Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Wow. What a jerk! Sweet little plants that never did anything to you.
Oops! Edited to include a smiley!
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For LDS only...some tricky questions
- Thread starter Truth_Faith13
- Start date
Oops! Edited to include a smiley!
Totally agree. My code works, or it doesn't. Instant non-subjective feedback.True, English is that! What I loved about programming was the logic, and the idea that the code either worked or it didn't. Even when I was in college (and I just have a B.A.), I knew I didn't want to write for a living because I didn't want to have to deal with editors, etc. Writing fiction or even non-fiction to some extent is so subjective. I have never liked having my words critiqued, because I'm actually very confident in my ability to say what I want to say. I suppose that if I'd gone into writing as a career, it would have had to be as some sort of an essayist. With coding, nobody complains about how you did it if the program works. And it was always fun to try to be creative in the process.
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Thank-you for your response
I think Orontes was talking about orthopraxy vs orthodoxy at the start of the thread. If I remember rightly it was about the right actions creating the right belief as opposed to visa versa?
In relation to polygamy, any ideas why Joseph Smith married women who were already married and a 14 year old? (I'm assuming 14 was just a standard age to marry back then or something like that but wanted to check!)
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Hi Clear! I'm pleased you stopped by
I haven't actually read the Book of Abraham myself, my question stems from critical websites one of which reads...
My original question was asking how LDS views this? Do you accept that they are funery texts or that the papyri found must have been different etc?
I'd be very interested to hear about the points JS were accurate on?
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Wow, you are doing a PhD? That's amazing!
My first degree was biology related but I took out all the plants bit as its not my forte! I also kill plants! I even kill supposedly unkillable plants!
In that time and place (frontier America) 14 was young, but not shockingly young. Similar to someone getting married at 20 nowadays.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
It's not so much a matter of one leading to the other. I think it's mostly more about our believing that the relationship a person has to her Father in Heaven is more important than being able to ace some kind of theoretical multiple-choice exam concerning doctrine. A person doesn't need to have a ton of knowledge in order to have have the Holy Ghost testify to him that a certain path is right for him to take. You don't want to go into a religion blind, but you'll continue to learn all your life. There's a point at which you have to take "a leap of faith." It's up to you to decide when that point is.
For quite a number of years (maybe 10), I attended FAIR's annual conference. I don't typically like to post links as answers to questions, because they so often seem to be used as a cop-out. But I heard this talk at a FAIR conference back in 2012, and it answers your questions better than I could.
Last edited:
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
I thought I would post the questions/comments I gave to the branch president.Some of them I have already asked here. I would appreciate any thoughts you have! some of the comments are copied from different sites or I have summarised the main points etc so may come across a bit more critical. I havent posted the temple questions here though. I thought Id ask first (I dont mention many "specifics" except one
some of the comments are copied from different sites or I have summarised the main points etc so may come across a bit more critical. I havent posted the temple questions here though. I thought Id ask first (I dont mention many "specifics" except one
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Hey, Truth! Good morning. I hope you got caught up on your sleep last night.
In reading through this list of questions, I saw several I think we've already addressed. Plus, there are so many questions here that it would take many hours to answer them all. If you wouldn't mind, I'm sure we'd all appreciate your picking maybe two or three questions (at the most) and let us get started with them. Why don't you scan the list and choose the three questions that concern you most. We can eventually get to all of them, if in fact all of them are really a concern to you, but let's narrow it down for the sake of practicality.
In reading through this list of questions, I saw several I think we've already addressed. Plus, there are so many questions here that it would take many hours to answer them all. If you wouldn't mind, I'm sure we'd all appreciate your picking maybe two or three questions (at the most) and let us get started with them. Why don't you scan the list and choose the three questions that concern you most. We can eventually get to all of them, if in fact all of them are really a concern to you, but let's narrow it down for the sake of practicality.
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Morning/Afternoon
I slept better last night but my 3 month old was very noisy so she woke me several times fidgeting!Yes we have talked about quite a few of the points but I liked your idea of comparing answers so thought I would still ask the branch president.
Well hopefully Clear and Deep Shadow will help me out with the Book of Abraham.
I dont think weve spoken much about the supposed factual/textual problems with the Book of Mormon and the historial/archaeological problems? (Thats probably quite a big topic!)
Im also intrigued by the God not being able to be seen/JS seeing him in his first vision (hopefully thats a quick one)
• JS saw God in 1820 but didn’t receive the priesthood until 1829 however in DC 84:21-22 says can’t see God without priesthood. Also in Bible, God cannot be seen; 1 Timothy 6:16 and John 6:46
Last edited:
(I'm going to focus on the ones I'm best suited to answer)I thought I would post the questions/comments I gave to the branch president.Some of them I have already asked here. I would appreciate any thoughts you have!
The Book of Mormon
• “Fullness of the Everlasting Gospel”
Doctrines of Salvation “By Fullness of Gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom” (vol 1 p160)
However the Book of Mormon doesn’t contain the 3 degrees of glory, God being an exalted man, eternal progression or baptism for the dead.
---- Jane: the fullness of the Good News (aka Gospel) is that Christ was sacrificed for our sins and was resurrected. All other details are appendages to Good News. The BoM is devoted to telling you about Christ and the Good News, and hence does not spend much time on the appendages.
• Testimony of the Holy Ghost
The bible states that “9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) and 1 John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." If God has told us to look at his word for truth (2 Tim. 3:16) and someone prays about the Book of Mormon in contradiction to that verse, then is he not violating the word of God?
---- Jane: This question can be divided down into 3 components.
1) Study scripture: We are actually commanded to studying scripture (the BoM and the rest of it) in the Moroni chapter, so no contradiction there. We're also commanded to pray to God for wisdom, as our own studies are limited due to our small understanding of things. The Spirit convicts of truth.
2) The Jeremiah verse: yes, heart can be deceived but it can also be convicted of Truth. When you pray to God for wisdom, you're not asking your own heart, but rather putting your fallen human will aside for His will.
3) 1 John 4:1 -- Yes. No contradiction here, test away.
• The Great Apostasy vs Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
----- Jane: Ever hear the the phrase "loose the battle but win the war"? Christ always wins the war, but sometimes there are battles "lost" when men use their agency to abandon Him. These losses happen with individuals, with groups (like cities), and on larger scales. But Christ will always bring back light to where it has been lost, and Christ always wins.
---- Jane: Also note-- the rock is not the flawed human being which will soon deny Christ! No, the rock is revelation, that teaches "thou art the Christ". In so much that people follow revelation, the gates of Hell have zero power over them. When people abandon revelation, then they loose that power. But again, Christ always wins the war.
