livy111us

A few years ago in General Conference, it was said that what Priesthood holder says isn't what heals but the anointing and consecration of the oil does. If the giver was to end the blessing without any inspired words from himself it would not make a difference on the healing of the giver. If you are looking to have faith, have faith in the anointing and confirmation.

Theosis, or the potential for man to become like God, is not a Masonic or Illuminati practice, but originated in the Gospel Millennia ago. It can be traced back to Biblical times and was a foundational them over 2,000 years ago. This link has many scriptures and quotes which back up this claim. Scroll down the supporting claims section for this info: Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man - FAIRMormon I also have about 30 pages of scriptures, quotes from early Christians, Jews, scholars, etc.... which also points to this principle being ancient.

The Church has seen this trend and has in fact, advised against such get rich schemes. Modern-day prophets have pled in plainness for us to avoid get rich schemes " if we would avoid the heartaches of financial bondage. Perhaps we have not said enough about the fact that too many of us, in our moments of dreaming of grandeur, plant the seeds of economic disaster. Then at a later date when much is lost, we blame those who participated with us. It is difficult to be of good cheer when self-deceit is our companion. When we willingly expose ourselves to the winds and storms of fraud and scam, we should not be surprised when we come down with deficit disease. Over the years of listening to those who have suffered heavy money losses, I have heard many in desperation declare, "I was taken." Often my heart, mind, and the Spirit have prompted me to share, "Yes, you were taken by yourself." We all need to be encouraged to lift up our heads and see where our thoughts and undeclared priorities are taking us. Self-deceit permits us to blame others for our failures. Marvin J. Ashton, Be of Good Cheer [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987], 5.) Misrepresentation is the usual concomitant of gambling and I think of all get rich schemes. The principle of honesty seems to be inherent in sound labor, but it is ordinarily conspicuous by its absence in the manipulations that bring returns without work (Elder Stephen L Richards, Conference Report, April 1933, Afternoon Meeting 36.) I advise all Latter-day Saints to be patient in financial matters. Avoid rash or hurried financial decisions; such decisions require patience and study.get rich schemes seldom work. Joseph B. Wirthlin, Finding Peace in Our Lives [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1995], 207.) Invest wisely. Avoid speculations and get rich schemes. (Ensign, May 1981, p. 87.) Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr., Behold, I Come Quickly: The Last Days and Beyond [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1994], 178.) There are no shortcuts to financial security. There are no get rich schemes that work (Hope [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1994], .) We have learned to be careful as a Church concerning get rich schemes. A small element among us seems still to be affected with that injurious mentality (Arnold K. Garr and Clark V. Johnson, eds., Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint History: Missouri [Provo: Department of Church History and Doctrine, 1994], 10.)

The best article I've read on women and the priesthood was written by Carol Madsen and called Mormon Women and the Temple: Toward a New Understanding. This article will answer most every question anyone has about the subject. You can read it here: Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective - Google Books

I would say that they have the power of the priesthood in certain circumstances, such as the Temple. Joseph Smith said that they would share the authority of the priesthood with their husbands (see below) and, of course, they partake in the blessings of the priesthood. President Franklin D. Richards: "I ask any and everybody present who have received their endowments, whether he be a brother Apostle, Bishop, High Priest, Elder, or whatever office he may hold in the Church, "What blessings did you receive, what ordinance, what power, intelligence, sanctification or grace did you receive that your wife did not partake of with you?" I will answer, that there was one thing that our wives were not made special partakers of, and that was the ordination to the various orders of the priesthood which were conferred upon us. Aside from that, our sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that we have been made partakers of. Now, I ask you: Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Do you not see, by what I have read, that Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connection with their husbands? I hold that a faithful wife has certain blessings, powers and rights, and is made partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband, which she cannot be deprived of, EXCEPT BY TRANSGRESSION of the holy order of God. They shall enjoy what God said they should. And these signs shall follow them if they believe." (Brian H. Stuy, ed., Collected Discourses, 5 vols. [burbank, Calif., and Woodland Hills, Ut.: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992], 5: [19 July 1888]).

