Iluvatar's top ten

[Mormon Red Death]

Launch into whatever area you like. I at least enjoy it. I have heard what you were saying regarding the papyrii before and i was enjoying hearing what you had to say regarding it.

Personally, I find murky subject in church history appealing as they show the characters involved for who they were. Some are even faith promoting. I think to many people in the church look at past leaders as the catholics look at saints. They were infallible. They were perfect etc... The fact is they weren't. joseph smith was an uneducated man who was given an errand by God that he completed. Doesnt mean he was perfect or always nice. He made several mistakes (just like me and you) and did things that were terribly stupid. Still doesnt change the fact that he was sent from God to start the last dispensation.

[Iluvatar]

Maybe I'm feeling rebuked by the lord. Maybe it's just good old fashioned guilt for messing with people's beliefs. I don't know. Maybe I'll start a new thread addressing Fusnik's questions. What Robin said got me thinking. I don't want to be even partly responsible for people losing their testimonies. Especially when marriages and families might be effected.

I'll think about it...

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

Alkili,

There isn't a secular scholar in the world that would come to the conclusion that JS actually translated the Book of Abraham from ancient Papyri given the body of evidence that we now posess. I'm not going to say any more than this. When people refuse to look at sources besides FARMS, and fairboard, there's no point in further discussion (not saying that this is what you do...I don't know what you've read).

Of course there isn't, the very Idea of it goes against everything they believe in. I just find it intresting that you believe that their information is perfectly correct when they won't even admit it. I don't really care that much where the information came from, I just know that I've tested it and found it to be true. I have found that the information in it is highly testible and highly predictable.

[Archaea]

This thread is interesting, but please enlighten us.

First, who are these people?

If I remember my cursory review of Egyptology, egyptologists tend to develop theories about various dynasties, whether something occurred in upper or lower Egypt, which Pharoah was in power, despite a wealth of evidence we don't have.

I believe you can block out decades where one theorty was espoused, but as soon as just one minor discovery contradicts current theories, they jump ship for the newest theory.

It is also very difficult at times to understand what they are saying. I once started out to learn Egyptian, and now can remember anything but how the N looks. Nonetheless, it devolves into computer data and many other things with which I am not facile.

How many Egyptologists are there in the world? Does anybody know? What volume of information has each reviewed?

Archeology is a very fuzzy science.

2. What is the current theory why the people don't believe Joseph translated anything? At one time, it was because they believed that no documents extant identified the name of Abraham, but now that that has been debunked, what other theories have they employed?

3. You failed to identify with what degree of certainty that we can believe the documents later "recovered" were in fact the Chicago documents claimed to have been used by Joseph Smith.

It seems these scientists haven't disclosed all they know, or also standing on belief, which is fine by me, but I just want the level of certainty disclosed.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This thread is interesting, but please enlighten us.

First, who are these people?

If I remember my cursory review of Egyptology, egyptologists tend to develop theories about various dynasties, whether something occurred in upper or lower Egypt, which Pharoah was in power, despite a wealth of evidence we don't have.

I believe you can block out decades where one theorty was espoused, but as soon as just one minor discovery contradicts current theories, they jump ship for the newest theory.

It is also very difficult at times to understand what they are saying. I once started out to learn Egyptian, and now can remember anything but how the N looks. Nonetheless, it devolves into computer data and many other things with which I am not facile.

How many Egyptologists are there in the world? Does anybody know? What volume of information has each reviewed?

Archeology is a very fuzzy science.

2. What is the current theory why the people don't believe Joseph translated anything? At one time, it was because they believed that no documents extant identified the name of Abraham, but now that that has been debunked, what other theories have they employed?

3. You failed to identify with what degree of certainty that we can believe the documents later "recovered" were in fact the Chicago documents claimed to have been used by Joseph Smith.

It seems these scientists haven't disclosed all they know, or also standing on belief, which is fine by me, but I just want the level of certainty disclosed.

You just explained science in its entirety, we are working with things that we know very little about. Its like someone from 5 thousand years ago that is given a computer. He can push all of the buttons and learn what they do, but he has no idea why it works. He will suggest theories that explain what happens until it gets disproven.

We know very little about anything, sure its a lot more then we knew 200 years ago, but that doesn't make it certain. How long ago were we all sure that the atom was the smallest thing that matter breaks down to.

[All-American]

The reconciliation of a "perfect" religion with imperfect humanity is not a clean one, no matter how much we want it to be.

When it comes to passing judgement on the matter, as we are all expected to do one way or another, what we look for in the end is the answer that best satisfies as many questions as possible. Occum's razor is a beautiful thing. To this day, I cannot find a simpler answer to the things Joseph Smith was able to say and do than to say he was a prophet of God.

