LDS

[jsfisher]

Could we possibly get back to the subject at hand? It isn't atheism, nor is it the nuanced definition of several common words.

I believe it was authenticity issues with the Book of Abraham and factual errors in the Book of Mormon.

Remember, every time a moderator needs to move posts to AAH for being off topic, a puppy dies. Won't somebody think of the children?

 

[skyrider44]

Let's take a look at come classical superstitions.

• Don't break mirrors.
• Don't walk under a ladder.
• Don't cross the path of a black cat.
• Don't open an umbrella indoors.

Why are these superstitious? They presume cause and affect relationships between them and the events of one's life. These relationships can only be supernatural. If you pray thinking that god can intervene then you believe in supernatural cause and effect.

Of course, God isn't a mirror, nor a ladder, nor a black cat, nor an umbrella.
Consequently, your analogy is rather poorly constructed.

 

[kellyb]

Of course, God isn't a mirror, nor a ladder, nor a black cat, nor an umbrella.
Consequently, your analogy is rather poorly constructed.

Maybe "Don't invite vampires into your house" and "Do work to please Phah" would be better analogies?

 

[deaman]

God is non-existent.

 

[Empress]

Just an aside. Do you know how to link URL's to text? CNN Belief Blog.Like that. It's a little annoying to see an underlined text portion that is not an active link.

Thank you. It's been driving me nuts, but I thought saying something might seem a tad churlish. Glad I'm not the only one annoyed by constantly trying to click on non-existent links.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Sorry, but your sentence structure requires the services of a polyglot with 20 years' experience (something like that).

Skyrider44, I really don't get the feeling your perception skills (Something like that) are off the mark, but you could stop being disingenuous.
My earlier post was written in a way to garner a response and you did respond, so no polyglot is necessary.


You could return right back to this point of the discussion (You know, the part right before the Dogma diversion) Start at post # 6528..

And I'm still waiting for a single example of an ordinance performed in an LDS church or temple that does not acknowledge Christ as the authority for that ordinance.

Oh, but to your question. There are, in fact, dozens of examples of spiritual insight in the Book of Mormon. I don 't expect you and certain others to accept them, but they exist nonetheless. (Reminds me of the couplet "A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still.")
A few examples of spiritual insight in the BoM:

1. There are 23 passages in the BoM that explain/clarify the doctrine of "free will" (known to Mormons as "agency"). Here are two: "Joy is impossible without opposite choices" (2 Nephi 2:23). "God places us in a state to act according to our wills" (Alma 12:31). Commenting on the principle of agency, Victor L. Ludlow said: "The challenges and opportunities of agency define our external existence, and our choices determine our relationship with God and others"
(Living the Book of Mormon: Abiding by its Principles.

2. [Christ's] blood atoneth for the sins of those who have . . . died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned"
(Moro. 8:11-12).

3. Jacob taught that "in our bodies we shall see God" (2 Ne. 9:4). (You are probably aware that many churches teach that the resurrection is spiritual only--not physical.)

4, "The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form . . . (Alma 11: 42-43).

5. Much of Christianity believe that the effects of the Atonement are limited rather than infinite as LDS believe, hence: "[Christ] suffereth [the Atonement] that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before [Christ] at the great . . . judgment day" (2 Ne. 9:22).

None of this is novel.

1. The debate about free will or the lack thereof, theologically and philosophically is thousands of years old (see History of Free Will). Other than an assertion of a millenia old claim it offers no spiritual insight, unless you presume Mormonism is true and then it's just a delineation. Which is simply circular reasoning. Further, the concept, depending on how you define free will, is contradicted by modern science (see Saplosky on Toxoplasma and Split Brain Patients).
2. Thousands of years old. Mormonism reveals nothing new here but is simply a retread.
3. You must be aware that many religions believe literally in physical resurrection.
4. Again, a belief in the union of body and spirit is thousands of years old and actually predates Christ by hundreds of years and was common among some Jewish Sects (see 1 Corinthians 15:29).

