Mormon Teachings

[spidergoat]

Anyone heard of the Mormon's magic underpants? Howard Stern reminded me about this phenomenon this week. Apparently, there are special underpants that Mormons wear, and you can't buy them yourself very easily unless you're Mormon.

 

[Marlin]

Historically, Joseph Smith came first, then the Book of Mormon. Just like Christ came first, then the Testimony. If you're not convinced of the legitimacy of God's promise of a messiah and the disciples' acceptance of Jesus' claims, then their testimony will hold no value for you no matter how much it warms your heart to read it. Or if someone doesn't believe God exists, the whole Bible is meaningless no matter what the Israelites went through. And the circumstances surrounding Joseph Smith's revelations are suspicious in a way that the circumstances surrounding Christ weren't. The whole of history imploded upon Jesus, as if creation was prepared for Him even though humanity wasn't; Joseph Smith's gospel throws doubt on His legacy just too readily - it tries to build on something it distrusts inherently. I'm not sure whether this is a good argument or not, but something definitely picks at the back of my mind. It's as if he's saying "trust me, God failed; I'm your only hope" - he stands central, the Book of Mormon is just his passport into your life, after which the rest of his gospel is smuggled through "unoffically".

As I predicted, you are coming up with more excuses why not to read the Book of Mormon. And once again I will say,

Once again, I must say this: if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and the Church he founded is true. So if you would just read the Book of Mormon, study it, and pray about it, you can know for yourself whether it is true or not.

 

[Marlin]

Anyone heard of the Mormon's magic underpants? Howard Stern reminded me about this phenomenon this week. Apparently, there are special underpants that Mormons wear, and you can't buy them yourself very easily unless you're Mormon.

Sacred Garments

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Once again, I must say this: if the Book of Mormon is true,

that's a mighty "BIG" IF, if the BoM was on trial on whether it was a true history or if it was an accurate description of life on this hemisphere; it would fail, no proof, no relics, no ruins, no peoples, no anything but that "warm fuzzy" burning in the bosom. the only court it would stand up in is in California, which has its share of "warm fuzzy" thinking, hahahahahaha

then Joseph Smith was a true prophet,

& thats the only reason mormons defend the BoM, even though curiously, they don't seem to take any major tenet or core beliefs from it, almost as if mormons didn't believe the BoM either?

and the Church he founded is true.

the great apostasy includes churches like LDS, JW's, Word of Faith, & mainline churches that are "warm fuzzy" about homosexuality, abortion, the truth of the Bible & whether Jesus is Who He states He Is.

 

[Halcyon]

Marlin, if I could have your attention for a moment, could you tell me briefly where the Book Of Abraham came from?

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Marlin, if I could have your attention for a moment, could you tell me briefly where the Book Of Abraham came from?

its not fair to hit a mormon with a one, two punch,
BoM to the head, POW!
BoA to the chin, OOF!

he's down!!!

One!,

Two!

glassy eyed, he shakes his head, a little wobbly, is he going to stand up, throw in the towel or come back roaring ala Rocky?

is he down for the count?

boxing fans scream, Marlin! Marlin! MARLIN!!!
pandamonium ERUPTS

 

[Marlin]

Marlin, if I could have your attention for a moment, could you tell me briefly where the Book Of Abraham came from?

The Book of Abraham is a translation of some papyri that fell into the hands of Joseph Smith. He translated it through the gift and power of God, and it is part of the LDS "Pearl of Great Price" book of scripture.

 

[Clockwood]

LDS: Wacky history but some pretty decent social policy. At least considering what other religions demand.

 

[Halcyon]

The Book of Abraham is a translation of some papyri that fell into the hands of Joseph Smith. He translated it through the gift and power of God, and it is part of the LDS "Pearl of Great Price" book of scripture.

Does the Mormon church aknowledge the same source of the papyri that exists as a matter of public record? Ie; does the church say it came from the same place that Joeseph Smith's records and other public records say it came from? This may seem like an oddly phrased question, but there are many instances of public record and records created by the church and it's members that the church no longer recognizes.

 

[Marlin]

Does the Mormon church aknowledge the same source of the papyri that exists as a matter of public record? Ie; does the church say it came from the same place that Joeseph Smith's records and other public records say it came from? This may seem like an oddly phrased question, but there are many instances of public record and records created by the church and it's members that the church no longer recognizes.

I honestly don't know; I would say that probably the Church does acknowledge Joseph Smith's records, but don't take that for gospel truth (I just am not sure--the gap is in my knowledge, not the Church's).

 

[WildBlueYonder]

The Book of Abraham is a translation of some papyri that fell into the hands of Joseph Smith. He translated it through the gift and power of God, and it is part of the LDS "Pearl of Great Price" book of scripture.

The biggest problem with the BoA, is that it is a forgery, Joe Smith didn’t know Egyptian, reformed or otherwise. Because if he could, the BoA would be still be about Abraham & he would have told the traveling merchant to “keep that specimen, that the papyrus was about the dead “breathing”, a pagan document.” But alas & alack, poor Joe couldn’t read RE, & therefore did not tell the man, “you have a mighty fine example of Egyptian funerary writing here, please take it to the Field Museum in Chicago, it will fetch a mighty fine price thereabouts”.

Because Joe showed himself incapable of translating Egyptian in this easy example, this proves that he could not have translated the BoM either, unless it was in Ga’ould (in as far as it is translated correctly).