This paper I am writing, for example, focuses on similarities of the first Vision of Joseph Smith with those of other prophets. A study of Stephen D. Rick's outlines the narrative call pattern found in the literary accounts of prophetic calls of Old Testament prophets. Joseph Smith's account is NOT an exact match of the Old Testament accounts-- there are several aspects which he does not address in the same manner his ancient counterparts did. His prologue is too long, his imagery is too literal, and so on. The vision of which he give an account, however, matches very closely to the visions of the ancients. Upon looking at these differences, the easiest conclusion to draw is that the boy was seeing something very similar to what ancient prophets saw, but that he was completely unaware of the fact.

You still have that nasty six hundred pages of Book of Mormon as an eternal tormentor to the enemies of Mormonism. There is simply no rational explaination for the work-- Joseph could not have written it. And if that wasn't enough, throw in the Pearl of Great price; now, just for the sake of running up the score, look at what goes on in the Temple. The amount of consistency, complexity, and substantiality of them all lead one to ask, where did this come from?

The question of Mormonism is simply, which explaination of the origins of Mormon scripture, doctrine, practices, and works is the most consistent with the available evidence: that Joseph made it all up, or that he was inspired of God?

The Adam/God theory, polyandry, and blood atonement issues are not insignificant, nor unworthy of study. They are, however, peripheral topics; unless they are studied in the context of the primary issues, they are only going to distract any well-intentioned student. Essentially, one must ask himself if it is more likely that a prophet of God could make several major mistakes, or a deranged bi-polar could churn out theological home runs capable of surviving over a century and a half of intense scrutiny.

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by All-American

The reconciliation of a "perfect" religion with imperfect humanity is not a clean one, no matter how much we want it to be.

When it comes to passing judgement on the matter, as we are all expected to do one way or another, what we look for in the end is the answer that best satisfies as many questions as possible. Occum's razor is a beautiful thing. To this day, I cannot find a simpler answer to the things Joseph Smith was able to say and do than to say he was a prophet of God.

This paper I am writing, for example, focuses on similarities of the first Vision of Joseph Smith with those of other prophets. A study of Stephen D. Rick's outlines the narrative call pattern found in the literary accounts of prophetic calls of Old Testament prophets. Joseph Smith's account is NOT an exact match of the Old Testament accounts-- there are several aspects which he does not address in the same manner his ancient counterparts did. His prologue is too long, his imagery is too literal, and so on. The vision of which he give an account, however, matches very closely to the visions of the ancients. Upon looking at these differences, the easiest conclusion to draw is that the boy was seeing something very similar to what ancient prophets saw, but that he was completely unaware of the fact.

You still have that nasty six hundred pages of Book of Mormon as an eternal tormentor to the enemies of Mormonism. There is simply no rational explaination for the work-- Joseph could not have written it. And if that wasn't enough, throw in the Pearl of Great price; now, just for the sake of running up the score, look at what goes on in the Temple. The amount of consistency, complexity, and substantiality of them all lead one to ask, where did this come from?

The question of Mormonism is simply, which explaination of the origins of Mormon scripture, doctrine, practices, and works is the most consistent with the available evidence: that Joseph made it all up, or that he was inspired of God?

The Adam/God theory, polyandry, and blood atonement issues are not insignificant, nor unworthy of study. They are, however, peripheral topics; unless they are studied in the context of the primary issues, they are only going to distract any well-intentioned student. Essentially, one must ask himself if it is more likely that a prophet of God could make several major mistakes, or a deranged bi-polar could churn out theological home runs capable of surviving over a century and a half of intense scrutiny.

I stopped reading this thread a few pages back, and not for fear of losing my testimony, but am glad I picked it back up to read this post. Well said All-American.

I have never really shied away from anti-mormon or the "difficult" stuff. But at the same time these things have never necessarily piqued my interest. Like Alkili mentioned earlier, I have received personal confirmation in regards to several things. Things I know to be true. I truly believe that Light begets Light. Listening to the prophet, reading the scriptures is Light for me. Coversely studying the anti stuff to me is Dark. Not because it can be heavy or troublesome, but because the feeling I get from them is that of Darkness.

My mission president gave a talk once about Satan. He did so with a few reservations, one so we would understand who we are up against, and two so we wouldn't delve much ourselves into the study of Satan. I asked Mark McConkie if he had studied much about Satan and he admitted he had but had to stop for the same thing I had mentioned above. Light begets Light and Darkness begets Darkness.

