AlexanderX
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by AlexanderX
-
-
I am willing to discuss, but I'm not willing to be dragged by the nose down a fantastical apologetic scenario that doesn't bode with the facts.
It just amazes me that it doesn't really matter to some LDS if Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient documents. It is just fascinating. People are willing deny anything to maintain a belief. You say it is ok to present data without attacks, but clearly for some Mormons here, the data itself is considered an attack.
-
Nonsense. Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear he was translating the characters from the plates. He even made a copy of some of them so his "translation" could be verified.Given Joseph's "translation" methodology, it probably wasn't a strict or direct translation, anyway. "Translating" the book of Mormon meant the plates were closed most of the time and not open.
But he still used the Bible to do it. Smith's intention was to restore lost material from the originals. Whatever he thought he was doing with the Bible, there can be no doubt he was conveying a strong message that he was making literal translations of the Egyptian papyri. To say he didn't need the plates to produce the Book of Mormon, kinda begs the question: Why then in the heck did Mormoni go through all the trouble to preserve and then bury them so Smith could find them?"Translating" the Bible meant receiving new information from revelation, such as the Book of Moses, etc.
This doesn't save Smith at all because Smith made it clear he was translating the characters. The first thing he did when he saw the papyri was to point out that it referred to Abraham and Joseph. He even provided a literal translation of Egyptian characters in the facsimile preceding the BoA text.And I can imagine that the papyri were just a catalyst for revelation.
Utterly amazing.It doesn't matter to me if it contained the sen-sen or the menu from a French restaurant.
Huh? God didn't "use" the text for anything. Joseph Smith claimed to be translating Egyptian characters into English because at the time there was nobody who could validate his claims. Now there are. Smith fails the test miserably. We know Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents. Period.If God chooses to reveal his truths by using such a document as a catalyst, I'm all for it.
The content doesn't help him either.It isn't the how it came about, but the content and context of the text that is important.
And that is by design. The apologists have fumbled the ball in trying to explain how Joseph Smith could have mistranslated it so badly, so they are focusing on whatever else they can.Most all of the arguments concerning the Book of Abraham that I have seen argue about everything but the contents of the Book of Abraham itself.
This is such nonsense. The Book of Abraham is filled with new doctrine that Smith had found in a book written by Thomas Dick. The book referred to spiritual intelligences that existed eternally, the throen of God was at the ecnter of teh Universe, etc. The parallels were just too overwhelming to ignore, and we know for a fact that Smith owned this book. It was published just a few years prior to the purchase of the Egyptian payri.It is most interesting to me that the Book of Abraham was written a very ancient Egyptian literary form that was lost in time and not known at the time of Joseph Smith.
Deal with the elephant in the room and tsop trying to foist a silly burden onto me. Why do his literal translations of literal egyptian characters bear no resemblance to anything related to Abraham?Some may argue that Joseph happened on the literary form by accident. If you are one that thinks this possible then I would ask you to write something in that form. You have the example of the Book of Abraham – so have a go at it.
Oh, more feelings to outweigh the facts, huh?Having read, considered and pondered the contents of the Book of Abraham I find it most interesting and without doubt a divinely inspired document.
-
It still does not take away from those of us who undoubtedly and unequivocally received an answer directly from God by the power of the Holy Ghost.
But they haven't. When you base it all on emotion, there is plenty reason to "doubt" it. Testimonies are not based on information. They are not educated decisions. They are decisions based on emotional highs that are induced by missionaries.
-
Why would God answer someone who was not sincere?
The question is, why would God give conflicting answers using the exact same emotional means, to two different groups of people?
-
The same is true of people who don't want to believe. They can and do find holes in anything, even truth.
True, but I wanted to believe. I still do. I was trying to believe for my entire 20 year membership. But I also think it would be cool if Santa Claus was real.
It cannot be argued that I was looking for reasons not to. Hell, I spent a good portion of my life working for apologetic efforts like FAIR. I think there are still a few articles up on their website that I authored years ago.
-
Exactly how did Joseph obtain his answers? Or perhaps your assumption is flawed.
There is no reasonable reason to believe he did. Why is it that God and Jesus never appear to anyone else? Is it really likely that Joseph's faith was that much stronger than the millions who have followed him?
Those WHO DO ASK and have the desire, hope, with sincerety and humbleness will receive an answer that matches his/her spiritual maturity. Anything outside of this will not receive anything. Get it?
