LDS

[Pup]

In post 6722 I brought up some information on Skyrider44's claim:

One reason for Christ's atonement was to appease justice. This principle is well known, but only the BoM explains it adequately: "Alma asked, 'What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay, not one whit" (Alma 42:25)."

I showed that a similar phrase was used, explaining that Christ's crucifixion was to prevent mercy "at the expense of justice," rather than mercy "rob[ing] justice." It was used in the period just before Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and I even showed its use in connection with New England revivals in the 1810s, indicating that Smith might have heard it specifically.

Perhaps Skyrider44 would be interested in explaining the significant difference between mercy not being able to rob justice and mercy not being at the expense of justice, and how one explains the situation adequately but the other doesn't.

 

[Olowkow]

Thank you for helping to set the record straight.

Well, I'm not sure which record I've set straight, but I respect anyone who holds reasonable and rational views on subjects such as same sex marriage and women's rights, and works to promote his views, whether he is a theist or not. Dr. Gaddy is pro-choice and favors same sex marriage rights of homosexuals.

I was surprised that you as a Mormon invoked the words of possibly the most liberal and progressive Baptist on the planet to further your arguments.

 

[Myriad]

Without declaring Skyrider44 innocent of all equivocation, let me point out that with regard to "superstition," what's been going on is not so much equivocation as talking past one another.

Turning around because a black cat crossed your path is a practice of superstition. Stopping at a red traffic light is not. The difference is, in the latter case there's evidence of a causal benefit if not outright necessity for stopping (red lights indicate the likelihood of cross traffic which would make it hazardous to proceed, and also the likelihood that proceeding will lead to costly legal sanctions even in the absence of dangerous cross traffic). There is no comparable evidence that proceeding past a point recently crossed by a black cat presents any additional hazard whatsoever. The difference between superstition and prudence is evidence of actual benefit or necessity (averted hazard).

What Skyrider44 might not understand (or might understand perfectly well but not be willing to acknowledge) is that if one does not believe that God exists (or does not believe that God's treatment of humans is influenced by prayers), then praying to God appears just as superstitious as praying to Lord Voldemort or praying to the sun. There can be no benefit to praying to an entity that doesn't exist* and no hazard presented by failing to pray to an entity that doesn't exist. So when atheists call prayer a superstitious practice, it's equivalent to saying that they do not believe God exists. And when deists call prayer a superstitious practice, it's equivalent to saying that they do not believe God pays attention to prayers.

Similarly, when Skyrider44 or the Rev. Dr. Gaddy differentiate between mere superstition (e.g. fear of black cats) and practices such as prayer that they claim are not superstition, it's equivalent to (and follows naturally from) saying that they believe God does exist and is in some way influenced by or appreciative of prayers.

That's not equivocation; it's the consequence of starting out with different assumptions.

Respectfully,
Myriad

*"There can be no benefit to praying to an entity that doesn't exist:" not everyone would agree with this, but that's a different topic.

 

[MIKILLINI]

That was an idea kicking around at the time the Book of Mormon was written. (The hyperlinks take one to the full context, if anyone's interested.)

From 1818:

"Mercy is an amiable feeling; but mercy at the expense of justice, is no longer mercy, but sinful connivance."

From 1821:

"Christ came into the world to do his Father's will. This was to make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness;--to accomplish the salvation of sinners, by giving his life a ransom for them. This was not to procure the mercy of God; but to satisfy his justice, without which, mercy could have no place; for mercy, at the expense of justice, would be inconsistent with all that the Bible makes known to us of the divine character. The justice of God is as essential, and as amiable an attribute as his mercy; and the law of God is as holy, and as amiable as his gospel."

Closer to home, here it is from a man who preached in New England in Joseph Smith's day. He mentions preaching at revivals in western Massachusetts in 1816-1817 and speaks of the clash between Methodists and Calvinists:

"And while Calvinists and Universalists deny the conditions of salvation by grace, for the sake of maintaining eternal decrees, respecting unconditional election, I must view them as persons deceived in their opinions. And their pleading for sin, and preaching against good works, as they have done, render them suspicious characters. It is not wisdom to extol mercy at the expense of justice; and it is impious to trifle with the justice either of God or man. Universalists so extol the mercy and power of God, that they exclude all punishment, and all retributive justice."