• No Historical or Archaeological evidence/discoveries have been made regarding the two great civilisations of Nephites and Lamanites – the had wars, built cities etc
---- Jane: Have you seen how little we know about Central American archeology? We are constantly discovering entire new civilizations! And then can't unbury them due to the powerful jungle. Also note: the BoM simplifies the history of the peoples- it's point is to teach of Christ, not be a history book.
Baptism for the Dead
• 1 Cor 15:29 Paul wasn’t endorsing baptism for the dead but highlighting the importance of the resurrection, saying that if another heterodox Christian group practise it, then then resurrection is important for orthodox Christians.
---- Jane: so? He also wasn't condemning the practice.
2Nephi 5:21 talks of skin of blackness.
--- Jane: to differenate these 2 families (Lamen and Lemual) from the others in 600 BC. This does not mean that these families were always destined to be evil, in fact their are many times they were more righteous than the "white" Nephities. Case and point: how did the Nephites handle Samuel the Lamenite preaching of Christ?
In a way it's very similar to the legacy we face from the Tower of Babel: we still all speak different languages as a legacy there, but that does not mean we are evil at all.
Also note: 2Nephi 5:21 has nothing to do with what we call "black" people, aka those of African descent.
Word of Wisdom
• Initially a principle however now a commandment required to enter the temple. Wines mentioned as a medicinal use in Luke 10:34, Paul advised Timothy to take to ease stomach pains (1 Tim 5:23)
---- Jane: changes in medicine. We have much more effective medicine for stomach pains nowadays. There is no reason to get involved with alcohol.
Nature of God/Polytheism
• Eternal Progression contradicts Isaiah 43:10
---- Jane: When a person becomes exalted, they become ONE with Christ, even as He is ONE with the Father. They will all be ONE. No contradiction with Isaiah 43:10.
• JS accused of doublethink -holding two contradicting beliefs. Started as one God and then after BoA become plural Gods.
---- Jane: There is ONE God, but multiple persons are in that ONE God. For example, when the Son and the Father are talking, you could say that the "Gods" are talking, though we don't commonly do that. God is also referred to as plural in the Bible, such as Genesis 1:26. In the original Hebrew "Elohim" is plural.
• Jesus was created however in the genesis account of the creation “In the beginning was the Word” (The Word being Jesus)
--- Jane: Yes, Christ existed then. As did much else (you don't see anyone saying that these versed say the Spirit didn't exist)
• 1 Cor 15:29 Paul wasn’t endorsing baptism for the dead but highlighting the importance of the resurrection, saying that if another heterodox Christian group practise it, then then resurrection is important for orthodox Christians.
---- Jane: so? He also wasn't condemning the practice.
2Nephi 5:21 talks of skin of blackness.
--- Jane: to differenate these 2 families (Lamen and Lemual) from the others in 600 BC. This does not mean that these families were always destined to be evil, in fact their are many times they were more righteous than the "white" Nephities. Case and point: how did the Nephites handle Samuel the Lamenite preaching of Christ?
In a way it's very similar to the legacy we face from the Tower of Babel: we still all speak different languages as a legacy there, but that does not mean we are evil at all.
Also note: 2Nephi 5:21 has nothing to do with what we call "black" people, aka those of African descent.
Word of Wisdom
• Initially a principle however now a commandment required to enter the temple. Wines mentioned as a medicinal use in Luke 10:34, Paul advised Timothy to take to ease stomach pains (1 Tim 5:23)
---- Jane: changes in medicine. We have much more effective medicine for stomach pains nowadays. There is no reason to get involved with alcohol.
Nature of God/Polytheism
• Eternal Progression contradicts Isaiah 43:10
---- Jane: When a person becomes exalted, they become ONE with Christ, even as He is ONE with the Father. They will all be ONE. No contradiction with Isaiah 43:10.
• JS accused of doublethink -holding two contradicting beliefs. Started as one God and then after BoA become plural Gods.
---- Jane: There is ONE God, but multiple persons are in that ONE God. For example, when the Son and the Father are talking, you could say that the "Gods" are talking, though we don't commonly do that. God is also referred to as plural in the Bible, such as Genesis 1:26. In the original Hebrew "Elohim" is plural.
• Jesus was created however in the genesis account of the creation “In the beginning was the Word” (The Word being Jesus)
--- Jane: Yes, Christ existed then. As did much else (you don't see anyone saying that these versed say the Spirit didn't exist)
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Deep Shadow can only post on weekends, so be patient with him. Perhaps, since Clear knows about your interest in the Book of Abraham, he will be able to find the time to post within a few days.
That is an absolutely gargantuan topic. As Jane pointed out, we don't really know a whole lot about Central American archeology in general, and because so much of the countryside is densely forested and very damp, it doesn't lend itself as well to archeological digs as the Middle East does. An even bigger problem is that we don't even know precisely where the events in The Book of Mormon took place. Most LDS scholars these days are of the opinion that they took place somewhere in Central America. Still, Central America covers thousands of square miles. If a city has been abandoned for hundreds of years, it could very well never be found. What really drove this point home to me was an experience I had a couple of years ago. My husband grew up in a small town in Central Utah. At the time he was living there (the 1940s), it was a thriving town, a coal camp actually. There were schools, churches,shops, etc. and a fairly good size population. After the coal mines started to dry up, though, people started moving away from the town. My husband's family left in the 1960s. He took me back there in 2014, I think it was. We stood where his house has once been and he pointed out to me where all of the places he could remember had once stood. I was absolutely speechless. There was nothing there! Absolutely nothing! Even the foundations of the buildings were gone. This transformation took place within a period of about 50 years, and in a very dry climate. If you know precisely where to look and what you are looking for, your success rate is going to be a great deal better than if you're just throwing a dart at an area that looks promising and then hoping some very specific evidence will turn up.
I personally don't believe archeologists are ever going to prove that the events described in the Book of Mormon took place. I don't think the cities of Bountiful or Zarahemla are ever going to be discovered. Archeologists like to point out that many ancient cities have been excavated in the Holy Land. Of course they have. If you know that such-and-such a city was "a day's walk south" of some known and still-existing city, you've got at least a decent shot of being able to find it. LDS scholars and archeologists aren't really even trying to "prove" the Book of Mormon is true. They are merely offering evidence that our critics' insistence that "it couldn't be true" are false. Fifty years ago, it was claimed that The Book of Mormon couldn't be true because "such and such" didn't exist in the New World until after the Spanish conquest. Since then, many of the items that supposedly didn't exist until the first Europeans arrived have actually been discovered in the Americas and have been dated to a time earlier than the conquest. No, none of this proves The Book of Mormon to be true, but it does prove the critics to be wrong about their assumptions regarding certain items. To me, that's at least worth noting.
Speaking of something along the lines of archeological evidence, I'm just going to give you one very brief example of something that I personally found to be interesting.