Of course, but it is all nonsense. I had convinced myself as well as anyone possibly could, that the Church was true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet, when I first prayed about it. I knew for certainty that God was going to reward my faithfulness with an answer of some sort. Faith unwaivering, not a drop of doubt, that was me.
I prayed all night and eventually fell asleep. After receiving no answer, I assumed I was spiritually dirty in some way - because Mormons told me that would be the only way I wouldn't receive an answer - and then went into depression for a few months. And I tried to get myself out of it by joining the Church anyway.
I was assured by everyone in the Church that this was the right thing to do, because, after all, the Church was true. A year later, on my mission I met many guys who were in the same position that I was in. They never really received a hard definitive answer, but they were raised in the Church and they felt the pressures of having a testimony the way everyone else appeared to have. Instead, they just had faith that someday in the future God would reward their blind faithfulness with an answer that is undeniable. I would say 99% of all the "answers" that are talked about are easily explained as the placebo effect. Humans can induce feelings if they really want something to be true, and many people want the Church to be true, in spite of the evidence.
For those unfamiliar with teh placebo effect... And example would be like this. People who are given water pills, yet believe they contain aspirin, will often find themselves headache free within minutes. Mormonism works in the same way. It gets people to want the Church to be true,, by telling fairy-talesque stories about preexistence, families forever, sense of being special and unique, becoming a God, being the one and only special Church that is true, etc.
-
That is a convenient rationalization for Mormons who are left to wonder why nobody else follows their method and conclusion. But in any event, this is not what missionaries tell prospective converts. They assure them that they will get an answer. They never tell them that they have to be worthy of it. Instead they tell them it is about faith.Or they are not worthy of their answer.
This is just more apologetic nonsense that doesn't add up. People receive "good feelings" of negation that are identical those good feelings of confirmation. It all boils down to the fact that people will believe what they want to believe. This is an established fact. People who really want the Church to be true, will induce good feelings and convince themselves of it, depite the data to the contrary.Those who truly seek will do everything they can to be worthy of the companionship of the Spirit. They will be ready to act upon their answer and follow the way if it is shown to them. Else the Lord would not answer them only to condemn them for not adhering to it.
-
Your last two statements is the question I asked GOD.
But most people who ask God this get the negative response. So either God is lying or the method is flawed.
-
No argument from me on that. God wasn't responsible for either.Joseph Smith is as responsible for the D&C as Luke was for recording his gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament written to Theophilus.
LDS Christians do.And yet many Christians do believe and have a testimony of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church.
Yea, I know. And it is a testimony based on feelings, not information. As HiJolly said, "information" takes the back seat in the LDS method of conversion. But investigators are not told this ahead of time. They are not told upfront that they are going to be expected to make a life-changing decision based on minimal information and maximal emotion.My testimony is that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that his revelations found in the Doctrine and Covenants are true. It is also my testimony that the LDS church is true.
For example, the failure to tell black investigators about the priesthood ban, is dishonest and immoral. Or the fact that Spencer Kimball stood up in conference and told stories about modern indians becoming whiter in their skin tone, because they were becoming affiliated with the Church. This isn't anti-Mormon propaganda. It is recorded on the Church website for crying out loud. Are we supposed to listen to what the leaders say or aren't we? We know now that indians don't become whiter because of the gospel. We know this. In fact the latest apologetic maneuvering says the Book of Mormon ("white and delightsome")wasn't even referring to skin color; it was referring to a spiritual purity, or whatever.
If you think it doesn't matter to the investigators, and you really believe the spirit makes all the difference, then you should have nothing to fear in telling them the truth. But missionaries don't tell them because they know this will delay their efforts.
-
That is circular reasoning. Joseph Smith is responsible for D&C, not God. We know enough today about human psychology to know feelings are not reliable. they cloud judgment, they don't enhance it.
The church is losing members because they are losing their testimonies or never had one to begin with.
No member has a testimony in that sense. They have a conviction and belief. A testimony to "know" something is true requires that it be true to begin with. People who leave the faith come to a knowledge that the Church isn't true. And they are the ones basing their conclusions on something more reliable than feelings.
We must continually strengthen our testimonies and nourish them by feasting on Christ's words.
Most Christians today feast on his words, yet feel just as strongly that the LDS Church isn't true.
-
In other words, facts and information mean nothing. Rely on feelings.
This isn't how the rational human mind was designed to process and accept belief in anything.
