LDS

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The Book of Mormon is Scripture and LDS Doctrine... and therefore true. All things are possible with the Lord.

See, this is the type of thing that to me, as an outsider, completely misses any form of coherent argument.

My religion is true because the book of my religion says its true.

If you're part of that religion it might make sense, but since every single relgion on earth claims the same thing it lacks any form of strength to convice someone else.

The book of mormon (like every other religious text) contains claims that go contrary to every bit of archeological, physical, genetic or other scientific evidence found or examined. Its nice that you feel you can handwave it away by claiming 'Oh, well everyone else must be wrong', but that's just faith, not reasoning.

What I've never understood is why anyone would willingly follow a god as petty and vindictive as portrayed in the abrahamic religions. One who gives his creations free will and inquistiveness, but then punishes them eternally if they disagree with him, making a mockery of the whole free will thing.
Do you follow him out of love, or because you fear eternal punishment?
And if the first, what exactly IS there to love about your god?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

See, this is the type of thing that to me, as an outsider, completely misses any form of coherent argument.

My religion is true because the book of my religion says its true.

If you're part of that religion it might make sense, but since every single relgion on earth claims the same thing it lacks any form of strength to convice someone else.

The book of mormon (like every other religious text) contains claims that go contrary to every bit of archeological, physical, genetic or other scientific evidence found or examined. Its nice that you feel you can handwave it away by claiming 'Oh, well everyone else must be wrong', but that's just faith, not reasoning.

What I've never understood is why anyone would willingly follow a god as petty and vindictive as portrayed in the abrahamic religions. One who gives his creations free will and inquistiveness, but then punishes them eternally if they disagree with him, making a mockery of the whole free will thing.
Do you follow him out of love, or because you fear eternal punishment?
And if the first, what exactly IS there to love about your god?

Never got that myself. Even the most determined serial killers can't hold a candle to the sheer amount of genocide god has wrought. Add to that with this particular religion the belief that being colored is a curse.

 

[Wolrab]

Where in the BOM does it say an older man can rape marry a 14 year old? Janadele is on record as claiming 18 years old is what age of consent should be. Did god command Joey to boink 14, 16, and 17 year olds? I bet ol' Joester communed long and hard with Big G on that one, with the emphasis on long and hard.

 

[Janadele]

Wolab, There is no need to blaspheme against a Prophet of God, nor is it wise to do so.

Regarding the age of consent, this has historically been at an age lower than what we today expect it to be. Times change, children worked from a young age years ago, took on responsibilities, and married early.

 

[Resume]

Wolab, There is no need to blaspheme against a Prophet of God, nor is it wise to do so.

Wolrab wasn't blaspheming against anything but a con man and convicted fraud. If Smith hadn't connected his confabulation with christianity, the lds would be given as much respect as $cientology. In fact, it probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground in the first place.

Prophet shmophet, Smith's last con was his finest.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Wolab, There is no need to blaspheme against a Prophet of God, nor is it wise to do so.

Yeah, I would have to agree. Not because it's blasphemous or somehow unwise, it's just not very nice.

And Janadele: You realize you're just encouraging Wolab, right?

 

[Vic Vega]

She is defending her faith, which she has every right to do, just as you have every right to question her faith. Is it really your position that she is not entitled to defend her faith but you are entitled to challenge it? If your answer is yes, what is it that you hope to accomplish?

She is obviously defending her faith, however, she isn't interested in meaningful dialog but seems content to look foolish and post nothing but
platitudes. I'm wondering what her purpose here is. Based on her utter unwillingness to answer any questions with anything of substance, I asked RandFan.

Um... I don't hope to accomplish anything. I asked RandFan a question which he answered, so it's already been accomplished.

 

[Cleon]

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=engThe Book of Abraham:

Hi Pakeha,
The Pearl of Great Price is official LDS Scripture.
I find it enlightening, my favourite being Moses.
The Book of Abraham is a part of the Pearl of Great Price.

That would be the Book of Abraham that Smith "translated" from a piece of papyrus that turned out to be nothing more than the Egyptian Book of Breathings - nothing in common whatsoever with the "trnaslation" that Smith concocted.

 

[desertgal]

She is defending her faith, which she has every right to do, just as you have every right to question her faith. Is it really your position that she is not entitled to defend her faith but you are entitled to challenge it? If your answer is yes, what is it that you hope to accomplish?

She isn't defending her faith. She's preaching her faith. There's a difference.

 

[Pup]

Add to that with this particular religion the belief that being colored is a curse.