The Book of Mormon, was translated by Joseph Smith, Jr., then a 23-year old boy with a third-grade education. His background was in farming. He lived in rural New York state in 1830 and had no knowledge of ancient cultures, either American or Middle-eastern. Joseph claimed that the record he translated was written on plates that had the appearance of gold. They were etched with strange characters which resembled Egyptian hieroglyphics and were bound together using metal rings, like a book. They had been stored in a large stone box and buried for centuries in a hillside near his home. When Joseph described these plates, he immediately became the laughing stock of upstate New York. Egyptian letters engraved on gold plates and hidden in a stone box! How could anything be so ludicrous? No one had ever heard of such a thing, and so of course it was dismissed as not only far-fetched but as virtually impossible.
Now, jump forward almost 100 years. In 1933, the Plates of Darius I were discovered in a stone box in a palace in Persia. They dated from about the same time as the earliest Book of Mormon plates. Half of the plates were gold and half were silver. They were very similar in appearance to the plates Joseph Smith had described. Since then, a number of other ancient records have been discovered -- all of them written on metal plates, and many deposited in stone boxes. They are on display at museums throughout the world (Chicago, Tehran, Lima, Rome, and Paris). Don't make the mistake of assuming that their content is the same as the content of the plates Joseph Smith translated, because it wasn't. The content, of course, is beside the point. What is significant is that archealogists now know that it was common for ancient people in various parts of the world to record their histories and other important information in this way. Joseph Smith didn't know this, and yet, in spite of all the ridicule, he never changed his story. History has now vindicated his claims in this regard.
I'm going to have to take a break, but I do have a few other points I'd like to share with you.
Last edited:
And even if they did, do you think the city is going to have a sign written in English "Welcome to Zarahemla"?
POST ONE OF TWO
Jane.Doe said “I can tell just from the post who posted this. Suffice it to say her unyielding hateful attitude to everyone else drove me away from CAF for months, severely wounded my opinion of the Catholic people, and caused a several month cancelation of my inter-faith research into Catholicism.” Post # 195
Hi Jane (and others);
One of the things I noticed when I was first investigating the LDS theology and was exposed to a lot of anti-LDS literature and making my way through it is that most of the anti-christian Christianity is aimed outward and does not look closely at itself for exactly the same types of errors it complains about in others. For example, I think it is perfectly fine for that Catholic poster to look at mistakes and weaknesses in LDS members, but it should not avoid then looking at the same types of mistakes and weaknesses in itself.
For example, if one looks historically, at the evolution from the original, small and relatively pure Christian congregation that existed in rome in the beginning and it’s devolution into the later, different type of Christian movement that eventually becomes the Roman Catholic Church, the number, types and amount of corruption is immense.
For example, once the Catholic Bishops start to vie for personal pre-eminence, they almost immediately engage in worldliness, pride and oppression. “Christ called fishermen and tent makers and tax collectors to this supreme authority,” wrote Chrystostom, “but the present clergy simply spit on those who earn their living by daily toil; whereas if someone is devoted to worldly studies, avoids hard work, etc., they receive him with open arms and admiration. Why is it that they pass right by those who have toiled and sweated all their days for the upbuilding of the church to give all the highest church offices to somebody who had never raised a finger to do any work but wasted all his time dabbling in useless, ornamental, worldly learning?”
Even the arguments at Nicaea become contaminated with the desire for pre-eminence and power and influence. For example, the letters in Patrologiae Latinae `13:583-88 indicate the east-west Arian controversy very much part of the terrible struggle for episcopal pre-eminence. It often became a contest, not between theologians arguing for a specific truth, but between individuals vying for power influence and power and using their arguments to demonstrate their rhetorical and debating skills and superior knowledge.
As the church began to accumulate power and riches under the favor of the emperor, Eusebius tells how “some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strifes, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalry, hostility, and hatred to each others, only anxious to assert the government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves.
“But the events that occurred in the intermediate time, besides those already related, I have thought proper to pass by; I mean particularly the circumstances of the different heads of the churches, who from being shepherds of the reasonable flocks of Christ…did not govern in a lawful and becoming manner…[there were] ambitious aspirings of many to office, …great schisms and difficulties industriously fomented by the factions among the new members, against the relics of the church, devising one innovation after another. (Eusebius, Ecclesiatical History, 374-75; Eusebius, De Martyribus Palaestinae 12, in PG 20:1511-14)
THE ALMOST IMMEDIATE TENDENCY TO ABUSE POWER FOR THE GAIN OF PROPERTY, FOR THE INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP AND THE OPRESSION OF THOSE UNWILLING TO CONFORM
Among the clergy, the bishop had all priority, and “any cleric who opposes a bishop in anything must be deposed with all his followers, as having attempted to seize power: he is a rebel. All the laymen who follow him must be excommunicated.” (127 canons of the Apostles 2.22, in PO 8:673)
Almost immediately, they shielded themselves from normal laws by use of their power and position. “Bishops are to be judged by God,” not by men. They are above all human law.” (Pius I, Epistola 1.2, in PG 5:1121. “Laymen are not to be heard if they bring charges [against bishops]….“No bishop may be refuted or accused of anything by the people or by vulgar persons.” “anyone who says a word against [a bishop], the eyese of the Lord, is guilty of the crime of lesemajeste…Those who accuse bishops are slain not by human but by divine agency.” “There is no worse crime than to bring a charge against a priest. The priest may be guilty, but even so, he must be left entirely to the jugement of God. For if all crimes are to be punished in this world, there will be nothing left for the exercise of divine judgment!” Such religious rules rendered the higher orders of priesthood immune to the normal responsibilities and retribution for evil acts.
“Anyone who kills his wife,” a letter of Pius I avers, “and does so entirely without reason must do public penance; but if he is disobedient toward a bishop, let him be anathemized.” (Pius I, Etis, in PG 5:1127)
Such aspirations of individual bishops for power and riches and authority is clearly seen through the rules coming out of synods they held. To decrease inter-bishopric antagonism, in 314 the council of Arles passed a rule that “no bishop should annoy another bishop”
Council of Nicaea, 325 :
Canon 15 Because of great disorder and rioting it will be necessary to abolish the old custom of allowing a bishop, priest, or deacon to move from one city to another. If any presumes to do this , he shall be sent back to the city in which he was ordained.
Canon 16 Priests, deacons, or others living under the canon who frivolously and irresponsibly leave their churches will be forced to return to them by all possible means. If they refuse to return they shall be deposed. If anyone steals a cleric against a bishop’s will and ordained him to serve in his own church, the ordination shall be void.”
Council of Encaeniss (Antioch), a.d. 341
Canon 3 A priests or deacon who moved permanently to another place and ignores his bishop’s appeal to return must lose the right to all office; if he goes to work for another bishop he must be punished to the bargain for breaking church law.