Is it any wonder the Church is having a hard time keeping its members? Emotion is temporary, and active members remain active so long as they can keep riding that emotional high. Routine testimony meetings were designed to keep that emotion at the forefront. But emotion blinds, it doesn't enlighten. And most people end up researching things for themselves. Rational minds need this.
-
Unfortunately you are at a disavantage, since I am not in a controlled environment starring at a couple of 19 year old Elders. I am free to roam libraries and get all the information I need to make an educated decision.
If all investigators did this, the Church would have to rely on membership births to continue the growth of the Church.
-
Chiamsus is getting less and less attention today, as it seems clear Joseph Smith used the same technique in his other writings. Did you know chiasmus exists in the Doctrine and Covenants?
I don't see how this can be used as evidence for the Book of Mormon.
-
I'm glad you agree. Most apologists reject that premise.The Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP) were a set of documents that were used somehow in conjunction with the Book of Abraham's translation.
Well, all evidence seems to indicate that two of the manuscripts were the original translation manuscripts for the Book of Abraham.The question is how are they related.
No, that's not their argument. The KEP illustrate an English translation that corresponds to Egyptian characters taken from the extant papyri. The problem for the Church is that it suggests strongly that Joseph Smith believed this papyrus was the source for the Book of Abraham. The reason it is problematic is becauseSome claim that the KEP shows an alphabetary used to translate the BoA papyri, and therefore show that it was wrong and falsifiable.
No, you're confused with the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, which was actually used to translate Abraham 1:1-3, because there was a lacunae at the begining of the papyrus. Joseph Smith divined the missing characters and proceeded to translate a story about Abraham. The problem is modern Egyptologists have translated this text and it has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham. Not even close.Others claim that the KEP is an alphabetary that some members were developing so as to try and understand the hieroglyphs in the papyri.
Metcalfe has been more scholarsly than say, John Gee, who had deceived many with his arguments published in his "Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri." Calling everything youd on't like "anti" is really a lazy way of addressing data.Brent Metcalfe has a good copy of the KEP in his possession, and is writing a book on the subject. We are all hoping that he uses a scholarly approach, and not an anti-Mormon approach on it.
Brian Hauglid is the latest LDS scholar to take up the gauntlet. So far I'm not impressed with him.It seems he is trying to be scholarly in his research on it, even discussing points with LDS scholars of the KEP.
That's not true. There is nothing to suggest this. All the evidence suggests strongly that the KEP include the original translation manuscripts that are in the handwriting of Joseph Smith's hired scribes,Williams, Phelps and Parrish.In a recent FAIR conference, the KEP were discussed. Rather than a good copy of the KEP, the discussion came from high quality colored photographs of the KEP, which strongly suggested that the KEP was not used to translate the BoA.
No, nothing will ever be decided in the apologetic camp. The more it can be considered an unsolvable mystery, the better it is.Discourse continues, and it will be a long time before anything is actually decided, unless the Church allows some serious testing to be performed on the KEP.
-
I don't underestimate the power of truth. What's truth anyway? Saying "I know the Church is true" ad nauseum? People want to be shown why it is true. Simply saying so does nothing to convince, anymore than antis have power in saying its false. The responsible thing here to do is to investigate. And investigation requires reading both sides, not just one.ROFL. I don't think you're joking, but .... I think you underestimate the power of truth.
-
The internet is killing the Church.
The "every member a missionary" idea was witty and had meaning twenty years ago, but the fact is most Mormons aren't prepared to share factual information that means anything to a critical investigator, beyond sharing their testimony.
-
Incidentally, I just posted a comment on another thread that was closed. My post was deleted and someone said it was due to breaking this rule:
1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is contrary to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do not post anything that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.
Are you serious?
All I did was state an opinion. I certainly didn't post "Anti-LDS propaganda."
What kind of "discussions" can we expect to ensue here if everyone is expected to agree with the premise that everything the LDS Church says, is true? Is this forum only for two types of people, Mormon, and those wanting to be converted by Mormons?
Some clarification would be appreciated.
-
I was interested in discussing the Book of Abraham controversy and noticed there was only one previous discussion. But it had been shut down, apparently because false accusations were thrown at Brent Metcalfe.
Anyway, I was just wondering how many LDS were familiar with the KEP and its impact on the current controversy.
-
Post deletedAnd how do you explain that the Book of Abraham does not read as Joseph Smith claimed it did?
1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is contrary to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do not post anything that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.
Book of Abraham
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted