The Book of Abraham

[Avrham]

Dear DJ that story about the tithe sounds pretty far out i don't remeber the Bishop ever asking about the amount only the Honesty given with it

[rameumptom]

The way tithes are set up in the Church, it begins all over again every January. We declare our tithing status in December, and then it starts over for the new year. If a person has not paid tithes in the past, the bishop will usually have them pay tithes for a minimum amount of time prior to okaying them for the temple. Of the bishops I've worked with that time is usually 3-6 months.

NEVER has a bishop asked for back tithes. Now if that individual chose to do this on her own, that's her choice. But don't blame it on a bishop.

[MobyMule]

djnexus,

This is a most ridiculous story.

I read a personal story of a lady who talked to her bishop about getting married in the temple and he looked at the church records and determined she needed to pay over $5,000 in back tithe pay before she could goto the temple to get sealed. She had to take out a loan to pay the church just to get married. And if you dont pay your tithing no temple, or endowment, no temple or endowment = no eternal family.

1) I've never known any Bishop to actually compare the Church records and try to determine if someone is actually a full tithe payer. The question is a "yes" or "no" question, "Are you a full tithe payer?". Even during tithing settlement, that is the question.

2) There is no "back tithe". You simply repent and begin paying tithing from that point.

3) Is there a current or former bishop or member of a bishopric here who would ever accept loan money or counsel someone to get a loan to pay tithing? That goes contrary to the teachings of the Church in so many ways.

Now, if this really happened, it was some renegade Bishop. Which is possible I guess...

Regards,

Vanhin

You are correct. It is that simple.

[tolisamarie]

Why do people in the LDS church still give accreditation to the Book of Abraham? after its already been proven by professional Egyptologists that the scroll was nothing more than 1st Century A.D. Book of Breathings (or a manual for handling the "Book of Breathings" on a mummy) prepared for a deceased priest of the Egyptian god Amon, and accompanied by a portion of the Book of the Dead, which provides instructions on how the deceased should behave towards various gods to progress through the afterlife. One section of the papyrus deals with farm life near the Nile.

If he was wrong on that wouldnt it be safe to say he was wrong on alot of other things as well?

The Book of Abraham is the main reason that my parents left the church back in the 80's. As I understand it, the scroll that Joseph Smith believed to have been written by Abraham was actually just a scroll of funeral prayers for a dead Egyptian monk named Horace.

My personal belief is that all religious writings are allegorical in nature. Whether it's the Book of Abraham, the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Torah, the Talmud, etc., etc. The stories don't have to be factual in order to have merit and value. Gospel and scripture was written with the idea that it would guide and instruct mankind to live good and virtuous lives.

Do you know the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Of course you do - everyone does. It is an allegorical story that parents have been telling their children from time immemorial. It teaches us that if we lie to get attention there are consequences, perhaps grave ones. But, did it really happen? In the distant past was there really a village boy who was eaten by wolves because he sounded a false alarm too many times? Maybe, maybe not. The story doesn't have to be true or factual in order to be valid and have merit.

I can read the Book of Abraham and find value in it. For me, it doesn't have to be factual in order to be valuable.

Joseph Smith was a prophet which is defined as "a person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression". He was also a man - he was flesh and blood and fallible. But the messages he gave mankind in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price are valid, virtuous, and valuable. Perhaps this is why Church still gives them accreditation.

Edited April 5, 2012 by tolisamarie

[JudoMinja]

EDIT: After writing all this, I realized DJ will probably not be responding because the original post was from 2008.

DJ- I would like to know what your purpose is in coming here. Really.

It sounds like you've done your study and come to your conclusion that the LDS faith is false. You are certain there is no God. You are certain Joseph Smith was a fraud. You seem willing only to accept the scientific evidence, findings, and conclusions of scholarly experts who are faithless.

So why come to a community of people who do rely on faith and their feelings to make conclusions about truth, when you are just going to discredit it? Are you sincerely looking for some kind of answers or understanding from people who believe differently than you, or are you just trying to convince us you're right? Because if you're goal is the latter then I think you need to do a little introspection.

I consider myself a scientist and a scholar. I am certainly not an expert- I am far too young to have learned enough to consider myself such, but I've devoted much of my life to studying the sciences, psychology, and the various world religions. I've read quite a bit of the "anti-Mormon" stuff out there in my pursuit of truth- with the desire to understand what about our faith makes it difficult for others to accept. I've studied some of these topics in detail, and the answers I've found have only strengthened my faith. Let me explain this to you in a way I think you should understand:

Scholarly and scientific experts dig deep into many writings before writing anything of their own, conducting any experiments of their own, or reaching any conclusions. Why? Bias. No matter how un-biased you strive to be, everything you ever write or do is going to contain a bias. This is especially true of scientific pursuits due to the funding issues. Without producing results pleasing to the funders and scientist may loose their funding to continue their research. So, we have to examine far more than just what is written to come to any sort of conclusion about the facts. We have to examine the biases and how deeply engrained they are into whatever we are reading. An important thing to examine when looking at these biases is the goal, intent, or purpose of the writer.