Canon 9 Bishops in every province must understand that the bishop in the metropolis has charge of the whole province because all who have business to transact come from all directions to the metropolis.
Canon 11 Any bishop, priests, or any churchman at all who dares to go to the emperor without a letter from his metropolitan shall be ejected utterly, not only from his church, but from his priesthood…
Canon 16 When a bishop seizes a vacant seat without the okay of a full synod, he must be deposed, even though the people have elected him.
Canon 18 A bishop who cannot take over a church because the congregation will not have him must remain in honor and office but may not meddle in the affairs of the church where he is forces to remain.
Sardika a.d. 347
Canon 1 No bishop ever moves from a larger to a smaller city but only in the other direction (the size of the city increasingly become the measure of ambition and domination).
Canon 2 If it can be proven that a man has bribed parties to stir up a clamor for him as bishop “so to make it seem that the people are actually asking him to be their bishop,” he shall be excommunicated. (the reason such a rule had to be established should be obvious)
Epaon, a.d. 517
Canon 3 If the king acts against us, all bishops will withdraw to monasteries, and no bishop shall stir out again until the king has given peace to each and all bishops alike.
Canon 20 No layman may arrest, question, or punish a cleric without okay of the church. When a cleric appears in court, it must be with okay of his bishop, and no sentence may be passed without the presence of his spiritual superior.
Canon 32 Descendants of church slaves who have found their way back to the original place of their ancestors must be brought back to the church slavery, no matter how long or for how many generations they have been free. (Increasingly, the canons will favor the accumulation of money, property and individual lives)
Paris, a.d. 557
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.
Macon. A.d. 585
Canon 15 Whenever a layman meets a higher cleric, he must bow to him. If both are mounted, the layman must remove his hat. If the layman alone is mounted, he must dismount to greet the cleric.
Jane.Doe said “I can tell just from the post who posted this. Suffice it to say her unyielding hateful attitude to everyone else drove me away from CAF for months, severely wounded my opinion of the Catholic people, and caused a several month cancelation of my inter-faith research into Catholicism.” Post # 195
Hi Jane (and others);
One of the things I noticed when I was first investigating the LDS theology and was exposed to a lot of anti-LDS literature and making my way through it is that most of the anti-christian Christianity is aimed outward and does not look closely at itself for exactly the same types of errors it complains about in others. For example, I think it is perfectly fine for that Catholic poster to look at mistakes and weaknesses in LDS members, but it should not avoid then looking at the same types of mistakes and weaknesses in itself.
For example, if one looks historically, at the evolution from the original, small and relatively pure Christian congregation that existed in rome in the beginning and it’s devolution into the later, different type of Christian movement that eventually becomes the Roman Catholic Church, the number, types and amount of corruption is immense.
For example, once the Catholic Bishops start to vie for personal pre-eminence, they almost immediately engage in worldliness, pride and oppression. “Christ called fishermen and tent makers and tax collectors to this supreme authority,” wrote Chrystostom, “but the present clergy simply spit on those who earn their living by daily toil; whereas if someone is devoted to worldly studies, avoids hard work, etc., they receive him with open arms and admiration. Why is it that they pass right by those who have toiled and sweated all their days for the upbuilding of the church to give all the highest church offices to somebody who had never raised a finger to do any work but wasted all his time dabbling in useless, ornamental, worldly learning?”
Even the arguments at Nicaea become contaminated with the desire for pre-eminence and power and influence. For example, the letters in Patrologiae Latinae `13:583-88 indicate the east-west Arian controversy very much part of the terrible struggle for episcopal pre-eminence. It often became a contest, not between theologians arguing for a specific truth, but between individuals vying for power influence and power and using their arguments to demonstrate their rhetorical and debating skills and superior knowledge.
As the church began to accumulate power and riches under the favor of the emperor, Eusebius tells how “some that appeared to be our pastors, deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strifes, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalry, hostility, and hatred to each others, only anxious to assert the government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves.
“But the events that occurred in the intermediate time, besides those already related, I have thought proper to pass by; I mean particularly the circumstances of the different heads of the churches, who from being shepherds of the reasonable flocks of Christ…did not govern in a lawful and becoming manner…[there were] ambitious aspirings of many to office, …great schisms and difficulties industriously fomented by the factions among the new members, against the relics of the church, devising one innovation after another. (Eusebius, Ecclesiatical History, 374-75; Eusebius, De Martyribus Palaestinae 12, in PG 20:1511-14)
THE ALMOST IMMEDIATE TENDENCY TO ABUSE POWER FOR THE GAIN OF PROPERTY, FOR THE INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP AND THE OPRESSION OF THOSE UNWILLING TO CONFORM
Among the clergy, the bishop had all priority, and “any cleric who opposes a bishop in anything must be deposed with all his followers, as having attempted to seize power: he is a rebel. All the laymen who follow him must be excommunicated.” (127 canons of the Apostles 2.22, in PO 8:673)
Almost immediately, they shielded themselves from normal laws by use of their power and position. “Bishops are to be judged by God,” not by men. They are above all human law.” (Pius I, Epistola 1.2, in PG 5:1121. “Laymen are not to be heard if they bring charges [against bishops]….“No bishop may be refuted or accused of anything by the people or by vulgar persons.” “anyone who says a word against [a bishop], the eyese of the Lord, is guilty of the crime of lesemajeste…Those who accuse bishops are slain not by human but by divine agency.” “There is no worse crime than to bring a charge against a priest. The priest may be guilty, but even so, he must be left entirely to the jugement of God. For if all crimes are to be punished in this world, there will be nothing left for the exercise of divine judgment!” Such religious rules rendered the higher orders of priesthood immune to the normal responsibilities and retribution for evil acts.
“Anyone who kills his wife,” a letter of Pius I avers, “and does so entirely without reason must do public penance; but if he is disobedient toward a bishop, let him be anathemized.” (Pius I, Etis, in PG 5:1127)
Such aspirations of individual bishops for power and riches and authority is clearly seen through the rules coming out of synods they held. To decrease inter-bishopric antagonism, in 314 the council of Arles passed a rule that “no bishop should annoy another bishop”
Council of Nicaea, 325 :
Canon 15 Because of great disorder and rioting it will be necessary to abolish the old custom of allowing a bishop, priest, or deacon to move from one city to another. If any presumes to do this , he shall be sent back to the city in which he was ordained.
Canon 16 Priests, deacons, or others living under the canon who frivolously and irresponsibly leave their churches will be forced to return to them by all possible means. If they refuse to return they shall be deposed. If anyone steals a cleric against a bishop’s will and ordained him to serve in his own church, the ordination shall be void.”
Council of Encaeniss (Antioch), a.d. 341
Canon 3 A priests or deacon who moved permanently to another place and ignores his bishop’s appeal to return must lose the right to all office; if he goes to work for another bishop he must be punished to the bargain for breaking church law.