For what it's worth, a lot of the LDS religion is a time capsule of when it was founded, and the Curse of Ham is part of that. For example, the following is an 1834 commentary on the Bible by a doctor of divinity, printed in Baltimore by a Methodist Protestant church publisher:
http://books.google.com/books?id=l0wXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA565&output=html

The footnote for Joshua 9:23:

Verse 23. Now therefore ye are cursed Does not this refer to what was pronounced by Noah, Gen. ix. 25. against Ham and his posterity? Did not the curse of Ham imply slavery, and nothing else? Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be—and does it not sufficiently appear that nothing else than perpetual slavery is implied in the curse of the Gibeonites? They were brought, no doubt, under tribute; performed the meanest offices for the Israelites, being in the same circumstances with the servile class of Hindoos, called the Chetrees; had their national importance annihilated, and yet were never permitted to incorporate themselves with the Israelites. And we may reasonably suppose, that this was the purpose of God relative to all the Canaanitish nations: those who would not renounce their idolatry, &c. were to be extirpated,—those who did, were to be preserved alive, on condition of becoming tributary, and serving as slaves. See the note on Deut. xx. 17.

The idea was so widespread that Charles Sumner, the abolitionist senator who suffered the curse of cane, brought it up as an example of one of two main arguments for slavery in 1860:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z-dAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA112&output=html

But we have seen that the pretended property in man stands on no reason, while the two special arguments by which it has been asserted, first an alleged inferiority of race, and secondly, the ancient curse of Ham, are grossly insufficient to uphold such a pretension.

The idea of American Indians being one of the lost tribes of Israel had been promoted as a (supposedly) scientific theory of origin by James Adair in the late 18th century and was of widespread interest and speculation into the early 19th. A good summary: http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/07/native-americans-and-lost-tribes-of.html

The Word of Wisdom mimicked current health advice, which explains the curious phrase "hot drinks," which was common then. For example, the following was published by Anthony F. M. Willich, London, 1802, whose advice spread and flourished in America thanks to Sylvester Graham and other similar writers and lecturers:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VJ5bAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA85&output=html

For this reason, we would previously recommend a change of air and diet; early rising in the morning; gentle exercise; abstinence from all hot drinks, particularly tea, punch, and hot broths; fat or hard meat, spirituous liquors, tobacco, &c...

Others in the thread have mentioned the strong influence of Masonic rituals on the church ceremonies.

Polygamy, the one practice that made the church stand out, was actually condemned in the Book of Mormon and seems to be a new development that became useful when Joseph Smith and others wanted it. Jacob Cochrane had already tried to start a polygamous sect, but the 1840s was a time when many experiments involving unusual marriages were going on.

From a modern book about the "free love" Oneida Community which discusses the era a little:
http://books.google.com/books?id=b2SnVuHWIJkC&pg=PR9&output=html

This remarkable community was a product of the turbulent decades of the 1830s and 1840s before the Civil War, when thousands of Americans joined new religious movements that rejected existing marriage and sex-role patterns in favor of alternative life-styles.

So most of the church beliefs seem to be a mixture of what someone might come up with by taking the latest, newest ideas that looked like they were going to be eternal truths in the early 19th century--which of course is what Smith did. They're already starting to get dated, lose their social context and sound strange or inexplicable, since that era is long gone. But it would be like starting a church today, saying that God recommended a low-carb diet, accepted gay marriage and revealed that we once interbred with Neandertals--all revelations that would sound up-to-date to people in the early 21st century, just as Smith's revelations did to people in his day.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Does 'hot drinks' sound odd to modern American ears? It's a perfectly normal phrase to Brits, one we use a lot. Probably because we drink so much tea.

 

[Slowvehicle]

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=engThe Book of Abraham:

Hi Pakeha,
The Pearl of Great Price is official LDS Scripture.
I find it enlightening, my favourite being Moses.
The Book of Abraham is a part of the Pearl of Great Price.
"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)
Chapter 1
Abraham seeks the blessings of the patriarchal order—He is persecuted by false priests in Chaldea—Jehovah saves him—The origins and government of Egypt are reviewed.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

HAM
In the Old Testament, the third son of Noah (Gen. 5:32; 6:10; Moses 8:12, 27).
Noah, his sons, and their families entered the ark, Gen. 7:13
Canaan, Ham’s son, was cursed, Gen. 9:18–25
The government of Ham was patriarchal and was blessed as to things of the earth and wisdom but not as to the priesthood, Abr. 1:21–27
Ham’s wife, Egyptus, was a descendant of Cain; the sons of their daughter Egyptus settled in Egypt, Abr. 1:23, 25 (Ps. 105:23; Ps. 106:21–22).

EGYPTUS
The name of both the wife and a daughter of Ham, the son of Noah. In Chaldean, the name signifies Egypt, or that which is forbidden (Abr. 1:23–25).

What I do not understand is your pretense that there are "no errors". Whether tBoA is "scripture" or not, it was "translated" from hypocephali (common funerary texts); the actual content of which has nothing to do with the material Smith produced. Just like the barley et al. issue, the book makes ahistorical (and anti-historical) claims. How are those "not errors"?

 

[Pup]

Does 'hot drinks' sound odd to modern American ears? It's a perfectly normal phrase to Brits, one we use a lot. Probably because we drink so much tea.

It's not odd in the sense of understanding it means cocoa, tea, coffee, etc., but it's unusual to recommend against them, as a category.

Usually people say, avoid caffeine, which means decaff coffee is fine but iced regular coffee isn't. Or avoid empty calories, which means hot chocolate and cold full-calorie soft drinks are both bad but cold fruit juice and hot soup drunk from a cup are both okay. That kind of thing.

