example is that some saints have tried to explain the Book of Mormon using current archaeology. It is true that these types of suggestions made by such faithful saints are not authoritative or binding on the Church. But they are genuine, apologetic attempts to come to an understanding, and to build faith. However, they must be treated with extreme caution as anything else must be on subjects that are unsettled.
However, it is definitely a foolish thing that faithless critics purposely try to interpret things that are uncertain in a way that is most at odds with current scientific thought. These explanations by critics are most often made in bad faith, to try to put the Church, its leaders and its scriptures in a bad light. The fact that critics make such interpretations is a straw man tactic, where they try to make the Book of Abraham and other scriptures to say things when there is no evidence that they actually mean such a thing.
The Book of Abraham quote cited in the criticism above has inspired both faithful attempts at explanation, as well as critical attempts, including the interpretation found on the web site where this criticism appeared. The wording of Joseph Smith’s explanation of Figure 5 in Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham is, in fact, very difficult to interpret. Let’s see what some of our options are.
And, finally, what are we to understand about the nature of Book of Abraham astronomy? Is it a revelation from God to Abraham explaining the structure of the universe as it would be seen by the astronomers of our day? That is the position of a number of scholars such as Michael Rhodes and J. Ward Moody in the chapter entitled "Astronomy and the Creation in the Book of Abraham," Chapter 2 in the book Astronomy, Papyrus and Covenant, the third volume in the series Studies in the Book of Abraham.
Others have another theory that the Book of Abraham represents an ancient "Geocentric" cosmology. John Gee is one of these scholars. Gee, as well as William J. Hamblin and Daniel C. Peterson published their views on this as well in the same book in Chapter 1, entitled "'And I Saw The Stars', The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy." We remember that “The Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words.” Abraham 3:15, so that, as John Gee has suggested ("The Larger Issue"), this is simply the teaching that would be easiest for the Egyptians to understand — one that would teach them that Elohim, who dwells near Kolob, rules over than the sun-god, Amen-Re?
Another author has suggested that the Book of Abraham is both a Geocentric cosmology, as well as a modern cosmology for our day. He notes that most ancient cosmologies, rather than being solar centric, were actually pole-star centric. The pole star and other geocentric asterisms or constellations are just symbols of the greater reality that God was trying to teach Abraham for the Egyptians. So in that author's view, the Book of Abraham actually teaches both a Geocentric cosmology as well as an understanding that was revealed to Abraham that is compatible with modern scientific views.
==== Until someone can make a convincing case that their interpretation of these things is the only reasonable one, any faith-promoting proof from Abraham’s astronomy is a flimsy house of cards and any faith-destroying attack on some straw-man interpretation is laughable. Among the more speculative interpretations is the idea that Abraham taught that the photons leaving the surface of the sun originally came from Kolob. Whether any of the photons leaving the surface of the sun come from energy originally emitted from other stars is simply unknown. Such things must be viewed with extreme caution.
==None
While doctrine is often the main focus of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, sometimes questions concerning how science affects and applies to the gospel arise. Below are links to multiple topics that address science in application to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Approaching Science
Science Concerns and Topics
Critical sources |
|
The Book of Abraham has been the subject of considerable controversy since its publication. Click the links below to find faithful answers to all the controversies surrounding the Book of Abraham.

FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now