Canon 9 Bishops in every province must understand that the bishop in the metropolis has charge of the whole province because all who have business to transact come from all directions to the metropolis.
Canon 11 Any bishop, priests, or any churchman at all who dares to go to the emperor without a letter from his metropolitan shall be ejected utterly, not only from his church, but from his priesthood…
Canon 16 When a bishop seizes a vacant seat without the okay of a full synod, he must be deposed, even though the people have elected him.
Canon 18 A bishop who cannot take over a church because the congregation will not have him must remain in honor and office but may not meddle in the affairs of the church where he is forces to remain.
Sardika a.d. 347
Canon 1 No bishop ever moves from a larger to a smaller city but only in the other direction (the size of the city increasingly become the measure of ambition and domination).
Canon 2 If it can be proven that a man has bribed parties to stir up a clamor for him as bishop “so to make it seem that the people are actually asking him to be their bishop,” he shall be excommunicated. (the reason such a rule had to be established should be obvious)
Epaon, a.d. 517
Canon 3 If the king acts against us, all bishops will withdraw to monasteries, and no bishop shall stir out again until the king has given peace to each and all bishops alike.
Canon 20 No layman may arrest, question, or punish a cleric without okay of the church. When a cleric appears in court, it must be with okay of his bishop, and no sentence may be passed without the presence of his spiritual superior.
Canon 32 Descendants of church slaves who have found their way back to the original place of their ancestors must be brought back to the church slavery, no matter how long or for how many generations they have been free. (Increasingly, the canons will favor the accumulation of money, property and individual lives)
Paris, a.d. 557
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.
Macon. A.d. 585
Canon 15 Whenever a layman meets a higher cleric, he must bow to him. If both are mounted, the layman must remove his hat. If the layman alone is mounted, he must dismount to greet the cleric.
Last edited:
POST TWO OF TWO
Toledo, a.d. 589
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.
Nabonne, a.d. 589
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.
Reims, a.d. 624-625
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)
Toledo, a.d. 633
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.
Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave
Toledo a.d. 638
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”
Toledo a.d. 656
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.
Emerita a.d. 666
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.
Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.
Toledo a.d. 694
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years and must marry Christians. P 130
Boniface a.d. 745
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.
Paderborn a.d. 785
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.
Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.
Lateran IV, a.d. 1215
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as hereticks. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….
The goal of oppression, and gain of riches and control becomes clear as one reviews such canons. I believe that such policies would, over a period of several hundred years, bring to the roman religious movement, the very things such rules and actions were designed to bring to them, power and money and political pre-eminence. As the clergy asserted greater and greater control of government, private life, and family life, the accumulation of power and resources would have happened at an increasing rate.
I believe that there were geopolitical reasons why, historically, the early Roman Christian Religious Movement became increasingly powerful and more influential and assumed greater numbers until the age when such overt policies could not survive in an increasingly educated world where individual freedoms increase to the point that only covert policies can remain active (at least in the more "modern" nations).
However, I should point out this organization that developed their own type of Bishops; their own type of ecclesiastical line of authority; their own methods of reaching prominence and pre-imminence and power; influence and riches, was no longer the same small assembly or “Church of Jesus Christ” Peter and Paul organized, but it had slowly evolved into an entirely different movement in later eras to become “The Roman Catholic Church”.
If we are going to compare moral mistakes, we could certainly compare these Catholic policies, or the Catholic inquisition to the LDS holding back of priesthood from blacks. I think the LDS policies will appear very, very tame in comparison.
If we compare LDS being slow to accept new data to Catholic responses, such as Galileo being punished by the Roman Church for heresy of teaching that the earth moved whereas he is no honored for what has become orthodoxy in the 1900s, then the LDS will come off very well.
One can try to place the concept of believing the bible “as far as it is translated correctly” in a bad light, yet this is perfectly standard among theologians, scholars and translators who deal with mis-translated ancient texts. Even on this point, the comparison to the Catholic response to the Johaninne comma (1 John 5:7-8) is insightful. In response to the scholars discovery that this text was an improper addition to the bible, there was an initial 1897 declaration by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, with the endorsement of Pope Leo XIII that this passage WAS authentic (as it agreed with their doctrine). It took another 40 years for this decision to be reversed. (I do not think the text is claimed by the roman church to be authentic since this time though I do not know this.)
My point is that anti-christian Christianities that write hateful and harmful and dyscontexted things about others typically do not compare their own Christianities nor compare the frailties of their own leadership or history with the frailties of those they complain about.
True_faith13 : Hi, I saw your question re: the book of Abraham and will get to it later. I simply wanted to make the above comment regarding the Catholic who complained the LDS didn't give priesthood to all males, and that complained that we don't accept mistranslated text as accurate.
Clear
φιτζφιειω
Toledo, a.d. 589
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.
Nabonne, a.d. 589
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.
Reims, a.d. 624-625
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)
Toledo, a.d. 633
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.
Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave
Toledo a.d. 638
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”
Toledo a.d. 656
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.
Emerita a.d. 666
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.
Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.
Toledo a.d. 694
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years and must marry Christians. P 130
Boniface a.d. 745
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.
Paderborn a.d. 785
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.
Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.
Lateran IV, a.d. 1215
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as hereticks. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….
The goal of oppression, and gain of riches and control becomes clear as one reviews such canons. I believe that such policies would, over a period of several hundred years, bring to the roman religious movement, the very things such rules and actions were designed to bring to them, power and money and political pre-eminence. As the clergy asserted greater and greater control of government, private life, and family life, the accumulation of power and resources would have happened at an increasing rate.
I believe that there were geopolitical reasons why, historically, the early Roman Christian Religious Movement became increasingly powerful and more influential and assumed greater numbers until the age when such overt policies could not survive in an increasingly educated world where individual freedoms increase to the point that only covert policies can remain active (at least in the more "modern" nations).
However, I should point out this organization that developed their own type of Bishops; their own type of ecclesiastical line of authority; their own methods of reaching prominence and pre-imminence and power; influence and riches, was no longer the same small assembly or “Church of Jesus Christ” Peter and Paul organized, but it had slowly evolved into an entirely different movement in later eras to become “The Roman Catholic Church”.
If we are going to compare moral mistakes, we could certainly compare these Catholic policies, or the Catholic inquisition to the LDS holding back of priesthood from blacks. I think the LDS policies will appear very, very tame in comparison.
If we compare LDS being slow to accept new data to Catholic responses, such as Galileo being punished by the Roman Church for heresy of teaching that the earth moved whereas he is no honored for what has become orthodoxy in the 1900s, then the LDS will come off very well.