If you know of any inaccurate information on FAIR (not FAIRS) they are more than willing to correct it. Lately there has been a rash of accusations against FAIR by ex-Mormons who make similar claims to the one you are making right now. FAIR has asked what exactly is inaccurate with *any* of their information on their website and no one has produced any, instead they just attack FAIR. In my opinion, that is a good thing. If the anti-Mormons are mad at FAIR for what it does, then they must be doing something right :)

There are some second and third hand accounts which point toward the idea that Joseph Smith had children with some of his plural wives which the critics love to quote. However, through modern DNA studies we have found that in every single case these claims were false. Ugo Perego has tested every possible connection to these theories and discussed his discoveries at a FAIR conference lecture a few years ago. He is still searching for any genetic evidence to this very day and has yet to find any. You can read his lecture here: 2008 Joseph Smith DNA Revealed: New Clues from the Prophet’s Genes « FAIR Personally, I don't care if he did or not. If they were married and took that marriage to mean exactly what we think of it as today, then why not? But the evidence just is not there yet. You can read a lot of the pros and cons to this topic here: Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages - FAIRMormon To the fact that some of these were young women also personally doesn't cause me any anxiety. My Grandmother-in-law who was not LDS was married when she was 14 years old to a 25 year old and nobody blinked twice. In Joseph Smith's day the average age of a woman when she was married was 16-17 years old. Edgar Allen Poe married a 13 year old. Thomas Edison married a 16 year old William Clark (of Lewis and Clark) married a 16 year old. According to scholars, Mary the mother of Jesus, was only around 12 years old when she was betrothed to Joseph and bore Jesus when she was 13 years old. I cannot find where I put the evidence for that in my notes, so here is some info that google helped me find :) "Mary was still alive at the time of Jesus' crucifixion as she was present at the execution. In those days life expectancy was only 40-50 years of age. We are told that Jesus was around 33 when he was crucified, so it is likely that Mary could not have been much older than 45 - 50. Therefore, she must have been no older than 13 - 16 when she had Jesus. This seems very young by today's culture, but in those days teenage marriages were common. As soon as girls started menstruation (say, at around 12 - 13) they were deemed biologically able to bear children and therefore of marriageable age. Joseph had to be at least 30 years because back then you were an apprentice carpenter until you were thirty and he was a full carpenter. This means that there was about a 20 year difference between Joseph and Mary. Science has recently placed that the conception of Jesus to a more accurate date. And this date would have made Mary about 12 years old when she conceived. Meaning she was 12-13 when she gave birth. Almost all girls were already married off by the age of 16. And most were starting to get married as soon as the first menstruation appeared and even before that. Especially in a culture of pre-arranged marriages. To keep with Judaic Law Mary didn't conceive until it was already known that she had her first menstruation." Point being, in our modern view of how old we think the age of the bride should be is just that, a modern view. This view would not have been a big problem as late as 50 years ago, and would not have been viewed of as unusual 200 years ago let alone 2,000 years ago. We are placing our standards we have accepted that is both modern and in a lot of respects isolated to only our and a few other cultures. If this was brought up in many countries to this very day no one would think twice about it. But if were to look at this issue in the lens of early colonial America, or ancient cultures, there is absolutely nothing abnormal of a young teenager getting married off. My parents are converts to the Church and I have no LDS heritage beyond them. I've spent a lot of time doing genealogy and have also found numerous examples of this in my own non-LDS family tree and am fairly certain that most of us could also point something similar in theirs. Here is a wiki article that FAIR has on the age of women: Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women - FAIRMormon Hope that answers your question

Regarding Joseph Smith "boasting" visit this article: Joseph Smith/Narcissism/Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact - FAIRMormon In reality, there is absolutely NOTHING you can say that will change this persons mind. I've been discussing and debating anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons for a VERY long time and no matter how much they tell you they are sincere, as soon as you answer one question they move onto another like you never said anything. There is nothing better to do than to bear your testimony and cut off contact. I can guarantee you that this exchange will go absolutely nowhere and when it is over it will be nothing more than a big waste of your time and leaving you feeling icky.

