LDS

[RandFan]

Every scientific "fact" is held scientifically as provisional.

BTW: it's this dynamic of science that pushes toxicological advancement. There is nothing dogmatic. Even the nsturr of gravity, space and time has gone though skepticism, critical thinking and analysis that has let a advancement.

 

[Navigator]

Anyone who inherits (or in any other way obtains) great wealth and doesn't give it to the poor is (a) storing it and (b) not following the teachings of Jesus.

This is a great argument against Christianity NOT following Jesus. It is easy of course to claim you are whatever you want to claim you are.

But claiming you are a 'Christian' should in reality be an admission that you do not follow Jesus.

 

[Navigator]

BTW: it's this dynamic of science that pushes toxicological advancement. There is nothing dogmatic. Even the nsturr of gravity, space and time has gone though skepticism, critical thinking and analysis that has let a advancement.

While science may not be dogmatic as a process, scientist can be dogmatic and take a long time to look at the evidence.
At least I think so.

ETA:

Or have been led to think so.

 

[Cleon]

We laugh at those errors today, but it's just possible that 50 years from now people will be laughing at some of what science tells us today. We may not know what we think we know. Moreover, it's possible that the BoM may be vindicated. I'm not saying that it will be; I'm saying that it's a possibility. To claim that it isn't a possibility, is, in a sense, to deny that scientific knowledge evolves.

It's possible in the same way that it's possible that we'll find a living population of Tyrannosaurs. The more we know about the world, the less likely this becomes.

Likewise, the more we study the history of the Americas, the more information we collect, the less likely it becomes that the BoM will be validated. Every time a site is excavated that shows zero signs of the technologies, plants, or animals mentioned in the BoM, the likelihood of its validation becomes smaller and smaller. At this point, the odds are asymptotically close to zero.

 

[Foster Zygote]

And that is precisely what Joseph Smith recognized long before 21st century biblical scholars identifed (and continue to identify) countless errors in the KJV.

The inconsistencies and contradictions within the Bible don't start in the early 17th century. They go all the way back to the origins of the texts.

It's refreshing to see that you agree, albeit a bit late, with Joseph Smiith.

Could you detail Smith's scholarship regarding biblical textual criticism?

 

[RandFan]

While science may not be dogmatic as a process, scientist can be dogmatic and take a long time to look at the evidence.
At least I think so.

ETA:

Or have been led to think so.

Agreed. BTW: I meant technological and not toxicological. I should not post while drinking.

 

[halleyscomet]

Janadele and skyrider44

The assorted flavors of Mormons (LDS, RLDS and so on) call non-Morons "Gentiles."

Do they also apply the term "Gentile" to Jews in that context?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Some on this forum seem to believe that science, here in 2013, has given us definitive, set-in-concrete answers to subjects not unlike the ones raised above. I am not saying that the answers we now have are wrong. I am saying that as scientific disciplines advance, some of the answers we now view as conclusive may turn out to require reformulation--or even dismissal. There is clear precedent in the history of science for just such developments; i.e., the liver circulates blood, earth is center of the universe, surgeons didn't need to wash their hands, DNA not especially important (proteins were key to heredity), the atom is the smallest particle in existence, the earth is only 6,000 years old, plowing land causes rainfall, heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones (shame on Aristotle), lead can be morped into gold (alchemy). (Source: Top 10 Science Mistakes - Science Channel)

We laugh at those errors today, but it's just possible that 50 years from now people will be laughing at some of what science tells us today. We may not know what we think we know. Moreover, it's possible that the BoM may be vindicated. I'm not saying that it will be; I'm saying that it's a possibility. To claim that it isn't a possibility, is, in a sense, to deny that scientific knowledge evolves.

What would you say the odds are that all the scholarship on the ancient Egyptian language will be overturned and vindicate Joseph Smith's translation of the Book Of Abraham? Keep in mind that said scholarship has enabled researchers to read ancient Egyptian as clearly as you are reading this post.

What would you say the odds are that Joseph Smith hadn't the slightest notion what the Egyptian texts in his possession actually said, and knowing that no one else as yet did, simply fabricated the Book Of Abraham in the pretense that he had a divinely granted supernatural gift?

 

[halleyscomet]

And that is precisely what Joseph Smith recognized long before 21st century biblical scholars identifed (and continue to identify) countless errors in the KJV.

It's refreshing to see that you agree, albeit a bit late, with Joseph Smiith.

The KJV was pretty universally considered a terrible translation from the beginning. Unicorns anyone? Smith wasn't exactly breaking new ground when he declared it was full of translation errors. His "corrections" however are not related to actual Biblical scholarship.

 

[halleyscomet]

What would you say the odds are that all the scholarship on the ancient Egyptian language will be overturned and vindicate Joseph Smith's translation of the Book Of Abraham? Keep in mind that said scholarship has enabled researchers to read ancient Egyptian as clearly as you are reading this post.

What would you say the odds are that Joseph Smith hadn't the slightest notion what the Egyptian texts in his possession actually said, and knowing that no one else as yet did, simply fabricated the Book Of Abraham in the pretense that he had a divinely granted supernatural gift?

One big reason Mormons tend to shy away from trying to prove the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon is because of how badly it went for them the last time they tried it. We know that the Book of Abraham is a complete fiction with no relation to the original Egyptian papyrus because a MORMON archeologist sent copies of the surviving pages to renowned Egyptologists. He went to far as to blind the research by asking them to translate the pages without telling them what they were or what their significance was to the LDS church.

A man who made it his life's work to prove the legitimacy of Mormon scripture ended up debunking it. It was such a humiliation that many Mormons don't even KNOW pages from the original funerary text survive to this day.