One can try to place the concept of believing the bible “as far as it is translated correctly” in a bad light, yet this is perfectly standard among theologians, scholars and translators who deal with mis-translated ancient texts. Even on this point, the comparison to the Catholic response to the Johaninne comma (1 John 5:7-8) is insightful. In response to the scholars discovery that this text was an improper addition to the bible, there was an initial 1897 declaration by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, with the endorsement of Pope Leo XIII that this passage WAS authentic (as it agreed with their doctrine). It took another 40 years for this decision to be reversed. (I do not think the text is claimed by the roman church to be authentic since this time though I do not know this.)
My point is that anti-christian Christianities that write hateful and harmful and dyscontexted things about others typically do not compare their own Christianities nor compare the frailties of their own leadership or history with the frailties of those they complain about.
True_faith13 : Hi, I saw your question re: the book of Abraham and will get to it later. I simply wanted to make the above comment regarding the Catholic who complained the LDS didn't give priesthood to all males, and that complained that we don't accept mistranslated text as accurate.
Clear
φιτζφιειω
Last edited:
Truth,
On CAF I saw you mention the Real Presence. I'm going to talk about that for a moment (totally off topic for here, I admit)--
From my limited understanding of Catholicism, it is believed that the wafer and wine turn literally turn into the flesh and blood of Christ. Due to this transformation, they are able to enact a change in the partaker. Contrasting to this, majority of Protestants do not believe the Lord's Supper literally turns into anything, nor does in make a change in the partaker. Rather most Protestants partake of the Lord's Supper simply in memory of Him.
Neither of these views encapsulates the LDS view. Christ is present when a person partakes of the sacrament, but it's not because the bread turned into flesh. Rather, we partake of the blessed sacrament and through it renew all our covenants with Christ. In effect, every Sunday we are being re-baptised and re-confirmed. This is a huge change in us made possible because of Christ.
On CAF I saw you mention the Real Presence. I'm going to talk about that for a moment (totally off topic for here, I admit)--
From my limited understanding of Catholicism, it is believed that the wafer and wine turn literally turn into the flesh and blood of Christ. Due to this transformation, they are able to enact a change in the partaker. Contrasting to this, majority of Protestants do not believe the Lord's Supper literally turns into anything, nor does in make a change in the partaker. Rather most Protestants partake of the Lord's Supper simply in memory of Him.
Neither of these views encapsulates the LDS view. Christ is present when a person partakes of the sacrament, but it's not because the bread turned into flesh. Rather, we partake of the blessed sacrament and through it renew all our covenants with Christ. In effect, every Sunday we are being re-baptised and re-confirmed. This is a huge change in us made possible because of Christ.
True_Faith13 said : I haven't actually read the Book of Abraham myself, my question stems from critical websites one of which reads..”
Rather than gain information from “critical websites”, you should actually read the Book of Abraham yourself. Your base information is incorrect and thus your conclusions will be faulty. For example :
True_Faith13 said : “the original Papyri have been examined by both LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists”
This is incorrect. The original “long scroll” was never found and only small portions of other papyri were found (they were thought to have been destroyed in fire) and it is THESE portions that were portions of the book of the dead.
True_Faith13 said they : “have nothing to do with Abraham or anything mentioned in the LDS scripture”
This is incorrect. The book of the dead, in it’s multiple forms, contains multiple themes that parallel both ancient judeo-christian theology as well as restored versions of that ancient theology.
True_Faith13 said : “the Book of Abraham cannot have been translated from the scrolls as Joseph Smith claims and is therefore a false book of scripture.”
This is incorrect : As I mentioned, you do not have the original scrolls to compare source for the Actual Book of Abraham. Secondly, the theology inside the book parallels ancient Judeo-Christian religion. It would not damage either ancient Judeo-Christian theology nor would it damage a restoration of ancient theology if scrolls did not match.
Consider the ancient theology itself. For example, 1) the Pre-existence of spirits of mankind. 2) Jesus as a pre-eminent spirit, chosen to be the redeemer 3) Life as a moral school that serves as a tutoring in experience in good and evil as a basic preparation of spirits to live in a social heaven, having learned and mastered social rules that support a heavenly existence in harmony and happiness for ever. 4) The existence of a world of spirits after death and before resurrection 5) The concept of a just and varied level of eternal reward 6) Christ as the heir of a kingdom, etc.
None of these early theologies that are present in the various books of Abraham, whether modern or ancient, would be damaged in the slightest even if the Book of Abraham did not exist. The Book of Abraham is simply a better and more clear version of the ancient texts.
Even if Joseph Smith had never lived, and had never brought early Judeo-Christian doctrines to modern consciousness, the ongoing discoveries of ancient historical religion, their doctrines and their texts would still indicate what early Judeo-Christian doctrines were. And importantly, these early doctrines parallel those of the Book of Abraham. You mentioned you’ve never read the Book of Abraham. Read it BEFORE you read the anti-literature.
More of the earliest Judeo-Christian texts have been discovered in the 19th century than in all other centuries combined. Almost all have come into modern knowledge and into English translation only after Smith died. Yet, their theology matches his. How does one create thousands of matching discrete parallels to ancient theology, without source documents or revelation?
For examples :
In Josephs version of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith correctly places Abraham into a milieu of Idolatry.
He correctly describes Abraham’s FATHER’S worship of idols.
He describes the construction of idols (including both stone AND wooden idols)
He includes the theme of children being sacrificed.
He points out that those who will not worship idols were killed.
He includes the theme of Abraham himself being brought to be killed or sacrificed.
He includes the association of Terah with the attempt to kill Abraham.
He includes the binding of Abraham.
He includes the theme of Abraham being rescued by an angel (or by God) from death
He includes the little known theme that altar and idols were destroyed (though Islam has history on this subject)
He includes subtle details regarding Abraham’s prayer to be saved.
Joseph includes the details regarding Abraham being heir to the Priesthood.
He correctly links Abraham to Noah ( other than historians, how many know of this connection?)
He included the “smiting” of the priest who was to kill abraham.
He includes the improbable (yet authentic) history of Abraham’s knowledge of astronomy (including the details of having learned from ancient records and from God’s teaching.
He includes the relatively unknown traditions about Abraham having taught astronomy.
He includes Abrahamic knowledge regarding the creation of the universe and this world.
He includes Abraham’s claim to have records of the ancients.
He includes a claim that Abraham left his own records for others.
He includes the almost unknown (even today) history of the founding of Egypt.
He includes the rare tradition of the Abrahamic Pharoah’s descent from Ham and Canaan.
He even includes the tradition of Abraham having sat on a king’s throne.
AND WE’VE NOT LEFT THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM. Read the book before you read the anti-mormon literature.
Regarding the facsimiles :
You say Egyptologists disagree with Joseph’s translation. While this is true, your source failed to point out that the Egyptologists disagree with eachs others translation. They all thought each other were interpreting it incorrectly.