Regarding polyandry, this is a subject that critics love to use as a weapon to beat their former faith with. However, they don't explain the issue much beyond a few sentences, and that is only to give a shock factor in hopes to cause you to falter in your faith. But when it is looked at more closely it is not what critics try to make it out to be. Polygamy was a principle at that time and just with all new principles, there were bugs that needed to be worked out. Whether it was baptisms for the dead where men would do the work for women and vise versa, or the word of wisdom, there were bugs. It was thought that by marrying the Prophet you would be more blessed in the afterlife. These were sealings *only* and not what we would consider marriages. There were no sexual relations but these were only spiritual marriages. Many of these were performed vicariously long after Joseph Smith had died. You can read more on this subject here: Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry - FAIRMormon 2009 Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Plural Marriage (but were afraid to ask) « FAIR

Starting with #1, the book of Abraham has been shown, many times over, to contain correct translations from ancient Egyptian. This wouldn't be that big of a deal except that Egyptian could not be translated by *anyone* in Joseph Smiths day because they had not figured it out yet. The book of Abraham contains many stories that are not contained in any text available in Joseph Smiths day that many used to mock. But since it's publication we have found these exact same stories in ancient manuscripts. How would Joseph Smith know about *many* stories that were not even discovered yet? LDS FAQ: Ancient Evidences for the Book of Abraham: Other Records Confirm its Story Book of Abraham/Evidence for antiquity - FAIRMormon Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant by John Gee, and Brian M. Hauglid Mormon Challenges I began to reflect: Book of Abraham--Names Abraham in Egypt by Hugh W. Nibley A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee Search results for "abraham" The Backyard Professor: Powerful Egyptological Evidence for Book of Abraham facsimile 1, figure 9 Crocodile as "Idolatrous god of Pharaoh" http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/one-day-to-a-cubit/ Joseph Smith was well aware that there were some funerary texts in the papyri. In the History of the Church it mentions the some papyrus as being “Two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c., were found with others of the mummies.” (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 2: 348 - 351.) The definition of an epitaph is literary a funerary document. How could Joseph Smith know that epitaphs (funerary texts), or writings in relation to astronomy were on papyrus, if he could not read Egyptian? Here are only a few things Joseph Smith got right in his translation -In Facsimile No.1, Fig.12, and Facsimile No.2, Fig. 4, Joseph Smith defines Raukeeyang as "expanse, or the firmament." Non-Mormon scholars, such as James Strong, who published their research long after the publication of the Book of Abraham, say that rah-kee'ag means "firmament" or "expanse." -Joseph Smith said the same figure signifies Shaumau, meaning "high or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem. " Later scholars said the word is authentic and means "lofty sphere of celestial bodies." -Joseph Smith defined Fig.6 in Facsimile No.2, as the "earth in its four quarters." Critics tried to cover up his correct translation by arguing that Fig.6 instead represents the four canopic jars, which symbolize the four sons of Horus. Research beyond such a superficial explanation reveals that those four sons of Horus represented the four quarters of the earth. - Critics have asked why Joseph Smith did not give the same definition for the same four figures in Facsimile No.1, Figures 5,6,7, and 8. The answer is that he was giving the names of the idolatrous gods in each of the four quarters of the earth. For example, Elkenah means God of Canaan and was worshipped in the North; Libnah, or Libya, was to the West; Korash, or Cush was in the South; and Mahmackrah means "the upholder of Rah," Amun Rah being the Egyptian god worshipped by the Chaldeans in the East. -Joseph Smith identified Fig.4 in Facsimile No.2 as "a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand." Critics have tried to cover up this correct explanation by simply saying that it is Horus-Soped or Sokar. Research beyond such a simplistic explanation reveals that the boat figure is often called "the Ship of a Thousand" or the ship with its "soul of a thousand-fold. " -Joseph Smith said that Fig.5 in Facsimile No. 2, represents one of the governing planets, also the sun, receiving its power from the stars. Critics have tried to cover up his correct explanation by simply claiming it is the Egyptian goddess Hathor. Again, research beyond such a simplistic answer reveals that Hathor's name meant "the house above, i.e. the region of the sky or heaven...a personification of the house in which Horus the sun-god dwelt." Egyptologists say that Hathor often appeared in the form of a star near the sun. -Joseph Smith said that Fig.7 in Facsimile No.2 "Represents God sitting on his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand key words of the Priesthood." Critics have tried to cover up this correct explanation by simply saying it is Min or Osiris combined with Thoth, pointing out his characteristic head of an ibis bird. Research beyond such a simplistic diversion reveals that Thoth was an Egyptian god who had the knowledge of divine speech or the gift of holy language. Others say Thoth was the tongue of Ptah. These descriptions sound very much like the "grand key words." Behind his head is a flail or scourge which was a symbol of power and authority much like the power of the priesthood. -Joseph Smith said that Fig.1 in Facsimile 3 represents "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne." Critics have emphatically denied that the supreme ruler of such a mighty nation would so honor a lowly, nomadic shepherd. However, historical records verify that during the Egyptian Sed Festival,Abraham did indeed take the place of Pharaoh as the "substitute king." - Joseph Smith said that Shinehah is the sun (Abr.3:13). The Egyptian word sheni means "encircle," and nehah means the "sun." - Joseph Smith said that Kokob means "star," and that Kokaubeam means "stars" (Abr.3:13). Non-Mormon scholars have defined Kokawb or Kokab as "star," and Kokabim as "stars." This brand new website also has a few short, well done videos on the book of Abraham Mormon Challenges