A spiritual insight, IMO, ought to be something new to the world. Not thousands of year old, well worn and well debated concepts by luminaries such as Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, C.S. Lewis and Calvin to name a few.

 

[joobz]

Of course, God isn't a mirror, nor a ladder, nor a black cat, nor an umbrella.
Consequently, your analogy is rather poorly constructed.

You are correct. Those things are real. As such, they are one step ahead of god in not having superstitious abilities.

In order for you to demonstrate that your religion isn't superstitution, you would first need to demonstrate that god is real.
And, after that, you need to demonstrate that he actually interacts in a measurable way with the universe.
And, after that, you would need to demonstrate that your specific religious actions have a causal link to the actions of god.

Once you achieve those three things, you can safely claim that your religious belief isn't a superstition.

 

[halleyscomet]

I remember in high school a teacher pointing out that the vast majority of men and women have the same number of ribs. Some of the students were offended by that.

I spent a couple years at a Lutheran high school before transferring to the local public high school. The Biology class at the Lutheran high school had us feel our ribs to count them while the teacher explained that women had one more rib than men and "That's one way archeologists can tell a male skeleton from a female one.

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 problem is, when the surviving texts are compared to the alleged translation, no correlation can be found. The Book of Abraham is a demonstrable fraud. It's fake, and no amount of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "lalala I can't HEAR you!" will change that.

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...

It would appear that's exactly what she's claiming.

I have heard it argued that the Rosetta Stone was a Satanic fraud designed to mislead people and that using Smith's "key" on random Egyptian texts results in stories and lessons consistent with Mormon teaching. Of course that claim was given to me by what was essentially a self-ordained minister in an LDS splinter group. Apparently only the fringe lunatics even TRY to explain why the surviving papyri have no correlations with Smith's BS Book of Abraham.

Should we search The Hitler Diaries reverently and sincerely?

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

If you hate Jews, yes you should.

All kidding aside, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a relevant text here. The only internal "Evidence" it's by Jews is the text's use of the term "Gentile" to refer to people outside their group. Who else does that?

Mormons.

Anyone else notice how closely the early Mormon settlement and control of Utah followed many of the claims in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

What's my point?

The same Mormon extremist I mentioned above maintains that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a MORMON text outlining God's plan for Mormon dominance of America. He claims that the text was "discovered" by Brigham Young and subsequently lost after early implementation. It cropped up again having been plagiarized by a satirist and applied to Napoleon, where it wound it's way through subsequent editions to eventually be used by Tzarist Russia as anti-Bolshevik and anti-Jew propaganda. Fortunately, his following isn't that much larger than the WBC and is the same family based structure.

In this instance I am refering to the personal enlightenment available, and given to some, who sincerely seek to expand their understanding of the Book of Abraham, in particular through research of "ancient Egyptian whose patterns follow much of the Endowment."

No such thing exists. It has been proven beyond all doubt that the Book of Abraham was not based on the Egyptian texts Smith claimed was the source.

Mere mortals who do not meet the criteria need not bother even considering the matter.

Thank you for conceding your complete lack of evidence to support your mythology.

 

[halleyscomet]

How do you know what Paul thought? He may have written one thing and thought another in an effort to avoid giving offense. Leaders of all stripes find it necessary to do that on occasion.

Basing an argument on what you think a writer might have been thinking when he wrote the exact opposite of what you postulate is, to be kind, building your rhetorical house upon sand.

No, it's not building your house upon the sand, as sand is too firm a substance for the metaphor to hold up. It's building your house upon quicksand, near the beach, during monsoon season.

 

[halleyscomet]

I should hunt up the copy of "The Restored Protocols of the Elders of Zion" that Mormon cultist gave me a few years ago. It was wild, complete with footnotes correlating it to Mormon history in Utah and advice for using it for future Mormon dominance.

It's as valid a holy text as the Book of Abraham.

 

[RandFan]

Of course, God isn't a mirror, nor a ladder, nor a black cat, nor an umbrella.
Consequently, your analogy is rather poorly constructed.