It is a comedy of errors when you look at their own attempt to interpret the facsimiles. For example, if one considers just one of the elements in Facsimile #1, the “Bird”. One modern Egyptologist (quoted by watchmen) says the bird is “The spirit or “ba” of Hor (The deceased fellow)” but Deveria disagrees and says the bird is “the soul of Osiris under the form of a hawk. Spaulding also accepts Deverias authority. Petrie disagrees and says the bird “is the hawk Horus”. Breasted disagrees with all of them and says the bird represents “Isis” in the hawk form. Sayce, mace, and Mercer were either unable or unwilling to commit to a meaning of anything in the facsimile.
The point is that none of them agree with each other on the simplest item in the facsimile.
The second point is that the claim for the facsimile is that it is a Hebraic story about Abraham, and is a Hebrew redaction. This creates problems for someone who is trying to force an egyptian meaning onto a Hebrew redaction. The initial Egyptologists scanned the facsimile and declared it is just like countless thousands of others that have been discovered. However, it is different, and not a single other equivalent one has been found. Not one.
I pointed out some of the underlying issues to Watchmen and Prestor john as we discussed the Book of Abraham as follows :
The problem with discussions about faulty premises using faulty historical premises about faulty data that create faulty conclusions
For example, readers have already seen that none of the Egyptian specialists agree on even the first symbol labeled in the facsimile. Watchmen himself, gave us the incorrect interpretation of the simple first symbol. A symbol that is incorrectly interpreted cannot then be applied as a standard for a correct translation. This is another advantage of using the known and objective and quite historical Apocalype of Abraham or other known ancient documents as a standard for testing. This is good historical research. What you two are attempting cannot come to any conclusion as the many, many, many examples of other historians who have tried it have shown….
The egyptian experts are looking at egyptian. They cannot tell you about a hebraism or hebraic story in hebraic idiom. Why not look at hebraic sources?
The problem with avoiding placing hebraisms into their correct historical context is that regardless of the language they appear in, that they may not be correct unless placed in their original context.
For example, when Nephi calls individuals “ye uncircumcised of heart”. It is a Hebraism. It is not correct modern english idiom. If I say to a friend “Jim, you are really uncircumcised of lips.” It is poor English and he may not know what in the world I am saying. If I tell a teen-age son : “John, you are uncircumcised of ears!”, similarly he may assume I meant something else since the phrase doesn’t make sense in English. However these are all perfectly good Hebrew.
The Hebrew term ערל (Ahrael) does mean uncircumcised, but it also means “profane”. I can describe someone as . aral se’fata’yim (uncirmcumcized of lips, meaning dull of speech, hesitating or stammering speech or profane speech, depending upon the context. However I cannot generally use the phrase in English and retain accurate meaning. In context of profane or profanity, one can use the term to refer to the ear (i.e. listening to profame music) or to the heart (thinking profane thoughts or unbelieving) or to the lips (referring to profane speech). When david speaks of Goliath as “this uncircumcised philistine" David was not speaking of somehow knowing Goliath had no foreskin. When Isaiah speaks of Jerusalem, the holy city and says “henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean” he is not speaking of only Jews entering. He is simply using a hebrew doublet. Circumcision, in this case, means unclean (the profane and unholy). (Isaiah 52:1)
The point is, your debate about what is “good Egyptian” has nothing to do with a group of hebraisms using Egyptian symbology. If you say a hebraism is "bad egyptian" the historian will reply, "so what? it's not egyptian, it is hebraic!". Similarly, your debate efforts will be wasted unless you place your debate and it’s elements on some sort of objective historical context rather than continue to debate outside of historical context."
Read the book of Abraham and compare it to a know ancient document that covers similar theology and see how they compare. For example, the Apocalypse of Abraham was composed approx 70-150 a.d. It was not discovered until long after Joseph Smiths death. Why don’t you compare the two and compare the parallels to known ancient theology. One version of the ancient book is found at http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/Apocalypse_of_Abraham.html . Compare it to Josephs version and see the parallels (This means you are going to have to read it first).
If you then make similar studies to the enochs from the dead sea scrolls and other versions; comparisons to all early Judeo-Christian ascension and decensus literature; to early Judeo-Christian diaries; to early lectionaries; to early hymns (e.g. the pearl), to early synagogal prayers, etc. what you will find is that all of this early literature have great and distinct parallels to restorative theology. And, after all, that is the claim Joseph Smith made, that he was restoring the early and more original doctrines.
In any case, I wish you the best of spiritual journeys.
Clear
φιτζσεδρω
Rather than gain information from “critical websites”, you should actually read the Book of Abraham yourself. Your base information is incorrect and thus your conclusions will be faulty. For example :
True_Faith13 said : “the original Papyri have been examined by both LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists”
This is incorrect. The original “long scroll” was never found and only small portions of other papyri were found (they were thought to have been destroyed in fire) and it is THESE portions that were portions of the book of the dead.
True_Faith13 said they : “have nothing to do with Abraham or anything mentioned in the LDS scripture”
This is incorrect. The book of the dead, in it’s multiple forms, contains multiple themes that parallel both ancient judeo-christian theology as well as restored versions of that ancient theology.
True_Faith13 said : “the Book of Abraham cannot have been translated from the scrolls as Joseph Smith claims and is therefore a false book of scripture.”
This is incorrect : As I mentioned, you do not have the original scrolls to compare source for the Actual Book of Abraham. Secondly, the theology inside the book parallels ancient Judeo-Christian religion. It would not damage either ancient Judeo-Christian theology nor would it damage a restoration of ancient theology if scrolls did not match.
Consider the ancient theology itself. For example, 1) the Pre-existence of spirits of mankind. 2) Jesus as a pre-eminent spirit, chosen to be the redeemer 3) Life as a moral school that serves as a tutoring in experience in good and evil as a basic preparation of spirits to live in a social heaven, having learned and mastered social rules that support a heavenly existence in harmony and happiness for ever. 4) The existence of a world of spirits after death and before resurrection 5) The concept of a just and varied level of eternal reward 6) Christ as the heir of a kingdom, etc.
None of these early theologies that are present in the various books of Abraham, whether modern or ancient, would be damaged in the slightest even if the Book of Abraham did not exist. The Book of Abraham is simply a better and more clear version of the ancient texts.
Even if Joseph Smith had never lived, and had never brought early Judeo-Christian doctrines to modern consciousness, the ongoing discoveries of ancient historical religion, their doctrines and their texts would still indicate what early Judeo-Christian doctrines were. And importantly, these early doctrines parallel those of the Book of Abraham. You mentioned you’ve never read the Book of Abraham. Read it BEFORE you read the anti-literature.