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism says this about reincarnation In Latter-day Saint doctrine, mankind is on the road to immortality and eternal life. One moves from one type of existence to another along the way. But this teaching is distinguishable from reincarnation on several counts: 1. In Latter-day Saint belief, there is only one physical death for any one person (Heb. 9:27). Amulek, in the Book of Mormon, taught that man can die only once (Alma 11:45). Reincarnation posits many deaths, but in Latter-day Saint thought, the resurrection (incarnation) follows death (cf. D&C 29:24-25). 2. In LDS theology, the physical body is sacred, and its elements are imperishable. The body is prerequisite to becoming like God. In reincarnation, the present physical body is of little or no consequence. 3. In LDS theology, mortality is a time to be tested and proved "to see if [people] will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them" (Abr. 3:25). In reincarnation, there are many future lives, so there is no urgent need to repent now. Reincarnation contradicts Amulek's admonition that "this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God" (Alma 34:32). The Prophet Joseph Smith said that transmigration of souls (spirits) was not a correct principle (TPJS, pp. 104-105). 4. In LDS theology, there is one single, unique historical act of redemption made by Jesus Christ. Through it, Christ becomes the only name under heaven "whereby man can be saved" (D&C 18:23). Reincarnation denies the absolute centrality of Christ's Atonement by affirming the theoretical existence of an abundance of equally miraculous deities, who appear in a variety of forms, born again and again. Reincarnation - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

I don't agree. I cherish everything my kids make for me and have special drawer to put them all. In 30 years when they are all grown up, I actually have a piece of the past that can remind me of how they were, what was going through their head, and how they viewed life. If I throw it all away, all I have is faded memories and, most likely, regrets that I tossed everything because I thought it might cause clutter. But then again, I'm a sentimental person.

