Apostasy from Christ' true teachings

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.)DHC = ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

DHC = Documentary History of the Church
D&C = Doctrines and Covenants

---

Thank you, I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same information.

quote:

---

Yes. States. Not nations. The rest of the world, for the most part, remained staunchly neutral.

---

Working on a response.

quote:

---

Evidence somewhere that "generation" means, or ever meant, "dispensation".

​

Care to address the other ones?

---

I'll come back to this one, I am listing them down for later when we have removed the simple ones.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-13-2003]

I can't validate this story the sources are out of my reach. I am not sure that the actual story is true, did a person from the church of LDS really leave because he really did do genetic research and found dna problems? How to validate this claim is my problem.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

working on a responseQuiz

The idea that the Book of Breathings could be correctly translated to give Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham is simply absurd. The texts bear no relation to each other.And presumably you think it is morally acceptable to use violence to prevent the publication of criticisms of the LDS Church, too. That is WHY Joseph Smith was in jail.

quote:

---

When people try to stop the work of the Lord, they die and this is ok because they are trying to stop the way of the Lord, it is the same for those who disagree with the Lords work(i.e satan), they die, very simple comcept, I am surprised they didn't die.

---

Ah, got it. Shootouts are godly in your book, as long as you feel one side is in the right.

quote:

---

As far as the transaltion of ancient documents, Yes they are still making discoveries that help them to correct the err in translating these documents. I do understand the more they find the more they believe they have a correct understanding of these documents. The problem is, what if they find a key (i.e. a corner stone, not the rosetta stone) and this piece changes the entire puzzle from understanding ancient documents to showing they were 100% wrong?.

---

That has never happened. Not once. Nothing even close.

quote:

---

I am saying they are 100% wrong in their understanding because they dont have all the puzzles and never will.

---

Ah. So if something works consistantly and perfectly and forms perfect sentences in every reading, and coincides with other cultures writings, it's wrong?Don't you understand? Other cultures talk, in their languages, about egyptian cities, egyptian kings, egyptian culture, egyptian religion. We find the *exact same thing* corresponding in egyptian heiroglyphs. We don't see ancient greek texts describing Alexandria as having features A, B, and C; and then try to read the heiroglyphs and get a city named AirdnaxelA which has no A, B, or C, but has D, E, and F. We find Alexandria, with A, B, and C.Do you want specifics? Mediterranean writers were prolific.

quote:

---

I wont debate the ancient language problem here, I am not going to fall for something that is unsecure.

---

Why don't you just claim that "We don't really know what Chinese people are writing"? It's about as accurate of a claim. What are the odds of a language so misunderstood that something that translates as a book of the dead would actually be about sacrificing Abraham? How could translations be that far off, and still translate perfectly? Here's a random hymn to Aten - try to replace random words to make it be about Abraham being sacrificed, and make it still be *self consistant*, let alone consistant with all other Egyptian writings.Go on, try. If you can't do this with *deliberate* changes, how do you think a document could be *accidentally* changed so dramatically and still be consistent?Then try Amenhotep III's Cattle Hunt Scarab (although, to be fair the writing on the scarab is a bit blurred in a few places).

quote:

---

Even if they had the keystone to understanding these ancient documents

---

They do. It's called the Rosetta Stone. Remember - same document, in multiple languages? What part of this don't you understand?

quote:

---

nobody is around to validate the understanding to say if this understanding is correct or incorrect.

---

Except for the hundreds of thousands of heiroglyphs that would make no sense if they couldn't read them properly.

quote:

---

I wont ever agree with any translation of ancient document and say, ok that is factual. Honestly as a critical thinker I dont see how you "being a critical thinker" would accept something which is relying hope.

---

So, being a critical thinker means that, given a well known language which forms complete coherent sentences, reflective of their environments, every last time, which correspond to accurate events in the real world, you need to assume that it, in this particular case, can misinterpret a book about Abraham as being a tome for the burial of the dead? Why, persay, are most mummies buried with a tome about the sacrifice of Abraham? Why are the pictures on all other copies different from how Smith drew in the blanks, and instead show Osiris?

quote:

---

A critical thinker would only accept something that is 10/10. Translaters could not come to a conclusion that they have translated ancient documents 10/10 times because no body is alive which lived in ancient times.