More of the earliest Judeo-Christian texts have been discovered in the 19th century than in all other centuries combined. Almost all have come into modern knowledge and into English translation only after Smith died. Yet, their theology matches his. How does one create thousands of matching discrete parallels to ancient theology, without source documents or revelation?
For examples :
In Josephs version of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith correctly places Abraham into a milieu of Idolatry.
He correctly describes Abraham’s FATHER’S worship of idols.
He describes the construction of idols (including both stone AND wooden idols)
He includes the theme of children being sacrificed.
He points out that those who will not worship idols were killed.
He includes the theme of Abraham himself being brought to be killed or sacrificed.
He includes the association of Terah with the attempt to kill Abraham.
He includes the binding of Abraham.
He includes the theme of Abraham being rescued by an angel (or by God) from death
He includes the little known theme that altar and idols were destroyed (though Islam has history on this subject)
He includes subtle details regarding Abraham’s prayer to be saved.
Joseph includes the details regarding Abraham being heir to the Priesthood.
He correctly links Abraham to Noah ( other than historians, how many know of this connection?)
He included the “smiting” of the priest who was to kill abraham.
He includes the improbable (yet authentic) history of Abraham’s knowledge of astronomy (including the details of having learned from ancient records and from God’s teaching.
He includes the relatively unknown traditions about Abraham having taught astronomy.
He includes Abrahamic knowledge regarding the creation of the universe and this world.
He includes Abraham’s claim to have records of the ancients.
He includes a claim that Abraham left his own records for others.
He includes the almost unknown (even today) history of the founding of Egypt.
He includes the rare tradition of the Abrahamic Pharoah’s descent from Ham and Canaan.
He even includes the tradition of Abraham having sat on a king’s throne.
AND WE’VE NOT LEFT THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM. Read the book before you read the anti-mormon literature.
Regarding the facsimiles :
You say Egyptologists disagree with Joseph’s translation. While this is true, your source failed to point out that the Egyptologists disagree with eachs others translation. They all thought each other were interpreting it incorrectly.
It is a comedy of errors when you look at their own attempt to interpret the facsimiles. For example, if one considers just one of the elements in Facsimile #1, the “Bird”. One modern Egyptologist (quoted by watchmen) says the bird is “The spirit or “ba” of Hor (The deceased fellow)” but Deveria disagrees and says the bird is “the soul of Osiris under the form of a hawk. Spaulding also accepts Deverias authority. Petrie disagrees and says the bird “is the hawk Horus”. Breasted disagrees with all of them and says the bird represents “Isis” in the hawk form. Sayce, mace, and Mercer were either unable or unwilling to commit to a meaning of anything in the facsimile.
The point is that none of them agree with each other on the simplest item in the facsimile.
The second point is that the claim for the facsimile is that it is a Hebraic story about Abraham, and is a Hebrew redaction. This creates problems for someone who is trying to force an egyptian meaning onto a Hebrew redaction. The initial Egyptologists scanned the facsimile and declared it is just like countless thousands of others that have been discovered. However, it is different, and not a single other equivalent one has been found. Not one.
I pointed out some of the underlying issues to Watchmen and Prestor john as we discussed the Book of Abraham as follows :
The problem with discussions about faulty premises using faulty historical premises about faulty data that create faulty conclusions
For example, readers have already seen that none of the Egyptian specialists agree on even the first symbol labeled in the facsimile. Watchmen himself, gave us the incorrect interpretation of the simple first symbol. A symbol that is incorrectly interpreted cannot then be applied as a standard for a correct translation. This is another advantage of using the known and objective and quite historical Apocalype of Abraham or other known ancient documents as a standard for testing. This is good historical research. What you two are attempting cannot come to any conclusion as the many, many, many examples of other historians who have tried it have shown….
The egyptian experts are looking at egyptian. They cannot tell you about a hebraism or hebraic story in hebraic idiom. Why not look at hebraic sources?
The problem with avoiding placing hebraisms into their correct historical context is that regardless of the language they appear in, that they may not be correct unless placed in their original context.
For example, when Nephi calls individuals “ye uncircumcised of heart”. It is a Hebraism. It is not correct modern english idiom. If I say to a friend “Jim, you are really uncircumcised of lips.” It is poor English and he may not know what in the world I am saying. If I tell a teen-age son : “John, you are uncircumcised of ears!”, similarly he may assume I meant something else since the phrase doesn’t make sense in English. However these are all perfectly good Hebrew.
The Hebrew term ערל (Ahrael) does mean uncircumcised, but it also means “profane”. I can describe someone as . aral se’fata’yim (uncirmcumcized of lips, meaning dull of speech, hesitating or stammering speech or profane speech, depending upon the context. However I cannot generally use the phrase in English and retain accurate meaning. In context of profane or profanity, one can use the term to refer to the ear (i.e. listening to profame music) or to the heart (thinking profane thoughts or unbelieving) or to the lips (referring to profane speech). When david speaks of Goliath as “this uncircumcised philistine" David was not speaking of somehow knowing Goliath had no foreskin. When Isaiah speaks of Jerusalem, the holy city and says “henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean” he is not speaking of only Jews entering. He is simply using a hebrew doublet. Circumcision, in this case, means unclean (the profane and unholy). (Isaiah 52:1)
The point is, your debate about what is “good Egyptian” has nothing to do with a group of hebraisms using Egyptian symbology. If you say a hebraism is "bad egyptian" the historian will reply, "so what? it's not egyptian, it is hebraic!". Similarly, your debate efforts will be wasted unless you place your debate and it’s elements on some sort of objective historical context rather than continue to debate outside of historical context."
Read the book of Abraham and compare it to a know ancient document that covers similar theology and see how they compare. For example, the Apocalypse of Abraham was composed approx 70-150 a.d. It was not discovered until long after Joseph Smiths death. Why don’t you compare the two and compare the parallels to known ancient theology. One version of the ancient book is found at http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/Apocalypse_of_Abraham.html . Compare it to Josephs version and see the parallels (This means you are going to have to read it first).
If you then make similar studies to the enochs from the dead sea scrolls and other versions; comparisons to all early Judeo-Christian ascension and decensus literature; to early Judeo-Christian diaries; to early lectionaries; to early hymns (e.g. the pearl), to early synagogal prayers, etc. what you will find is that all of this early literature have great and distinct parallels to restorative theology. And, after all, that is the claim Joseph Smith made, that he was restoring the early and more original doctrines.
In any case, I wish you the best of spiritual journeys.
Clear
φιτζσεδρω
Last edited:
Truth_Faith13
Active Member
Please do talk about anything you see on CAF in response to my thread there here! I appreciate your input and advice and there can't be a debate here
Thank-you for this information
I appreciate your understandingPlease do talk about anything you see on CAF in response to my thread there here! I appreciate your input and advice and there can't be a debate here
Thank-you for this information