Irreligiosophy Episode #11: Problematic LDSisms

The Lost Book of Abraham

The Lost Book of Abraham is an award-winning documentary that investigates the remarkable claim that Mormon founder Joseph Smith translated a lost book of scripture from an Egyptian papyrus scroll he obtained in 1835. Hear the views of Mormon believers and World-class Egyptologists and decide for yourself.

Translations of the Breathing Permit of Horus

 

[Cleon]

A man who made it his life's work to prove the legitimacy of Mormon scripture ended up debunking it. It was such a humiliation that many Mormons don't even KNOW pages from the original funerary text survive to this day.

I find that unlikely, as my copy of the Pearl of Great Price* includes photos of the papyrus in question.

* Mormon scriptural collection that includes the Book of Abraham. I bought it from the local LDS bookstore.

 

[halleyscomet]

I find that unlikely, as my copy of the Pearl of Great Price* includes photos of the papyrus in question.

* Mormon scriptural collection that includes the Book of Abraham. I bought it from the local LDS bookstore.

I remember debating this very topic with {Redacted}. I can't remember if it was in this thread or one of the ones she started on the SGU forum. Even after she conceded there might be surviving papyrus fragments, she insisted that any conflicting translations were the result of anti-Mormon bias.

Does your copy of the book include the translations that were done by actual Egyptologists?

I know there are Mormons who don't know or refuse to accept that fragments still exist. I sincerely hope they are the clueless minority, much like Christians who refuse medical care for appendicitis.

 

[Cleon]

I remember debating this very topic with {Redacted}. I can't remember if it was in this thread or one of the ones she started on the SGU forum. Even after she conceded there might be surviving papyrus fragments, she insisted that any conflicting translations were the result of anti-Mormon bias.

Does your copy of the book include the translations that were done by actual Egyptologists?

Well, no, of course not. That would be honest.

It labels them as "surviving fragments of the Book of Abraham," IIRC, but the only English text is Smith's "translation."

I think Janadele was posting links earlier which claimed that the surviving pieces of papyrus simply don't include the Book of Abraham text. Presumably all of the "Book of Abraham" bits were destroyed, and the remnants are just bits of funerary text included with it for ****s and giggles.

 

[RandFan]

Well, no, of course not. That would be honest.

It labels them as "surviving fragments of the Book of Abraham," IIRC, but the only English text is Smith's "translation."

I think Janadele was posting links earlier which claimed that the surviving pieces of papyrus simply don't include the Book of Abraham text. Presumably all of the "Book of Abraham" bits were destroyed, and the remnants are just bits of funerary text included with it for ****s and giggles.

It makes no sense that a story that negatively portrayed the Egyptian religion (idolatrous god) would have been included with sacred Egyptian funerary text.

To give an example, it would be analogues to the Mormon church including anti-Mormon propaganda in their burial services. Then we have the demonstrably false translation of the facsimiles included in the Book of Abraham. Couple that with the coincidence that there is no extant papyri containing the Book of Abraham and it is, IMO, too much for a non believer to accept.

 

[pakeha]

... Moreover, it's possible that the BoM may be vindicated. I'm not saying that it will be; I'm saying that it's a possibility. To claim that it isn't a possibility, is, in a sense, to deny that scientific knowledge evolves.

What would you say the odds are that all the scholarship on the ancient Egyptian language will be overturned and vindicate Joseph Smith's translation of the Book Of Abraham? Keep in mind that said scholarship has enabled researchers to read ancient Egyptian as clearly as you are reading this post.

What would you say the odds are that Joseph Smith hadn't the slightest notion what the Egyptian texts in his possession actually said, and knowing that no one else as yet did, simply fabricated the Book Of Abraham in the pretense that he had a divinely granted supernatural gift?

 

[skyrider44]

What would you say the odds are that all the scholarship on the ancient Egyptian language will be overturned and vindicate Joseph Smith's translation of the Book Of Abraham? Keep in mind that said scholarship has enabled researchers to read ancient Egyptian as clearly as you are reading this post.

What would you say the odds are that Joseph Smith hadn't the slightest notion what the Egyptian texts in his possession actually said, and knowing that no one else as yet did, simply fabricated the Book Of Abraham in the pretense that he had a divinely granted supernatural gift?

My comments have centered on the BoM. The Book of Abraham poses extremely difficult challenges for LDS apologists. There is no question about that. Moreover, it must be admitted that those challenges cast a shadow on the BoM.

 

[deaman]

I believe the Mormon test for a prophet is that every one of their prophecies must be 100% percent true, 100% of the time.

If the BOM is true, then everything associated with it should be 100% true, 100% of the time.

If the facts say it is 100% true, 100% of the time, there is no need for further discussion. The facts will just have to be accepted.

But, as with a prophet, if just one thing is a lie, what conclusion must be reached?

 

[Amazer]

I believe the Mormon test for a prophet is that every one of their prophecies must be 100% percent true, 100% of the time.

If the BOM is true, then everything associated with it should be 100% true, 100% of the time.

If the facts say it is 100% true, 100% of the time, there is no need for further discussion. facts will just have to be accepted.

But, as with a prophet, if just one thing is a lie, what conclusion must be reached?

Uhm... that you are doing it wrong?

 

[Pixel42]

My comments have centered on the BoM. The Book of Abraham poses extremely difficult challenges for LDS apologists. There is no question about that. Moreover, it must be admitted that those challenges cast a shadow on the BoM.

It's good to see a Mormon finally acknowledge this.

 

[deaman]

It's kinda cool to see anybody come to terms with the facts of reality.