---

Ah. So if the Romans have a document that says something happened, and the Egyptians have a document that says that the exact same thing happened in the exact same way, that's worth nothing? What if it happened several hundred times on several hundred different events? What if there are versions of Egyptian documents translated into other languages that coincide? What if there were many since the Rosetta stone? What does one conclude when it works without error?If you don't believe me, name an error. Go ahead.Here is the key, and I will boldface it: Thousands And Thousands Of Writings Have Been Translated. Not Only Are They Internally Consistant, They Are Consistant With Their Surroundings, With Other Documents, And With The Rest Of The World's Documents.P.S. - You still haven't addressed the Kinderhook plates, where Smith proclaimed a translation for a plates that had a series of nonsense written on them. Consider him divinely inspired on his teachings if you like, but the guy is a fraud, at least as far as translations go.P.P.S - Here's a small heiroglyph dictionary for you. None of what is in here is under any sort of dispute. Here's another. And a free heiroglyphic translator. And a collection of egyptian documents. Need anything more? It's probably here.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-13-2003]

Hello Quiz,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quiz
working on a response

---

Unfortunately, Quiz, the responses that you have already made have been sufficiently revealing.In a previous post I asked you if you had ever read a book entitled "...by his own hand upon papyrus" by Charles M. Larson. Your response was that you hadn't read the book but that you knew the documents referred to therein were not the documents that Joseph Smith possessed when he "translated" the book of Abraham.Do you know these documents found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY are the same documents from the "Book of Breathings" that you are discussing now? If so, then why has your argument changed from "they're not the same documents" to "modern translators can't translate them properly"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quiz
. . . correct me if I am wrong "ancient hebrew" something we dont understand even with the rose stone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rei
It's "rosetta"

---

quote:

---

Quiz:
I know what it is, duh!

---

If you knew what it was then why did you connect it with ancient Hebrew?

quote:

---

Rei:
That's not hebrew that he claimed to translate - it's Egyptian.

---

quote:

---

Quiz:
Ancient hebrew unless I understood it wrong. . .

---

For someone who claims to have "recruited" themselves into the LDS religion through indepth study, this is a particularly elementary fact to "misunderstand".

quote:

---

Rei
While ancient hebrew has changed, it's hardly unknown anyway.

---

quote:

---

Quiz:
Thats the point no buddy understands ancient languages as much to trust their translation fully. . .

---

No, that's not the point that Rei was making. The point he was (and is) making is that these languages are " not unknown", i.e. they are known sufficiently well to discredit Joseph Smith.Thus, again, your responses to date have already made your position quite transparent. IOW, it is apparent that you know very little about the history and origins of the religion that you have chosen to put your "faith" in. This is speaking volumes in that the only demonstration you seem to be making is in regard to your religious tenets of honesty (or lack thereof) concerning this fact.Evidently, then, your faith must rest on nothing more than your desire to believe. And since this is already obvious to the others on this board, I can only wonder who it might be that you are actually trying to convince.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 11-13-2003]

Your conclusion is wrong, It is more I dont remember enough of the research to answer all of your questions. I have to research everything you people bring to me, this takes time. That is why I said I needed time, DUH.Now if you want to know why I dont remember, I wont reveal that as it would allow you "critics" to hold this against the church I firmly believe in, yet I would say the things you people are bringing to me are GOOD rejections but you have to allow me to respond with a GOOD response to help answer those GOOD rejections.I am not going to debate this any further as you are begining to insult me. I wont debate with people who insult me by saying such things as I am trying to convince my self, little do you know. I have accepted evolution as a fact. I have even gone as far as to agree with some of your questions as to why have these things happend, etc. I am running off of 5 year old memmory, I am not a practicing mormon any longer and have not been for oh, 5 years. So you have to bare with me on my responses. You brought up many reasons which make me to be eather a liar or someone who is a idiot. I am neather, I simply dont remember, and I am replying with my memory on this subject then doing the research so that I may satisfy your posts. The idea is all of the contradictions you see will come into a understanding that make them no longer contradictions. You have to give me time. It is good you have found good evidence which MAY support Joseph Smith to be false but alot your stories are not fully presented and are missing information other information pertained to them in other scripture which helps the correct understanding of your presentation. That is detailed information but I have to find that information to answer the questions. I wont answer questions regarding the LDS faith unless it is directly from the church this way it is a authentic answer, and I dont accept anything less eather so I wont post anything less.QuizP.S. thread closed, you have brought good theoritcal evidence which supports Joseph Smith to be false. Not enough time given to reject these posts so I am saying YOU WIN, I lose. Joseph Smith is false, The apostasy is another imagination. Goodbye ;.)[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-13-2003]

Quiz, don't run off because Amlohdi was insulting... that was uncalled for, you deserve all the time you need.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Hello Quiz,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quiz

​

I am not going to debate this any further as you are begining to insult me.

---

Quiz, it wasn't my intention to insult you. But is was my intention to make a critical and unvarnished assessment of the foundations on which you have placed your faith.However, perhaps Rei is correct and I was too hard on you. I will take your word regarding the issues you are dealing with and if you feel that my post was personally insulting to you then please accept my sincere apologies.Namaste'Amlodhi

- Forgiven

quote:

---

then why has your argument changed from "they're not the same documents" to "modern translators can't translate them properly"?

