LDS

[Akhenaten]

Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The above is stating the fact that male and female were created, not how or when they were.
Adam and Eve were already valiant as disembodied Spirits in the pre mortal existance. Adam was Michael the Archangel .

Below, is stating how the pre mortal Spirit of Adam and Eve became embodied:

Genesis 2:
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Are you hoping that nobody will notice the way that you've cherry-picked verses in such a way as to completely omit the very different timelines to which Pixel42 was referring?

Sorry to disappoint you, but we've been through all that chicanery ad nauseum with DOC.

He didn't get away with it any more than you will, but at least I can see a new hobby for myself in the offing.

 

[joobz]

Yes I did read your question joobz.

And?
What is your answer?
What would you think?

 

[desertgal]

And?
What is your answer?
What would you think?

Janadele doesn't answer intelligent questions. Janadele isn't here to intelligently debate. Janadele is here to mindlessly proselytize when she isn't offering up ridiculous theories about second suns and the earth being hollow.

This thread is worth reading for the effort RandFan and others have put into it, but I predict ianadele, if she replies to you, will only offer more mindless proselytizing.

 

[bruto]

Janadele, I notice above an exchange between you and Slowvehicle, in which he quotes your post and asks a question. Looking back at your post, I see that the question is answered, and that the post has been edited.

As a matter of courtesy as well as avoiding unnecessary aggravation, I suggest that when you edit posts in this manner, you make a notation at the start, such as "edited to add" or simply ETA, so that people will not be too confused. Corrections of grammar and spelling are trivial, but afterthoughts or responses added can change a post enough to be confusing, and the confusion is not always to your advantage.

 

[RandFan]

The Book of Abraham is well worth the read.

The Book of Abraham is demonstrably a fraud.

 

[RandFan]

Genesis 1:

Genesis is an allegory. It explains how humans are different than other animals. It explains that we have come to be moral agents and that we have knowledge that other animals do not. It explains that because of our knowledge of our mortality we know that we will die.

It's unfortunate that religions feel the need to tart up the story like a cheep hooker.

 

[halleyscomet]

The Book of Abraham is well worth the read.

We're not discussing if you and other Mormons find meaning in it dear. We're discussing the fact that Smith flat out lied about where the text came from.

You have persistently dodged the questions surrounding the fraudulent origins of the document by bleating "But it has meaning to me!" and "It's doctrine!" neither of which is relevant to discussion about if the document is a fraud.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a document that has meaning for many racists, because the believe it to be a blueprint for Jewish domination of the Earth. I know some Mormons who have their own version of the document which they claim was a revelation from Jesus himself and is a blueprint for how God wants Mormons to dominate the Earth. The fact that these two groups find meaning in a plagiarized forgery does not change the fact that it is a plagiarized forgery.

If you are not prepared to discuss the specter of the Book of Abraham's origin, then don't bother posting in the thread. No one cares if you find meaning in a book we know to be a fraud.

 

[RandFan]

Jandele and skyrider, lets say a Muslim wa trying to convince you of the truth of Islam and told you of an amazing book that was discovered and translated by Mohammed. Then, lets say you found out that modern scholars identified the translation as being fake. That the original text was actually a roman lunch menu. What would you think?

Would you think that the scholars were liars or wrong? Dont forget that you do not need to rely on their expertise. rather, you could learn how to read latin and confirm for yourself what the translation says.
Would you think that the translation by Mohammed was fake? What would think such a revelation would say about Mohammed?

Did you not read my question above? It is a legitimate one.

Yes I did read your question joobz.

Did you think yourself above the question? It's a good question and one that deserves an answer. At the very least it ought to inform you just how much of a waste of time it is to try and convince non-believers that the Book of Abraham isn't an obvious fraud.

 

[halleyscomet]

And?
What is your answer?
What would you think?

She understood the question and answered it to the limit of her capacity.

Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The above is stating the fact that male and female were created, not how or when they were.

Bless your heart child, but when you're going to lie to someone, try to avoid lying about something they can easily fact check. Pretending verse 27 isn't part of an explicit timeline is a humiliatingly bad lie on your part. To be blunt, your feeble religious knowledge is not up to the level of deceiving this entire thread. I think we'd all rather you ignore the questions than answer with a shoddy lie.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

 

[pakeha]

The Book of Abraham is well worth the read.

...Only if one is interested in discovering the extremities of human gullibility.

Dunno, O Pharaoh.
I'm currently assimilating the recent death of a colleague who'd bought into the Hamer 'treatment' of cancer.

All of those arguments are simply attempts to read the English text and try to connect it to ancient societies . As "evidence" it might be convincing to you and skyrider, but for those of us outside the Church it's simply eye-rolling nonsense.

The fact remains that all evidence points to the Book of Abraham as being a work of fraud. Smith's explanation/"translation" of the papyrus is simply wrong, and all the contextual analysis in the world won't make up for that.

You beat me to it, Cleon.
Those links were strange to read, as the authors seemed to actually believe what they'd produced.

Janadele, do you really not see why those links are nonsensical?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I have reported the off-topic discussion to the moderators with the suggestion that they move the relevant posts to the split thread that was created to house it back in February. I will be happy to continue the conversation over there.