So when Joseph Smith wrote:

"Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, 'Lo, here!' and others, 'Lo, there!' Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist."

the argument about mercy at the expensive of justice would have been part of what he heard.

DEAR SKYRIDER44,

DID YOU READ THIS?

 

[Janadele]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

In other words, first believe, then ignore the actual Egyptian language and then accept without question.
Of course, quite a lot of Mormonism is based upon the concept of accepting someone's word without questioning.
The original 'revelations' that only the faithful got to see.
The Egyptian 'translations'
and the living prophet thing.

 

[jsfisher]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

The fraud is sacred? Bizarre. And if they are not to be shared or bantered about, how is this individual discovery to take place? Do you need to have been already taken in by the fraud before you are allowed any details?

Sounds like the type of spin doctoring we hear from politicians. I suppose there are many such parallels with religion.

 

[Empress]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

The translations are sacred and not to be shared? Then why are they available to all and sundry, even those who don't want to "search the material reverently, or at least sincerely, for themselves"? You can read the whole darn thing right here, no matter what your frame of mind.

This is one of the more bizarre claims I've come across in this thread.

 

[Amazer]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

Classic response.

 

[Craig4]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

You, like your beliefs are incorrect. The translation of this Egyptian funerary text is well established by numerous sources and Egyptologists. The BoA is a fraud. It does not relate to the Abraham. Smith lied when he said he could read it. The above simply speaks to your inability or your refusal to accept the truth and adds nothing to any discussions about the fraudulent document in question.

A more useful line of inquiry on your part would be an examination of the implications of this fraud on your beliefs. I'll not hold my breath.

 

[deaman]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

But, it's a proven lie.

 

[Slowvehicle]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

Janadele:

Are you actually claiming that all of the egyptologists, linguists, anthropologists, historians, and archaeologists, who can sincerely and correctly read the Book of Breathing as easily as you read a newspaper, are "wrong", and that the secret, holy "meaning" of the page from the Book of Breathing actually does contain Abraham's autographic account of his supposed time in Egypt? But the "real" meaning can only be discerned through the eyes of faith? And literally tens of thousands of scholars, with their fruitful, congruent, and luminous correc translations of the hieroglyphs in question are "wrong", while only JS, with his prattle about "the adulterous 'god' so-and-so", and his amateruish completion of a common image, is correct?

Wow. I have not yet begun to banter...

 

[RandFan]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

Tim: I can fly by flapping my hands.
Bob: Show me.
Tim: I can't.
Bob: Why not.
Tim: It's sacred.

Mormons do not respect the right of people to make informed decisions.

 

[MIKILLINI]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

Translation: No need to look at the fraudulent possibilities here...

 

[Pixel42]

Should we search The Hitler Diaries reverently and sincerely?

Should we search The Protocols of the Elders of Zion reverently and sincerely?

 

[tsig]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

Then why did the church publish them?

So if I read the BoA and don't think it's the inspired word of god I'm not reverent or sincere?

I think you're pre poisoning the well.

 

[Craig4]

Then why did the church publish them?

So if I read the BoA and don't think it's the inspired word of god I'm not reverent or sincere?

I think you're pre poisoning the well.

What the BoA really shows is what little regard Smith had for his followers. He seems to have simply assumed that his flock would take him at his word and not bother to fact check.

I also find it odd that in my recent encounter with Mormon missionaries where I questioned them about the fraudulent nature of the BoA that they did not come up with this "it's sacred" bit. Is it just possible that Smith isn't the only person making something up with regard to the BoA here?

 

[Craig4]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about. Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

Now, having seen mine and other responses I'm curious as to what you expected from this post. Did you think we'd simply say, "oh, it's sacred; that explains it"?

 

[Cleon]

What the BoA really shows is what little regard Smith had for his followers. He seems to have simply assumed that his flock would take him at his word and not bother to fact check.

At the time Smith was concocting the BoA, scientists had just started to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics, and the field of archaeology as a whole was very new. It's entirely possible that Smith didn't think his writings ever could be fact-checked.

 

[Akhenaten]

In regards to the continual enquiries on the Book of Abraham:
Translations from ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment, are Sacred, and are not to be shared nor bantered about.

Drivel.

Such information has to be discovered by each individual on their own. Those who desire answers need to search this material reverently, or at the least sincerely, for themselves.

Jean-François Champollion called and he'd like a word with you.