---

The translation of the book of breathings is one of the many manuscripts that Joseph Smith had brought to him. Joseph Smith had many people bring different manuscripts, facsimilies and such to him, some of them he translated and some of them he didn't. I would like to see where the book of breathings is brought into the picture before I discuss any other prophecies Rei, you and anyone else has brought to this thread. I have a list of the content brough to this thread and I will go back and review the other problems, but I want to remove this problem with the book of breathings. Then we will discuss the profile of Joseph Smith, and maybe come to a better understanding on why it is ok to be the way he was, we will compare to the bible and you will see the pattern. Now to the book of breathings, please give me information regarding these manuscripts.Quiz

Son of perdition = I want to make sure you understand what spirits are, a spirit is a person clothed in flesh and also a life not clothed in flesh, they are angles, they are divine life or non divine life. Knowing this, this information also applies to the adversary = satan, because he is a spirit or angel, it also applies to the adversaries followers, also to people who lived and to people who have not lived yet, people who have tought and will teach blasphem in order to deceive the people of God/Christ, they not only teach blasphem but they also teach that people should reject God because God is nothing. Not nothing meaning he does not exist, oh nooo, they teach God does exist, they teach Jesus Christ is the son of God, but they also teach to be against Jesus, these people who do these things are sons of peridition.Quiz

1. (ASGARA)D&C 132 - answered - post 29
2. (ASGARA)Timeframe Apostasy would occur - answered in post 60 and 63
3. (RIE)romans mention jesus - not found, rie you are right from what I can find. - Still looking
4. (RIE)baptist being critical thinker, they are in the religous world. But I guess that does not count.
5. (RIE)gnostics = early catholics = no difference = they were already apostate.
6. (RIE) As a hypothetical person in this hypothetical courtroom, I say "Case dismissed." = you would be a bad judge, dismissing cases before reviewing all evidence.
7. (Prozacman and definition of sons of perdition) answered in post 116
8. (post 69) answered in post 70
9. post 77 answered in post 122
10. post 78 by RIE - answered in post 123
11. post 82 answered in post 86
12. post 80 still not answered by TL
13. (RIE) post 94, defimition of character - answered in post 126
14. post 95 - answered post 128-131
15. post 97 - answered in post 132
16. post 98 - question in 107
17. seer stone biblical? - search the bible for seer references you will find them.
18. truth about ancient translation - answered in post 124
19. post 108 - answered in post 115Did I miss any?Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

The Book of Breathings is the source for Facsimile 1 in the book of Abraham. (with additions or "reconstructions" by Joseph Smith). It is one of a collection of papyri in Joseph Smith's posession when the Book of Abraham was written.Abraham 1:12 and 1:14 claim that this illustration appears at the start of the book of Abraham.
"And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.""That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning..."This is pretty clear - if the figure appears at the start of the Book of Abraham then all we have to do is to find the scroll that starts with that figure - the Book of Breathings.The "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" produced by Joseph Smith also directly relates the Book of Abraham to the text of the Book of Breathings. While some have tried to insist that it is solely a creation of Joseph Smith's scribes I would have to ask why they would be doing such a thing - at the very least they must be convinced not only that the Book of Breathings was the original of the Bok of Abraham and that they could correctly relate the two (and how to do that without Joseph Smith ?).

To All,

quote:

---

a quote from jeff lindsey LDS FAQ: The Book of Abraham, Part 2 - Evidence that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God

​

We have much to learn yet about Abraham in Egypt and the meaning of related ancient documents. Even if one insists on considering only intellectual factors, there is evidence which suggests - in my opinion - that it may be rash to simply dismiss or ignore the Book of Abraham.
For those who want to investigate the authenticity of the Book of Abraham by purely intellectual means, I suggest you do it by examining the text and comparing it to other related ancient documents. In doing so, you may find fascinating support for the Book of Abraham in other documents that were unearthed after the time of Joseph Smith. The writings of Hugh Nibley are valuable in this regard, though he admits that his work is always tentative - as is the case for all scholarship. Please see his book Abraham in Egypt and also The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, along with many other articles.

​

No amount of evidence can prove a sacred writing to be true, but it is possible to determine whether something is plausible. Thus, priestly writings from Thebes which are now known to mention Abraham many times do not prove that the papyri Joseph received from Thebes actually did contain writings about Abraham, but help to establish the plausibility of that claim - a claim that had been ridiculed as impossible for many years. Recent research showing evidence of Egyptian cults in Mesopotamia during Abraham's time(LDS FAQ: The Book of Abraham, Part 2 - Evidence that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God) (apparently) also lend plausibility to the Book of Abraham (especially evidence showing veneration of the Egyptian crocodile god Sobek), while undercutting some common and very old attacks on the book.