Even Mormons disagree over what hot drinks are, to the point that the church had to release a clarifying statement recently:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54797595-78/church-drinks-caffeine-lds.html.csp

On Wednesday, the LDS Church posted a statement on its website saying that "the church does not prohibit the use of caffeine" and that the faith's health-code reference to "hot drinks" "does not go beyond [tea and coffee]."

A day later, the website wording was slightly softened, saying only that "the church revelation spelling out health practices ... does not mention the use of caffeine."...

[A guy in a small Mormon town recalls] his neighbors and church leaders viewed "drinking a Coca-Cola as so close to drinking coffee that it made your worthiness ... questionable."...

That view was magnified when LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley offhandedly told "60 Minutes" that Mormons avoid caffeine. Several earlier LDS leaders, including apostle Bruce R. McConkie, considered imbibing Coke as a violation of the "spirit" of the Word of Wisdom.

 

[Vic Vega]

She isn't defending her faith. She's preaching her faith. There's a difference.

Interesting thought, but I don't think in her case there is a difference.

She is apparently incapable or unwilling to really defend her faith because she won't make any attempt to respond to any question with a substantive answer.

It's irritating.

 

[Janadele]

Cleon,
Slowvehicle…
Your comments are taken from anti-Mormon literature and have no basis in reality.

Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a hypocephalus (Facsimile 2). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. Critics who claim that we have all, or a majority, of the papyri possessed by Joseph Smith are simply mistaken.

The Egyptian characters on the recovered documents are a portion of the "Book of Breathings," an Egyptian religious text buried with mummies that instructed the dead on how to successfully reach the afterlife. This particular Book of Breathings was written for a deceased man named Hor, so it it usually called the Hor Book of Breathings.

Other than the vignette represented in Facsimile 1, the material on the papyri received by the Church, at least from a standard Egyptological point of view, does not include the actual text of the Book of Abraham.
New Era, January 1968.

 

[Cleon]

Cleon,
Slowvehicle…
Your comments are taken from anti-Mormon literature and have no basis in reality.

Nonsense. My copy of the Pearl of Great Price (2008) has a scan of the supposed "Book of Abraham" papyrii in it. I wonder why they did that if they knew that it wasn't actually the Book of Abraham.

Handwaving these things away as "taken from anti-Mormon literature" doesn't make them any less true. Especially when I've never even read anti-Mormon literature; my statements are from my own reading of the BoM and Pearl of Great Price, which I bought from a local LDS bookstore.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Cleon,
Slowvehicle…
Your comments are taken from anti-Mormon literature and have no basis in reality.

You have made this false accusation before. How poor is your faith, that you must bolster it with lies? Apparently, anything that disagrees with you is 'anti-mormon"...

Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a hypocephalus (Facsimile 2). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. Critics who claim that we have all, or a majority, of the papyri possessed by Joseph Smith are simply mistaken.

...and yet what we do actually have, attested to as part of what Smith "translated", date from a thousand years after the "time of Abraham" and bear no resemblance to what Smith wrote.

The Egyptian characters on the recovered documents are a portion of the "Book of Breathings," an Egyptian religious text buried with mummies that instructed the dead on how to successfully reach the afterlife. This particular Book of Breathings was written for a deceased man named Hor, so it it usually called the Hor Book of Breathings.

...which bears no resemblance to the "text" Smith "translated"...

Other than the vignette represented in Facsimile 1, the material on the papyri received by the Church, at least from a standard Egyptological point of view, does not include the actual text of the Book of Abraham.
New Era, January 1968.

Smith's "explanations" of the facsimilies he himself included in tBoA do not match what the texts actually say. His "translation" of Facsimilie 1 is a complete fabrication. Was he "wrong"? Was he "in error"? Was this included as a test? Or do you claim that the Scroll of Hor actually does record the story of Abraham in Egypt, and that the story is a standard part of Egyptian funerary rites?

 

[jsfisher]

Cleon,
Slowvehicle…
Your comments are taken from anti-Mormon literature and have no basis in reality.

Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a hypocephalus (Facsimile 2). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. Critics who claim that we have all, or a majority, of the papyri possessed by Joseph Smith are simply mistaken.

The Egyptian characters on the recovered documents are a portion of the "Book of Breathings," an Egyptian religious text buried with mummies that instructed the dead on how to successfully reach the afterlife. This particular Book of Breathings was written for a deceased man named Hor, so it it usually called the Hor Book of Breathings.

Other than the vignette represented in Facsimile 1, the material on the papyri received by the Church, at least from a standard Egyptological point of view, does not include the actual text of the Book of Abraham.
New Era, January 1968.

Doesn't plagiarism qualify as a sin? This text you posted, Janadele, isn't original to you.

 

[Janadele]

Cleon: your words: "...- nothing in common whatsoever with the "trnaslation" that Smith concocted." are not from the Pearl of Great Price.

I refer again to my previous post.

 

[Janadele]

jsfisher:
It is from the New Era, as noted.