Of all the theories, this is probably the least likely and has been disproven by LDS scholars of many fields, many who do not espouse any particular theory. There is a lack of scholarly rigor, and an abundance of playing loose with the facts so much so that it is hard to believe anything he is saying (an example of this is him only quoting Joseph Smith when he agrees with his theory, but leaving out and ignoring Joseph Smith and other Prophets when they place The Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica). There are enough red flags that I'd be weary of accepting the above theory as fact if I were you. Here are a few articles which point out the major flaws in the theory you link to. The Hopewell culture (in the Great Lakes area) and The Book of Mormon: Do they match? | FAIR Blog Joseph Smith, Revelation, and Book of Mormon Geography - Matthew Roper - FARMS Review - Volume 22 - Issue 2 Losing the Remnant: The New Exclusivist "Movement" and the Book of Mormon - Matthew Roper - FARMS Review - Volume 22 - Issue 2 Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA - Gregory L. Smith - FARMS Review - Volume 22 - Issue 1 The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint - Ugo A. Perego - FARMS Review - Volume 22 - Issue 1 Land of Promise in The Book of Mormon | FAIR Blog Weather in relation to Book of Mormon geography | FAIR Blog The Book of Mormon and the X haplogroup….again | FAIR Blog Zelph in relation to Book of Mormon geography | FAIR Blog Book of Mormon geography in Joseph Smith’s day | FAIR Blog Reviews of DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography « FAIR If you like videos, I personally find this video to be much more compelling. It was done by BYU and interviews 20 some scholars to produce a very well done video that touches both the spiritual and physical evidence side of The Book of Mormon. I have studied this a lot, probably a little too much, so if you have any specific questions about it please let me know.

All of the ex-Mormons I deal with can be summarized in two words: bitter and angry

While a little out of character (I try not to make it a habit of pointing out flaws in other faiths) I thought it may benefit some other LDS members on this board to point out why I personally do not believe in transubstantiation. I will post my piece and then leave the conversation because I don't want this to turn into a "bash". A few scriptures Genesis 9:4- But you will not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood Leviticus 17:11-12– For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel ‘No one among you will eat blood, nor will any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood Acts 15:28-29–It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality “It is among the early gnostics [early Christian heretics] that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” (The Influence of Greek Ideas Christianity, pg. 308) The Christian scholar John Davies writes “The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: 'This is my body.' The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.” (The Early Christian Church, pg. 54) Pope Paul VI said in the Credo of the people of God that "Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration..." But numerous scientists have taken the wafer after it was blessed and the result was that it was, well, a wafer. If anyone finds this post offensive, please let me know and I will remove it. I have nothing but respect for the Catholic faith but believe some LDS may find my comments beneficial.

LDS scholar Michael Ash has written a book on the phenomena of shaken faith called Shaken Faith Syndrome. It looks at the why's and how's peoples faith are shaken from a Gospel and Psychological point of view and how to help them in this state of loss of faith. You will understand what is going on in the head of those who are questioning and give you insight into why he is doing what he is doing. I would highly recommend this book for you because it was written for people in your position. You can get it here: Shaken Faith Syndrome - FAIR LDS Bookstore He gave a short lecture on a few items mentioned in his book in a FAIR conference lecture in 2008. You can watch it here: Read it here: http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Michael-Ash.pdf You may also benefit from learning what LDS Psychiatrist Wendy Ulrich said about cognitive dissonance. The discomfort one feels when he/she comes across information that contradicts firmly held beliefs and how the mind deals with this situation. You can see her lecture here: and read it here: 2005 “Believest thou…?”: Faith, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Psychology of Religious Experience « FAIR

I think the ministry means exactly what it says, the ministry of the Gospel or missionary work. Joseph later wrote this about about the event: "After the foregoing was received, William E. M’Lellin, as the wisest man, in his own estimation, having more learning than sense, endeavored to write a commandment like unto one of the least of the Lord’s, but failed; it was an awful responsibility to write in the name of the Lord. The Elders and all present that witnessed this vain attempt of a man to imitate the language of Jesus Christ, renewed their faith in the fulness of the Gospel, and in the truth of the commandments and revelations which the Lord had given to the Church through my instrumentality; and the Elders signified a willingness to bear testimony of their truth to all the world." History of the Church 1:226 If you are doing a study of the Doctrine and Covenants, I would highly recommend this commentary: https://sites.google.com/site/hwsarc/system/app/pages/subPages?path=/home/dc It is the most informative I have found (and I read a lot of commentaries) and does an excellent job in probing into the D/C

