LDS

[kmortis]

I tried to split out the side conversation as best I could. I put it here.

If I missed a few posts, let me know and I'll move them too.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[pakeha]

Let's face it,arguing with a true believer is like this:

Yes and no.
The discussion is followed by a fair number of people who learn from the many contributions here.
What we haven't seen here is any serious attempt to defend the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, other than the assertions of Janadele.
Does this mean even Mormons recognise the fraudulent nature of the work passed off as a translation by Smith?

 

[Mashuna]

DragonLady, and Nay Sayer: The above is perfectly clear and simple, however, if you really need more explanation follow the link and the references. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/kolob.t1?lang=eng&letter=k

When banished from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve entered the world of mortality where time was reckoned as of our earth time. While within the Garden of Eden the reckoning of time was as the Lord's time, or "eternal" time.

Just to point out the obvious, 1 day = 1000 years isn't actually eternal, it's just a very long time.

 

[Empress]

Yes and no.
The discussion is followed by a fair number of people who learn from the many contributions here.
What we haven't seen here is any serious attempt to defend the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, other than the assertions of Janadele.
Does this mean even Mormons recognise the fraudulent nature of the work passed off as a translation by Smith?

I don't claim to speak for all Mormons, but for my family, and the others I know, they do believe the Book of Abraham to be scripture. I don't recall it ever being talked about much when I was a child: the Bible, BoM and D&C were much more important, but it was never acknowledged as fraudulent.

In fact, I don't know a single Mormon who doesn't hold JS in very high regard and who wouldn't bristle as the allegation he was anything but a godly man. Fallible, yes, but a lying sack of bovine droppings that was perpetrating a preposterous and deliberate frand, no. Charges against him are people who hated the church, etc.

I think that one of the problems is that the Mormon church, with the exception of the highest-ranking members in Utah (prophet, Quorum, etc) are strictly lay. As a result you have people who just interpret the scriptures whichever way they see fit, with no textual scholarship to back them up. This not only makes for some odd interpretations, it also means that since everything tends to be insular, there's no real skeptical viewpoint.

I sat in on a Sunday School class a few years ago when our family had a reunion for my mother's 80th bd and we all went to church with her. It was the first time I'd done that since I was 12, and I was frankly astonished at the complete lack of textual understanding of the Bible. I had learned so much about textual scholarship and the hx of the time when the Bible was written, between childhood and adulthood, and somehow I hadn't quite grasped that these people that I had known then seemed not to have learned anything in the same time frame. It was frankly disheartening. I should have expected it, of course, but I hadn't, and I was really disappointed.

 

[RandFan]

I think that one of the problems is that the Mormon church, with the exception of the highest-ranking members in Utah (prophet, Quorum, etc) are strictly lay. As a result you have people who just interpret the scriptures whichever way they see fit, with no textual scholarship to back them up. This not only makes for some odd interpretations, it also means that since everything tends to be insular, there's no real skeptical viewpoint.

I sat in on a Sunday School class a few years ago when our family had a reunion for my mother's 80th bd and we all went to church with her. It was the first time I'd done that since I was 12, and I was frankly astonished at the complete lack of textual understanding of the Bible. I had learned so much about textual scholarship and the hx of the time when the Bible was written, between childhood and adulthood, and somehow I hadn't quite grasped that these people that I had known then seemed not to have learned anything in the same time frame. It was frankly disheartening. I should have expected it, of course, but I hadn't, and I was really disappointed.

Agreed.

 

[Janadele]

Just to point out the obvious, 1 day = 1000 years isn't actually eternal, it's just a very long time.

This response (and others earlier ) totally misrepresents my previous posts to which it refers.

Time in the Garden of Eden was "eternal" time or in other words the Lord's time ... "a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. "

A thousand years of our earth time, is but a day of the Lords time.

Simple.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/kolob.t1?lang=eng&letter=k

 

[RandFan]

Yes and no.
The discussion is followed by a fair number of people who learn from the many contributions here.
What we haven't seen here is any serious attempt to defend the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, other than the assertions of Janadele.
Does this mean even Mormons recognise the fraudulent nature of the work passed off as a translation by Smith?

Let's make clear, there have been few if any substantive responses.

 

[Akhenaten]

This response (and others earlier ) totally misrepresents my previous posts to which it refers.