The things you were told to stay away from, that were called "anti-Mormon", are considered "anti" material because the goal of the writers is to discredit the faith and to cast doubt in believers. They use some very interesting tactics to do this. First- much like politicians- they strive to sully the name of their opponent (the Church) by cutting down the character of past leaders or claiming that anyone who believes what the Church teaches has been brainwashed. They claim that the Church hides information from the members to cover up their wrongness. They claim that the only source of information that can be trusted is physical proof, and then they provide information that contains partial truths so that they can dig in their lies. Then, when engaging in a discussion with someone who still believes, instead of continuing to discuss the information they seek to discredit the believer or dig up information that this believer has not yet studied in order to have a "Ha!" moment to prove their rightness, and then laugh off any testimony the believer shares as phony.

The problem is not that all the anti-Mormon stuff is wrong. Interestingly, much of the information anti's use to write their doubt-casting material is from records preserved by the Church... which would mean the Church isn't really hiding it like they claim. The problem is not that their information isn't scholarly or intelligently thought out and concluded. The problem is in their extremely heavy bias and desire to throw off any ability to make an un-biased assessment of the truth by examining and comparing BOTH sides. You cannot reach an unbiased conclusion about the Church without examining ALL the evidence.

But members are taught to avoid the anti-literature, because most do not have the skill, knowledge, or even desire to see through the shady tactics and the lies. Faith does not require scholarly pursuit and understanding. For those who desire to seek it out, there is certainly nothing wrong with doing so- but you need to recognize the biases of the writers and do some serious digging instead of taking what they say at face value. Aside from this caution against reading anti-material, members are encouraged to seek out the truth from ALL sources, to seek from the "best books" words of wisdom. The Church does not seek to sully other faiths but instead recognizes that truth can be found in many sources and that many have good, uplifting, truth-full materials from which we can learn. This encouragement to look outside Church sources for information is exactly the opposite of what anti's do and exactly the opposite of what a group seeking to brainwash people would do.

Now, if you do a thoroughly un-biased study, taking this information you've delved from "anti" sources and then comparing them to the scholarly writings of non-believers who are not considered anti as well as the information provided by the church, and if- after you've completed this thorough study- you still conclude that there is no God and all religion is nothing more than a false structure striving to give people hope... then what is so wrong about people having a desire to cling to that hope? What is so wrong about a religion that teaches people to give and serve and help one another? What is so wrong about a faith that encourages people to be compassionate, forgiving, and loving?

I encourage you to give a bit more credit to your "feelings" as you strive to make your conclusions about the Church. The Church is not scholarly in nature. There are many scholars who have faith and believe, and there are many scholars who are faithless- but their faith or lack thereof is an issue entirely separate from their scholarly pursuits. You cannot examine a belief system quite the same way you would examine a scientific experiment. God does not provide "proof" of His existence. We cannot examine Him with our senses. Our goal, in having faith, is not to rely on just the information we can see and know. It is to have hope and believe in what we CAN'T see, because we have received a spiritual witness of it's truth. Only after you believe, only after you have faith, will the "evidence" line up in your sight.

If you WANT to have hope, if you WANT to believe, then this is a wonderful place to try and foster your faith. But whether you believe in an existence outside of our sphere of influence and understanding matters little to me. You're a big boy. You should be able to reach your own conclusions and follow your own path. If that path is a purposeless existence that will not continue beyond your mortal life, so be it. Go your way, and let us go ours. And if there really is no God and my belief has been false, then when I die my faith won't matter. But my life NOW is what is important, and I have found the most joy and comfort and happiness and peace in pursuing my faith and holding true to my hope in a brighter, greater, and more glorious future.

Edited April 5, 2012 by JudoMinja

[rameumptom]

The Book of Abraham is more than just a collection of papyri regarding the Book of Breathings.

There are a variety of theories regarding the papyri itself.

1. That there are other papyri Joseph described (including a roll over 20 feet long that we do not have) suggests that Abraham may have been on part of the lost fragments.

2. There is a Jewish/Egyptian theory, where Jews that had Abrahamic traditions took Egyptian scrolls and made them their own, creating a new translation. Abraham's name has been found in some other papyri from the same time period as the JS papyri.

3. The Catalyst Theory. Joseph Smith used whatever document at hand, and received a revelation on ancient things. The Book of Mormon plates were translated while the plates sat closed on the table. The Book of Moses and JS Bible "translation" came about from reading a regular Bible, adding things that one cannot find in any Bible manuscript known to man. D&C notes a document written by the apostle John and hidden under a rock that Joseph "translates" without having the document present. And the papyri could easily have been a Catalyst to bring about the Book of Abraham.