That is incorrect. There are many Egyptologists in the Church who have shown that Joseph Smith got it right. FAIR has recently produced a DVD which interviews Egyptologists, Linguists, Historians, and other scholars to show that Joseph Smith could *not* have known a fraction of what he got right. You can get it here: Most Remarkable Book, A: Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Abraham - FAIR LDS Bookstore Joseph Smith not only does a great job at translating, but the book of Abraham contains many stories that were unknown in Joseph Smiths day, but have recently been found in ancient documents that were discovered. How would one know about these? He could *possibly* have gotten portions of one story correct, but there are numerous stories which he gets exactly right. Here are some great resources: This provides some resources and commentary showing the stories in the BOA to be ancient LDS FAQ: Ancient Evidences for the Book of Abraham: Other Records Confirm its Story Book of Abraham/Evidence for antiquity - FAIRMormon Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant by John Gee, and Brian M. Hauglid Abraham in Egypt by Hugh W. Nibley A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee Search results for "abraham" The Backyard Professor: Powerful Egyptological Evidence for Book of Abraham facsimile 1, figure 9 Crocodile as "Idolatrous god of Pharaoh" This one was just published a few days ago: One Day to a Cubit | Interpreter Joseph Smith was well aware that there were some funerary texts in the papyri. In the History of the Church it mentions the some papyrus as being “Two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c., were found with others of the mummies.” (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 2: 348 - 351.) The definition of an epitaph is literary a funerary document. How could Joseph Smith know that epitaphs (funerary texts), or writings in relation to astronomy were on papyrus, if he could not read Egyptian? Here are only a few things Joseph Smith got right in his translation -In Facsimile No.1, Fig.12, and Facsimile No.2, Fig. 4, Joseph Smith defines Raukeeyang as "expanse, or the firmament." Non-Mormon scholars, such as James Strong, who published their research long after the publication of the Book of Abraham, say that rah-kee'ag means "firmament" or "expanse." -Joseph Smith said the same figure signifies Shaumau, meaning "high or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem. " Later scholars said the word is authentic and means "lofty sphere of celestial bodies." -Joseph Smith defined Fig.6 in Facsimile No.2, as the "earth in its four quarters." Critics tried to cover up his correct translation by arguing that Fig.6 instead represents the four canopic jars, which symbolize the four sons of Horus. Research beyond such a superficial explanation reveals that those four sons of Horus represented the four quarters of the earth. - Critics have asked why Joseph Smith did not give the same definition for the same four figures in Facsimile No.1, Figures 5,6,7, and 8. The answer is that he was giving the names of the idolatrous gods in each of the four quarters of the earth. For example, Elkenah means God of Canaan and was worshipped in the North; Libnah, or Libya, was to the West; Korash, or Cush was in the South; and Mahmackrah means "the upholder of Rah," Amun Rah being the Egyptian god worshipped by the Chaldeans in the East. -Joseph Smith identified Fig.4 in Facsimile No.2 as "a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand." Critics have tried to cover up this correct explanation by simply saying that it is Horus-Soped or Sokar. Research beyond such a simplistic explanation reveals that the boat figure is often called "the Ship of a Thousand" or the ship with its "soul of a thousand-fold. " -Joseph Smith said that Fig.5 in Facsimile No. 2, represents one of the governing planets, also the sun, receiving its power from the stars. Critics have tried to cover up his correct explanation by simply claiming it is the Egyptian goddess Hathor. Again, research beyond such a simplistic answer reveals that Hathor's name meant "the house above, i.e. the region of the sky or heaven...a personification of the house in which Horus the sun-god dwelt." Egyptologists say that Hathor often appeared in the form of a star near the sun. -Joseph Smith said that Fig.7 in Facsimile No.2 "Represents God sitting on his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand key words of the Priesthood." Critics have tried to cover up this correct explanation by simply saying it is Min or Osiris combined with Thoth, pointing out his characteristic head of an ibis bird. Research beyond such a simplistic diversion reveals that Thoth was an Egyptian god who had the knowledge of divine speech or the gift of holy language. Others say Thoth was the tongue of Ptah. These descriptions sound very much like the "grand key words." Behind his head is a flail or scourge which was a symbol of power and authority much like the power of the priesthood. -Joseph Smith said that Fig.1 in Facsimile 3 represents "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne." Critics have emphatically denied that the supreme ruler of such a mighty nation would so honor a lowly, nomadic shepherd. However, historical records verify that during the Egyptian Sed Festival, Abraham did indeed take the place of Pharaoh as the "substitute king." - Joseph Smith said that Shinehah is the sun (Abr.3:13). The Egyptian word sheni means "encircle," and nehah means the "sun." - Joseph Smith said that Kokob means "star," and that Kokaubeam means "stars" (Abr.3:13). Non-Mormon scholars have defined Kokawb or Kokab as "star," and Kokabim as "stars." This brand new website also has a few short, well done videos on the book of Abraham. Mormon Challenges If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