[MikeWaters]

a few thoughts:

1. most active members at some point will encounter anti-Mormon ideas or literature. In my case, as an 18 year old, who decided to brush up on arguments I might encounter on my mission, I found it quite disturbing. I was able to sort through all of this, and was lucky to have the opportunity to speak to kindred souls who had had the same questions. Even now, however, there are things that I don't understand, things that I might question. I keep these in a mental "to do" box. I let it marinate. I ponder it. I wait for new information to arise.

Unfortunately some people encouter ideas and it just becomes a pretext for them to do what they want. "Church isn't true? Guess I'll start using drugs and cheating on my wife." You don't have to be Freud to figure out that something else is going on in a situation like this.


2. I don't know if I can really be called a scientist....but I don't have a lot of problems reconciling scientific belief and religious beliefs. I guess part of that is that I don't tend to be terribly literal when it comes to religious explanations of natural phenomena. For example, I don't have a problem with humans being direct descendents from lower primates.

I think the more we learn in science, the more we begin to suspect that there MUST be other life in the universe. And maybe we are related to these other beings in ways we do not understand.

Singular existence is such a brilliant wonderful thing, that the idea that it can be extinguished saddens the soul. How can beings made of mud and earth, unable to completely understand themselves, suppose that there are no extra-earthly connections, no continuance? I think in a way, this sort of universalist faith I am describing, is the default.


3. I think we all have or will face situations where we have to reach deep. Very deep. Where there is no room for rationalization or self-deception. Which side do we fall on? To be a young missionary on a tiny island, far away from medical care, asked to bless a very sick newborn....it is in moments like these where we must reach deep down, where we can't fake it, where we cry out to the cosmos in some way.....and when the cosmos answers back in an inexplicable way.....what is that? That is faith.

I fear no conversation here. What I fear is that I will lose my vigilance and not tend to the things that are important.

[Iluvatar]

So, am I supposed to post 10...somethings?

[Iluvatar]

Alright, I'll bite. Let's discuss the book of Abraham a little further, eh?

Let me preface this by stating for the record that I'm not a troll. I'm not trying to stir anbody up. I'm not picking a fight. I'm not out to bash the church, destroy your testimonies or steal your babies to sacrifice on the alters of the priests of Baal.

If it appears that I'm playing devil's advocate; that's because I am. Someday we'll discuss the finer points of the word of wisdom, the law of chastity or the church's policy on dating. I'm sure we'll all be in complete agreement then. This, however, is not that discussion.

Allow me to revisit some essential aspects of the Book of Abraham story (more for me than you).

1) The church purchased a set of scrolls that JS claimed were the lost teachings of the prophet Abraham, written "by his own hand upon Papyrus." He also claimed that another scroll, purchased at the same time, contained the teachings of the prophet Joseph in Egypt.

2) JS claims to have translated the Abraham scroll by means of divine gift/power.

3) These scrolls were thought lost in the Chicago fire. Making scholarly examination impossible.

4) In 1966, many fragments of these lost scrolls were found in the NY Metropolitan Meseum of Art in 1966 (sorry, I originally said it was 1967).

5) When they were finally translated by secular means, they were shown to be common funerary scrolls for a man named Hor.

Mormon apologists argue that the recovered scrolls were not the ones used in JS's translation. I belive they are wrong. Here's why.

Found with the scroll fragments was a bill of sale, signed By Emma Smith (Bidamin). Experts all agree that it was indeed her handwriting. This alone would link it conclusively to the prophet. But that's not all. There were maps of the temple grounds at Kirkland drawn on the back of the piece of parchment that Joseph used to repair a piece of scroll fragment.

Moreover the fragment used to construct facsimile #1 WAS indeed found. There is no arguing this point. JS had glued it to a seperate sheet of parchment and attempted, rather clumsily, to recreate the missing portions of the fragment. This is very important, because facsimile #1 was an integral part of the story found in The Book of Abraham.

Read Abraham, 1:12-15. These versess were taken directly from JS's translation of facsimile #1. So we can say quite confidently that at least part of the translation came from the "Book of the Breathing" scrolls that were recovered in 1966.

Moreover, there was a fragment that JS had removed from the Facsimile #1 fragment. This fragment was given the name "little Senen", and it was covered with a series of heiratics thatappeared to be unrelated to the translation at the time of their rediscovery. Several years later, however, a discovery was made int the archives of the church called JS's egyptian alphabet and grammar (or something to that effect). Historians and scholars quickly determied that the Alphabet and grammar were taken directly (and in precisely the same order) from the "Little Sensen" fragment. Again, nearly nirrefutible proof that JS used the "Book of the Breathings" to translate the Book of Abraham.

There are other far flung theories out there, and I'd be happy to discuss any # of them.

What say you?