​

In considering plausibility, the critical method requires more than nitpicking at the weakest links, but also accounting for the strongest. Perhaps our current understanding of some part of the Book of Abraham does not square with what scholars say, but that is not necessarily evidence that the book is wrong. The decades have reversed many of the scholarly criticisms leveled against the book. Before we reject it, we must be able to account for the strong points in the claim to authenticity. Are the evidences that provide plausibility to the text and the comments on the facsimiles purely due to lucky guesses from a nineteenth century farmboy? That question must be addressed head on before we condemn Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham.

---

QuizP.S. For more information read the entire presentation:
(i.e. part 1 and 2.) Mormon Answers, LDS FAQ: The Truth About the Book of Abraham, Part 1
note: this is not from the chruch, it is a member of the church. I am still looking for church documents regarding this problem. Idea removed, Jeff linsey is not correct. Correct answer is loacted in post 123[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

The papyrus came from Michael Chandler, who was travelling around the US displaying mummies in 1835.Documentary History of the Church, Vol 2, P. 235: "There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with heiroglyphic figures and devices." If you read on, Smith goes on to "translate" the papyrus, and comes to the conclusion that it's about Abraham being sacrificed. Chandler, knowing nothing about heiroglyphs (like almost everyone in the world - the Rosetta stone had only been cracked in the 1820's), is wowed (as are Smith's followers), and writes him a letter of commendation. Smith's followers then payed Chandler 2,400$ for his exhibit.Facsimilies of the papyrus are found in the book of Abraham; the actual papyrus resurfaced in 1967 in the Museum of Art in New York (which eventually gave them back to the Mormon Church). Both the papyrus and facsimilies are easily readable by anyone compitent in ancient Egyptian.

quote:

---

For those who want to investigate the authenticity of the Book of Abraham by purely intellectual means, I suggest you do it by examining the text and comparing it to other related ancient documents. In doing so, you may find fascinating support for the Book of Abraham in other documents that were unearthed after the time of Joseph Smith. The writings of Hugh Nibley are valuable in this regard, though he admits that his work is always tentative - as is the case for all scholarship. Please see his book Abraham in Egypt and also The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, along with many other articles.

---

Hugh Nibley is viewed as a laughingstock by most of the archaeological world. Here's a paper from a Mormon expert in Egyptology, explaining why:Egyptology and the Book of Abraham – About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)

quote:

---

No amount of evidence can prove a sacred writing to be true, but it is possible to determine whether something is plausible.

---

And when all of ancient egypt's copious quantity of writings that exist to date contradict it, you have ample evidence that it is false.

quote:

---

Thus, priestly writings from Thebes which are now known to mention Abraham many times do not prove that the papyri Joseph received from Thebes actually did contain writings about Abraham, but help to establish the plausibility of that claim - a claim that had been ridiculed as impossible for many years.

---

Name one. If you're referring to the "Magic Papyrii", I suggest you read this commentary. Do you think that "Come in, PIATOY CHITRE! O SHOP SHOPE SHOP ABRACAM, the pupil of the sound's eye, QMR, QMR, QMR, QMR, KMRO, who created creation, great flourishing creation. SHKNYSH is your real name. Let an answer be told to me / about everything concerning which I am here asking today" is the sort of reference to Abraham that you want? It's "Abracam", and it's in the middle of a series of "magic words". It's an abracadabra word (in fact, the word "abracadabra" comes from these sort of ancient spells, which often contained words such as "abra" and similar sounds). Need I mention that it's a spell about getting your questions answered by a demon using lamp divination? Read.

quote:

---

Recent research showing evidence of Egyptian cults in Mesopotamia during Abraham's time(LDS FAQ: The Book of Abraham, Part 2 - Evidence that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God) (apparently) also lend plausibility to the Book of Abraham (especially evidence showing veneration of the Egyptian crocodile god Sobek), while undercutting some common and very old attacks on the book.

---

Laf, I suggest you read what the pictures actually are.

quote:

---

In considering plausibility, the critical method requires more than nitpicking at the weakest links

---

You mean the entire thing?

quote:

---

but also accounting for the strongest. Perhaps our current understanding of some part of the Book of Abraham does not square with what scholars say,

---

How about "every last word of it does not square with every last heiroglyphic writing in Egypt".

quote:

---

but that is not necessarily evidence that the book is wrong. The decades have reversed many of the scholarly criticisms leveled against the book.

---

Such as....?

quote:

---

Before we reject it, we must be able to account for the strong points in the claim to authenticity.

---

Such as....?

quote:

---

Are the evidences that provide plausibility to the text and the comments on the facsimiles purely due to lucky guesses from a nineteenth century farmboy?

---

Evidences such as....? He was utterly wrong - not even the slightest bit close - on every last thing.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."