Irrelevant. My apoint is the lack of natural explanation as to cause and effect. If I told you that I wished upon my mother it would not make it any less superstitious. The power of god is an inexplicable thing. It's magic thinking.

Given that the mechanism by which god is supposed to perform supernatural miracles is unknown then the analogy is apt.

 

[skyrider44]

Basing an argument on what you think a writer might have been thinking when he wrote the exact opposite of what you postulate is, to be kind, building your rhetorical house upon sand.

Leaders of all stripes commonly say one thing for public consumption and write another in their personal journals. How many times have VIPs been caught saying the "wrong" thing into a microphone they didn't know was "live"?

No, it's not building your house upon the sand, as sand is too firm a substance for the metaphor to hold up. It's building your house upon quicksand, near the beach, during monsoon season.

Nice imagery, even though it's revelatory of naivete about the dynamics of public relations.

 

[Janadele]

http://woodyoubelieveit.blogspot.com...f-ephraim.html

The above link is to a blog post taken from Treasures from the Book of Mormon, Volume One, by W. Cleon Skousen, PAGES 232- 234 .

I found it to be a fascinating read which generally outlines LDS beliefs and teachings regarding the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. The following is the introduction:

"When the Gospel was restored in modern times, we gained an additional insight into one of the most perplexing riddles of Bible history: "Whatever happened to the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel?" We are far from having the whole answer, but at least we have located two important segments of the Lost Tribes -- the Ephraimites in America and Europe and the people of Manasseh among the aborigines of America and the Pacific Islands. Since Isaiah 11:13-14 speaks of Ephraim and Judah combining together in the performing of a special work, it is particularly significant to have the Lord bring Ephraim out of hiding."

 

[aggle-rithm]

one of the most perplexing riddles of Bible history: "Whatever happened to the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel?"

I don't think too many historians are perplexed by that. The Assyrians bitch-slapped Northern Israel, the people were scattered or taken into captivity, and the Ten Tribes simply ceased to exist as separate entities.

 

[RandFan]

...regarding the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.

A legend that has no basis in archeological fact and is belie by the history of it's time. Moreover, a small family is not likely a good fit for "tribe". Assuming for the moment that the BoM is true it does not begin to account for the rest of the tribe. IOW: Even if true it does not demonstrate the claim.

 

[Pixel42]

http://woodyoubelieveit.blogspot.com...f-ephraim.html

This link doesn't work. To copy the link in jsfisher's post you need to quote the post first and cut&paste the link from it (then just cancel the reply), just cut&pasting it from the post itself gets an abbreviated form with an ellipsis in the middle instead of the full link. Or you can click on the link and cut&paste its address from the address bar.

I haven't followed the link yet but I'm prepared to bet that it makes no mention whatsoever of the fact that DNA evidence completely disproves the so-called "insight".

 

[deaman]

Not everyone shares in that acceptance. Just MORE people.

Or, because of the internet, we just know more precisely what people really think, on any number of matters, which were considered more taboo and private before.

Same with how people feel about religion.

For instance, I have read about many of the Father's of our Country who it seems, were staunch anti-religionists. Quite the opposite of what most theist believe.

 

[tsig]

Leaders of all stripes commonly say one thing for public consumption and write another in their personal journals. How many times have VIPs been caught saying the "wrong" thing into a microphone they didn't know was "live"?



Nice imagery, even though it's revelatory of naivete about the dynamics of public relations.

Including Joe Smith?

 

[pakeha]

I think I made it clear that the study was far from adequate. I think I also made it clear that because of false ideas about atheists, a professionally conducted study could be helpful.

I see skyrider44 still avoids the subject of the fraud perpetrated by Smith under the title of the BoA.
No number of posts about atheism or homosexuality will make that hoax go away.

 

[Akhenaten]

http://woodyoubelieveit.blogspot.com...f-ephraim.html

The above link is to a blog post taken from Treasures from the Book of Mormon, Volume One, by W. Cleon Skousen, PAGES 232- 234 .

I found it to be a fascinating read which generally outlines LDS beliefs and teachings regarding the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. The following is the introduction:

<snip>

Why does the genetic evidence not support this story?