Here is a critique:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/abraham.shtml

Frequently, when reading a discussion on the LDS problem of the Book of Abraham, the apologists and critics beat around the bush--confusing the reader. For instance, on a webpage previously housed at BYU, a FARMS author avoids the most obvious question that any LDS person would have regarding Facsimile 2. Did Joseph Smith make an accurate translation of it, and if not, why? Numerous articles have appeared in the Ensign over the years regarding the Book of Abraham. From reading them alone, most members of the church aren't even aware of the fact that there are some serious problems regarding the translation Joseph Smith claimed to make of the Book of Abraham.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/bookofabraham.shtml

As you most certainly know, the Mormon apologists cannot adequately answer the criticisms of The Book of Abraham. For example, in an article (previously on the BYU site and linked from here) with the title "Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham", there is a very weak rebuttal to the charge that Joseph Smith filled in portions of Facsimile No. 2 with nonsense material (copied figures from the book of breathings scraps).

http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm

Joseph Smith said that Facsimile No. 1 was of a bird as the "Angel of the Lord" with "Abraham fastened upon an altar," "being offered up as a sacrifice by a false priest. The pots under the altar were various gods "Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, Pharaoh," etc.
In reality, this is "an embalming scene showing the deceased lying on a lion-couch."2

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Does the Mormon church aknowledge the same source of the papyri that exists as a matter of public record?

probably not, they'll let the faithful fall on their swords first, defending the BoM, BoA, WoW, etc...
that's gotta hurt :bugeye:
http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm

The Papyri are found
To every one’s surprise, in 1966 the papyri were rediscovered in one of the vault rooms of the New York’s metropolitan Museum of Art. The Deseret News of Salt Lake City on Nov. 27, 1967 acknowledged the rediscovery of the papyri. On the back of the papyri were "drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area."1 There could be no doubt that this was the original document from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham.

 

[Marlin]

I'm going to take Randolfo off ignore long enough to say this:

Your sites are all anti-Mormon and thus biased against the Church. By the same logic you used against my pro-Mormon sites, I cannot accept your sites as truthful. Bias works both ways.

 

[Jenyar]

Randolfo's sources refer to external material, like the papyri (which isn't affiliated with anybody and can be independently verified) and the Book of Mormon itself (as regards to its translation). The Mormon sites defend things like the apostasy with specifically Mormon arguments (invent supposed "corruption", and then fill it with Mormon beliefs) with no reference to independent scholarship. The result is that a "Great Apostasy" never happened outside Mormon scholarship, that Reformed Egyptian is never found outside Mormon scholarship, and that the Book of Abraham is only translated correctly within Mormon scholarship. The books of the Bible, on the other hand, can be translated by anyone with knowledge of koine Greek and ancient Hebrew, and its historical landmarks are well attested outside Christian circles.

On top of this, Mormon scholars come to different conclusions:

"All manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament. The events and the great truths contained there are agreed upon by all major manuscripts of the New Testament.

There is more reason today, then, to agree with him [Sir Frederick Kenyon] that we possess the New Testament “in substantial integrity” and to underline that “the variations of text are so entirely questions of detail, not of essential substance.” -- Mormon scholar Richard Lloyd Anderson, Ph.D., quoted by Institute for Religious Research​

(A footnote adds: Anderson was Associate Professor of History and Scripture at BYU. After reviewing the manuscript evidence he concluded that the "many plain and precious parts missing" from the New Testament must refer to whole books that have been lost rather than corruptions to our current New Testament text.)

 

[Marlin]

(Anderson was Associate Professor of History and Scripture at BYU. After reviewing the manuscript evidence he concluded that the "many plain and precious parts missing" from the New Testament must refer to whole books that have been lost rather than corruptions to our current New Testament text.)

Interesting. I never thought of it that way before. Thank you for pointing that out.

As for Randolfo's logic, however, I have to take exception to it. He dismisses every argument I make simply because it comes from "Mormon sources," regardless of how valid it may be. He has formulated his conclusions before (and against) accepting all evidence to the contrary. He is a textbook case of the closed-minded anti-Mormon.

 

[Jenyar]

Interesting. I never thought of it that way before.

Apparently, neither did FARMS. It contradicts their contention that the Apostasy refers to the Bible as we have it, simulatenously making it much more difficult to doubt the integrity of the Bible and casting doubt on the knowledge of the first apostles (who never refer to any missing books in their exortations to remain true to the gospel they accepted - even when they explain that gospel).

 

[Marlin]

It all goes back to the Book of Mormon's veracity: the proof is in the pudding. If the BoM is true, then LDS doctrine is true as well. You can know for yourself if it is true, but you have to make the honest, "with real intent and pure faith" effort or Moroni's promise won't work. Once again I invite you to take Moroni's test, remembering that it must be "with real intent" and an honest, open-minded effort to know the truth. God will tell you in your heart whether it's true or not.

 

[Jenyar]

God told Isreal to test the prophets, not to pray about them. No matter how much I pray about the "pudding", it remains sour. All testing and tasting indicates that it's sour.

Jeremiah 7:16-19 "So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you. Do you not see what they are doing in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger. But am I the one they are provoking? declares the LORD. Are they not rather harming themselves, to their own shame?"​

If God has already said we must not believe any other gospel than the one we received, why should He repeat himself if it's plain to see? Does the Bible say we should pray about the Book of Mormon?

 

[water]

If the BoM is true, then LDS doctrine is true as well.

Why would this follow?

You can know for yourself if it is true, but you have to make the honest, "with real intent and pure faith" effort or Moroni's promise won't work. Once again I invite you to take Moroni's test, remembering that it must be "with real intent" and an honest, open-minded effort to know the truth. God will tell you in your heart whether it's true or not.

And if the answer is "No, the Book of Mormon is not true", then you will say to me that "Then you just haven't prayed with real intent".

 

[Marlin]

Jenyar and water, I can only offer you my assurances that done correctly, Moroni's promise worked for me. It wasn't all at once; rather, it was gradual, over years of studying and reading the Book of Mormon. I testify to you that I know the Book of Mormon is true. I testify that Moroni's promise works.