I have a suspicion that you don't like sharp exchanges, finding it expedient to dismiss them as symptomatic of "anger" and "frustration." How does that old bromide go, ah, If you can't stand the heat. . . .

I find the above statement to be highly ironic, and and excellent segue for returning to the subject of Mormonism.

In the opening post of this thread, Janadele writes,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also known as LDS /Mormon, is a Christian denomination, but is neither Protestant nor Catholic... it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, with eternal doctrines and teachings dating back to the days of Adam, and to our pre mortal existence.

Some serious issues have been raised regarding the claims of the LDS church, especially pertaining to the claimed source of their knowledge. Among the most troubling of these problems relates to Joseph Smith's claim to have translated a Mormon religious text from and ancient Egyptian funerary text. This translation has been clearly shown to be completely false.

There are a couple of possibilities:

1. Joseph Smith knowingly fabricated a fraud in order to establish a claim as a prophet of God in order to gain all the advantages that might come from such a social position.

2. Joseph Smith was suffering from a mental illness that caused him delusions of being able to decipher the Book Of Abraham from the Egyptian papyri.


So which is it? Can you offer an alternative explanation for the fact that the Egyptian funerary text* bears no resemblance to the narrative presented by Joseph Smith?

I look forward to your straightforward address of this question. If you are going to argue that Mormonism is a correct description of reality, then you must explain this issue to us. Show us that you can "stand the heat" and convince us that one should still accept Mormon teachings as real even in the face of the problems associated with the false translation of the papyri and the false history of the Book Of Mormon.

* Edited to correct from "Book Of Abraham".

 

[halleyscomet]

Can you offer an alternative explanation for the fact that the Book Of Abraham bears no resemblance to the narrative presented by Joseph Smith?

God lied to Smith, and instead of allowing Smith to translate the text, he instead dictated something completely different.

Divine deception is not a novel concept. For example, you need to invoke divine efforts to deceive us to correlate the Biblical claims about creation and the age of the universe with what can be observed.

Which is easier for a Mormon to accept, that Smith lied ab out the origin of the text, or that God lied to smith and dictated instead of guiding translation?

I've also read a few Mormons who dismissed the proof that the translation was fake by claiming the surviving papyri are either not the ones Smith used, or that the surviving fragments are ones Smith owned but never translated.

 

[tsig]

God lied to Smith, and instead of allowing Smith to translate the text, he instead dictated something completely different.

Divine deception is not a novel concept. For example, you need to invoke divine efforts to deceive us to correlate the Biblical claims about creation and the age of the universe with what can be observed.

Which is easier for a Mormon to accept, that Smith lied ab out the origin of the text, or that God lied to smith and dictated instead of guiding translation?

I've also read a few Mormons who dismissed the proof that the translation was fake by claiming the surviving papyri are either not the ones Smith used, or that the surviving fragments are ones Smith owned but never translated.

The problem there is that Joe put the drawings of the papyrus in the BoA.

 

[halleyscomet]

The problem there is that Joe put the drawings of the papyrus in the BoA.

Well then, God must have lied to Smith.

 

[Foster Zygote]

DELETE

Responded to wrong poster.

 

[Foster Zygote]

When you get the syntax straightened out, I'll try to respond.

Do you have any syntactic problems with post #7108?

 

[RandFan]

Parsimony would dictate that a man convicted of fraud in a money digging scheme just came up with a better scheme.

• It's well documented fact Smith claimed to be able to find buried treasure using a "peep" stone.
• It's a matter of public record that Smith was convicted of same.
• Smith, along with Rigdeon and Cowdry simply came up with a better con.

"You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion!" --L. Ron Hubbard

 

[Craig4]

The Book of Abraham is well worth the read.

The authors are liars because they either know or should know better. Nothing in the autograph at all relates to the Mormon BoA. It's a shallow fraud created by a base individual with nothing but contempt for the people he duped. While Egyptology was in it's infancy when Smith told his lies about the Egyptian Funerary text, it was not out of the realm of possibility that the true translation would become known. He didn't even think enough of his marks (the term con men use for their victims) come up with a better lie. To perpetuate the lies in the BoA is a low act, absent of any morality or integrity and the behavior of these authors is despicable.

 

[tsig]

Well then, God must have lied to Smith.

Which rather tarnishes his prophet credentials.

Amen I say unto thee, thou dost not get pure water and poison from the same spring, therefore testeth thou the spring and if it be the poison spew it from thy mouth and trusteth not that spring.

1^st Revelation of tsig

 

[tsig]

Parsimony would dictate that a man convicted of fraud in a money digging scheme just came up with a better scheme.

• It's well documented fact Smith claimed to be able to find buried treasure using a "peep" stone.
• It's a matter of public record that Smith was convicted of same.
• Smith, along with Rigdeon and Cowdry simply came up with a better con.

"You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion!" --L. Ron Hubbard

Yup, "God said so" is a powerful con because most have been raised to have a superstitious awe of the very word god so we would hardly dare to claim to be speaking for god so when someone does we assume they wouldn't do what we wouldn't dare so they must be speaking for god.