-…[W]e need not become paralyzed with fear of Satan’s power. He can have no power over us unless we permit it. He is really a coward, and if we stand firm, he will retreat…. He cannot know our thoughts unless we speak them. (James E Faust, General Conference, The Great Imitator, Oct. 1987) “But while Satan can convey thoughts, he does not know whether these thoughts have taken root unless they are reflected either in words or in actions.” (General Conference, Oct. 1991, Elder Francis M. Gibbons)

Here is what our Doctrine and Covenants says about the issue https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91?lang=eng 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the aApocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; 2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are ainterpolations by the hands of men. 3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be atranslated. 4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him aunderstand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; 5 And whoso is enlightened by the aSpirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; 6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

This is quite an insightful piece from NAMI: "How can one justify the change from "white and delightsome" in 2 Nephi 30:6 to "pure and delightsome"? "White" need not refer to skin color, as is clear from the following passages from the biblical book of Daniel: "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed" (Daniel 11:35). "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand" (Daniel 12:10). In both of these passages, the meaning of the word "white" is most obviously pure; to "make white" is to purify (see also Mormon 9:6). When Joseph Smith first translated the Book of Mormon, he gave the literal rendering of "white" for the passage in 2 Nephi 30:6. For the 1840 edition, he changed it to "pure," realizing that this better reflected the meaning of the word used by Nephi. That the terms "white and pure" were considered synonymous by the rabbis is supported by the medieval Jewish kabbalistic text, Zohar 211b, which speaks of the purification of the souls of the dead by being "immersed in that 'river of fire'" mentioned in Daniel 7:10. The text says that "fire alone has the virtue of consuming every pollution in the soul, and making it emerge pure and white . . . for that soul will have to pass through the fire in order to come out pure and white" (Maurice Simon, and Paul P. Levertoff, The Zohar (New York:, 1958), 4:218-20.)"

I'd recommend the Church's Institute manual on the New Testament. It is a pretty good commentary on the meaning of the scriptures with background and insights. New Testament Manual - LDS Institute “The rabbis often spoke of the Gentiles as dogs. … “… [Jesus] says not ‘dogs,’ but ‘little dogs,’ i.e. household, favourite dogs, and the woman cleverly catches at the expression, arguing that if the Gentiles are household dogs, then it is only right that they should be fed with the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” (Dummelow, Commentary, pp. 678–79.)

Regarding the book of Abraham, I would say FAIR is one of the best resources. Here is a book written by an Egyptologist on the book of Abraham. It is more of an introduction to defense and evidences of the book of Abraham: A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee Here are other books and articles which go into more detail: Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant by John Gee, and Brian M. Hauglid Abraham in Egypt by Hugh W. Nibley Articles written by Egyptologist John Gee: Viewing Author: John Gee Articles written by Egyptologist Michael Rhodes: Viewing Author: Michael D. Rhodes Articles written by Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein: Viewing Author: Kerry Muhlestein and the first 10 of almost 2,000 articles and resources on the book of Abraham: Search results for "abraham" My favorite resource is a DVD that FAIR has recently released on evidences of the book of Abraham. They interview Egyptologists, historians, linguists, and other scholars on evidences and it makes a very strong case for it's authenticity. You can watch a trailer of it here: and purchase it here: Most Remarkable Book, A: Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Abraham - FAIR LDS Bookstore