Apparently not, since here you are posting exactly the same rubbish again.

As usual.

Time in the Garden of Eden was "eternal" time or in other words the Lord's time ... "a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. "

It's still just as much nonsense as it was the last time.

A thousand years of our earth time, is but a day of the Lords time.

Simple.

As are most fairytales.

 

[RandFan]

A thousand years of our earth time, is but a day of the Lords time.

As are most fairytales.

And they lived happily ever after. There is good money to be made promising people that you can grant them eternal life.

 

[kerikiwi]

This response (and others earlier ) totally misrepresents my previous posts to which it refers.

Time in the Garden of Eden was "eternal" time or in other words the Lord's time ... "a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. "

A thousand years of our earth time, is but a day of the Lords time.

Simple.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/kolob.t1?lang=eng&letter=k

You have just repeated the same stuff. Explain, instead, how it is misrepresented by our pointing out that 1 day equalling one thousand years is not eternal, just a very long time.
Since you find it simple, can you please tell me what the hilited means?

 

[deaman]

This response (and others earlier ) totally misrepresents my previous posts to which it refers.

Time in the Garden of Eden was "eternal" time or in other words the Lord's time ... "a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. "

A thousand years of our earth time, is but a day of the Lords time.

Simple.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/kolob.t1?lang=eng&letter=k

Simply, made up.

 

[Mashuna]

This response (and others earlier ) totally misrepresents my previous posts to which it refers.

Time in the Garden of Eden was "eternal" time or in other words the Lord's time ... "a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. "

A thousand years of our earth time, is but a day of the Lords time.

Simple.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/kolob.t1?lang=eng&letter=k

I refer you to my previous post, which did not misrepresent your previous post.

 

[tsig]

This response (and others earlier ) totally misrepresents my previous posts to which it refers.

Time in the Garden of Eden was "eternal" time or in other words the Lord's time ... "a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. "

A thousand years of our earth time, is but a day of the Lords time.

Simple.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/kolob.t1?lang=eng&letter=k

If god can't even tell time then why depend on him for anything else?

 

[tsig]

And they lived happily ever after. There is good money to be made promising people that you can grant them eternal life.

There's a reason why most movies have a happy ending.

$$$$$

 

[Jon.]

You have just repeated the same stuff. Explain, instead, how it is misrepresented by our pointing out that 1 day equalling one thousand years is not eternal, just a very long time.
Since you find it simple, can you please tell me what the hilited means?

I think that what Janadele is saying is that there are two time scales: earthly/mortal time, and "eternal time." It's not saying that anything is eternal, it's just a name. And while one day of "eternal time" passes, one thousand years of earthly/mortal/normal time passes.

This idea, of course, is based on a completely out-of-context quote mined from a completely unrelated portion of the bible, and leaves out the question of why eternal time would apply in the Garden of Eden when it was apparently on Earth, as well as several other valid questions, but I think it's what Janadele meant. FWIW.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

There's a reason why most movies have a happy ending.

$$$$$

They're porn flicks?

 

[abaddon]

This response (and others earlier ) totally misrepresents my previous posts to which it refers.

Time in the Garden of Eden was "eternal" time or in other words the Lord's time ... "a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. "

A thousand years of our earth time, is but a day of the Lords time.

Simple.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/kolob.t1?lang=eng&letter=k

Rubbish. Regardless of whether a day is 1 year, a thousand years or a million years, Adam is still mortal because gunderscored prevented him from eating from the tree of life. Adam was never immortal. That is what your Babble says.

 

[John Jones]

This response (and others earlier ) totally misrepresents my previous posts to which it refers.

Time in the Garden of Eden was "eternal" time or in other words the Lord's time ... "a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. "

A thousand years of our earth time, is but a day of the Lords time.

Simple.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/kolob.t1?lang=eng&letter=k

A distinction that makes no difference.

 

[Janadele]

I think that what Janadele is saying is that there are two time scales: earthly/mortal time, and "eternal time."... And while one day of "eternal time" passes, one thousand years of earthly/mortal/normal time passes.

Thank you Jon.

 

[Jon.]

Thank you Jon.

You're welcome. Now how about answering some of the questions you've been asked? I'll be happy to help interpret them to others if I think they're being misunderstood.