That the text of the document bring up many ancient concepts that Joseph Smith could not have known in his day, is something that virtually every person who attacks the BoA neglect to discuss. Why? Because it is so much easier to attack a straw man than to truly engage in the text itself.

[Guest kyolive]

Traveling across different san jose asian escorts can throw your schedule san jose asian escort When adding hours to your day by traveling west san jose escorts you may need to take more insulin san jose escort When losing hours traveling east

[CoolClarinetist1392]

If I could remember the scripture, it'd be more helpful to you, but the gist is: those with ears to listen, listen. Those with eyes to see, see. Abraham may have penned the text in such a way that it would be similar to a parable. The message to those who were/are prepared is understood just fine, yet to others it is something obscure and mundane. Jesus Christ taught in parables through a lot of his ministry. To those who would persecute Christ, he was just talking about birds and rocks, yet to the believer he was talking about faith and caring for our fellow man and loving them.

Ultimately, you can come across as much information proving it allegedly wrong as you want, however, none of it matters. The logic of man is far from identical to the logic of God. Just because man says something is wrong, it does not mean that God agrees. If you want to know the veracity of the Book of Abraham, pray about it and ask God if it is true. When I was an investigator, I spent a good deal of my time in the Pearl of Great Price because I felt the Spirit strongly on the concepts of man's relationship to God that were in it. I wish and pray the best for you.

[uniderth]

1. That there are other papyri Joseph described (including a roll over 20 feet long that we do not have) suggests that Abraham may have been on part of the lost fragments.

2. There is a Jewish/Egyptian theory, where Jews that had Abrahamic traditions took Egyptian scrolls and made them their own, creating a new translation. Abraham's name has been found in some other papyri from the same time period as the JS papyri.

3. The Catalyst Theory. Joseph Smith used whatever document at hand, and received a revelation on ancient things. The Book of Mormon plates were translated while the plates sat closed on the table. The Book of Moses and JS Bible "translation" came about from reading a regular Bible, adding things that one cannot find in any Bible manuscript known to man. D&C notes a document written by the apostle John and hidden under a rock that Joseph "translates" without having the document present. And the papyri could easily have been a Catalyst to bring about the Book of Abraham.

Theory number 1 is easily proven false. The symbols on the Egyptian papers which give the translation for the various symbols match those on the extant papyri fragments.

I haven't really investigated theory number 2 but I don't agree with it.

What I believe is correct is related to theory number three. My research started after hearing the "Joseph's translation isn't real Egyptian" argument for the millionth time. I decided to see if Joseph's translation had merit by itself. So instead of trying to compare his translation to the actual Egyptian I wanted to see if it was internally consistent with itself, if Joseph's translation worked in and of itself.

What I found surprised me because the translation does work. Joseph's translation is not a correct egyptologically. But his translation of symbols is internally consistent. Meaning the symbol he translates as Abraham is always translated as Abraham. He's not just randomly applying meaning to symbols. This is actually a carefully thought out process.

But the actual papyri are clearly not written by Abraham, because they were written much later than Abraham. The thing is that Joseph believed they were written by Abraham. The reason why is because Joseph Smith possessed a book called Antiquities of Freemasonry. This book described the history of Freemasonry as having descended from God through Adam down to the present day. This book provided additional details to Bible stories and many people at the time believed it was actual history. Joseph Smith had this book and read it. This book contained additional information about the Story of Abraham. This same information is much of what is in the Book of Abraham.

What happened was Joseph saw the symbols on the Papyri and noticed they seemed to depict elements from the Abraham story in Antiquities of Freemasonry. So this reaffirmed in Joseph's mind the truth of the information in Antiquities. Joseph believed he had the actual book of Abraham written by Abraham.

During the translation process Joseph Smith tried to figure out how the symbols were to be interpreted to be the story of Abraham. And he actually got it to work. His translation of the symbols actually worked to translate into the Book of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham is entirely a revealed work, it is not an historical work.

This also relates to the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. Much of the extra material included in the Bible comes from Antiquities of Freemasonry.

Joseph Smith obviously believed there was much truth in that book.

It doesn't matter if the Book of Abraham is literal or not. There is a lot of truth within its pages and truth stands by itself, regardless of the vehicle used to convey it.

I should also point out that much of this information was researched by George Miller(his internet name). However we both discovered the internal consistency of the translation independently.

[volgadon]

I haven't really investigated theory number 2 but I don't agree with it.

You should investigate the theory further. I've found a ton of material supporting it and I don't mean two or three isolated parallels, but a lot of examples both literary and archaeological which follow certain patterns.