We actually have scripture explaining the apocrypha. In D/C 91 it tells us that there is some truth in them, but we need read it with the Spirit. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91?lang=eng Section 91 Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, 9 March 1833 (see History of the Church, 1:331–32). The Prophet was at this time engaged in the translation of the Old Testament. Having come to that portion of the ancient writings called the Apocrypha, he inquired of the Lord and received this instruction. 1–3, The Apocrypha is mostly translated correctly but contains many interpolations by the hands of men that are not true; 4–6, It benefits those enlightened by the Spirit. 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the aApocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; 2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are ainterpolations by the hands of men. 3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be atranslated. 4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him aunderstand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; 5 And whoso is enlightened by the aSpirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; 6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

Who is “the man of sin?” A friend wrote this: Who is “the man of sin?” Strong Reasons Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away (apostasia) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? (2 Thessalonians 2:3-5) Latter-day Saints have long understood this passage to refer to refer to the apostasy of primitive Christianity. This raises the question, however, of who is this “son of perdition” or “man of sin?” I think we first have to define what “the temple” is in this context. I believe it is figurative for the church itself in the same way Paul uses it in Ephesians 2:19-22. God was thought to literally dwell in the temple and to figuratively dwell in the Church through the Holy Spirit (see Ephesians 2:19-22). Therefore, “the man of sin” is someone who takes the place of divine revelation in God’s church. Here is some insightful commentary from two protestant scholars: By this apostasy we are not to understand a defection in the state, or from civil government, but in spiritual or religious matters, from sound doctrine, instituted worship and church government, and a holy life. The apostle speaks of some very great apostasy, not only of some converted Jews or Gentiles, but such as should be very general, though gradual, and should give occasion to the revelation of rise of antichrist, that man of sin. This, he says (2 Th. 2:5), he had told them of when he was with them, with design, no doubt, that they should not take offence nor be stumbled at it. And let us observe that no sooner was Christianity planted and rooted in the world than there began to be a defection in the Christian church. It was so in the Old Testament church; presently after any considerable advance made in religion there followed a defection: soon after the promise there was revolting; for example, soon after men began to call upon the name of the Lord all flesh corrupted their way, – soon after the covenant with Noah the Babel-builders bade defiance to heaven, – soon after the covenant with Abraham his seed degenerated in Egypt, – soon after the Israelites were planted in Canaan, when the first generation was worn off, they forsook God and served Baal, – soon after God’s covenant with David his seed revolted, and served other gods, – soon after the return out of captivity there was a general decay of piety, as appears by the story of Ezra and Nehemiah; and therefore it was no strange thing that after the planting of Christianity there should come a falling away (Matthew Henry [1662-1714].Commentary on the Whole Bible). We have the original word apostasía in our word apostasy; and by this term we understand a dereliction of the essential principles of religious truth – either a total abandonment of Christianity itself, or such a corruption of its doctrines as renders the whole system completely inefficient to salvation (Adam Clarke [1715-1832]. Commentary on the Bible). James E. Talmage seems to agree with the Protestant commentary: The Roman pontiff exercised secular as well as spiritual authority; and in the eleventh century arrogated to himself the title of Pope, signifying Father, in the sense of paternal ruler in all things. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the temporal authority of the pope was superior to that of kings and emperors; and the Roman church became the despotic potentate of nations, and an autocrat above all secular states. Yet this church, reeking with the stench of worldly ambition and lust of dominance, audaciously claimed to be the Church established by Him who affirmed: “My kingdom is not of this world.” The arrogant assumptions of the Church of Rome were not less extravagant in spiritual than in secular administration. In her loudly asserted control over the spiritual destinies of the souls of men, she blasphemously pretended to forgive or retain individual sins, and to inflict or remit penalties both on earth and beyond the grave. She sold permission to commit sin and bartered for gold charters of indulgent forgiveness for sins already done. Her pope, proclaiming himself the vicar of God, sat in state to judge as God Himself; and by such blasphemy fulfilled the prophecy of Paul following his warning in relation to the awful conditions antecedent to the second coming of the Christ: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (James E. Talmage. Jesus the Christ, 693.)