Matt's Mormon Thread

[Methos]

If you want to claim the BoM as an obvious forgery, fine, you won't get past that. But I don't think a reasonable examination of the evidence can get close to such a conclusion. I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe the historicity of the BoM is your only reason for your negative opinion of Mormonism.

You're bringing the conversation beyond its original statements. Its my understand we were discussing the fabrication of the Book of Abraham, not the entire Book of Mormon. Note the articles that have been mentioned were towards a very specific book, that of Abraham. You have broadened statements that have not been made (at least, not to my knowledge).

IMO the Book of Abraham was fabricated, but that does not mean I believe the whole BoM was. I can speculate that since the author of the, IMO, fabricated book is the primary author of the BoM than it is fabricated as well, but that is merely speculation. I have no basis. The Book of Abraham though is a different story.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@Sir Bugsy: No, I can assure you that missionaries are not taught 'courses' to 'spin the inconsistencies' of the Book of Mormon. They tell us to avoid getting into arguments at all, it is a matter of praying and asking God if it is true, which I note you apparently refused to do.

Additionally, regarding the horses and elephants and whatnot: when Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book, he didn't mean grammatically, or even historically, he meant it in a doctrinal and spiritual sense (what he said was, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book on earth, and that a man could get closer to God by abiding its precepts than by any other book"). The Book of Mormon purports to be an abridgement of a long history of a civilization, written by a man (Mormon) who lived many centuries after most of the events take place. Given that, it would not be surprising if he attributed technology to them that they didn't have - especially since he was contrasting their 'high' civilization with his 'fallen' one. That doesn't invalidate the doctrinal and spiritual value of the book at all.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Also, I wouldn't say the Book of Abraham (which is part of the Pearl of Great Price, not the Book of Mormon, by the way) is an 'obvious forgery', It is almost certainly not translated directly from the papyrus that Joseph Smith had, but that doesn't mean it was not revealed to him by God. Whether one thinks it was or not depends on one's previous views regarding Joseph Smith and revelation.

 

[Newawd]

@Eran: I have to disagree with you once again. I firmly believe that Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham directly. I know for a fact that there are not just one but many many archeologists, historians, etcetera that are members of the LDS church. It's downright silly to think that these people turn a blind eye to this and then fork over 10% of their income every time they get a paycheck! When you are about to go through your life giving 10% of every dollar you earn, I PROMISE you look at it from every angle to the best of your ability. I know for a fact that there is an LDS edifice dedicated to study of this sort of thing in Jerusalem. You think that they haven't looked into the book of Abraham? I know for a fact that you can take something that is several *thousand* years old and find many contradicting interpretations of it. Any intelligent person has to agree that you could probably go out and find a scientist that would swear up and down that those same pics that are in the book of Abraham actually represent tiny green men from Mars. Yet a few people we don't know get together and all of the sudden they are the authority?

The fact is, just because some scientists say that those graphics aren't what Joseph Smith claimed they were, doesn't mean that it truly the case. It could be that the original meaning of the pics was what Joseph Smith translated, but over a few hundred years the meaning was lost, and the meaning ended up being more in line with what Bugsy's scientists believed.

All this is *especially* true when you are dealing with symbols! Look at a cross. It means one thing to one person, and something else entirely different to another? The swastika used to be a cross. I think that its meaning has changed quite a bit over the last 100 years has it not? Yet a scientist can claim that he knows exactly what an entire 'painting' (yes, I know it's not really a painting) meant over a period of a few hundred years?! And to claim that it couldn't have meant anything else to different sections of society or in different centuries?!

Lets be honest, the notion is just silly.

Having said that, I'm not the 'blind faith' kind of guy. This subject has sparked my curiosity. I guarantee you there is a good explanation, or there wouldn't be any archeologists in the LDS church (and there are many). I'm going to look into it and give you the best answer I can as soon as I can. Time is a constraint, I know, but I'll see what I can do.

One other thing that you have to keep in mind is that there are groups and organizations out there that exist *solely* to attack the LDS church. Nothing more. That is why they exist. They spend countless hours trying to dredge up stuff like the stuff that Bugsy has been posting. It's not hard to find, just google a little and you can find TONS of anti-mormon stuff. Heck, my dad found tons of stuff at local churches without even needing to use a computer.

Anyhow, I'll get back to you as soon as I can with more info...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@Newawd: I guess that is a matter of private belief. I want to make it clear to everyone here that nothing I said regarding the origin of the Book of Abraham is actual doctrine. I am just a little bit more 'heterodox' than most members regarding our scripture, but I am still pretty orthodox; I believe the Book of Mormon to describe events that literally happened, if not to do so inerrantly. And the thing that matters to me most personally about the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon are the things that they teach me about God's plan, and who Christ is, and how I can bring myself closer to them.

 

[Methos]

Also, I wouldn't say the Book of Abraham (which is part of the Pearl of Great Price, not the Book of Mormon, by the way)

I'm a little confused here. What exactly is the difference between the BoM and the Pearl? Is it due to the Book of Abraham and Joseph being taken from the scrolls rather than the plates?

Edit: Located this information on the Pearl of Great Price. I checked the Introductory Note located towards the top.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The Book of Mormon is what was translated from the Golden Plates and published in 1830. The Pearl of Great Price is a collection of somewhat unrelated books, including the Book of Abraham, as well as some of Joseph Smith's history and the Articles of Faith. Both are usually published together with the Doctrine and Covenants as what we call a 'triple', which contains all the unique LDS scripture.

 

[Methos]

Thanks. Right after my post I googled it and located the info at an LDS site. I edited my original post with the link. Thank you.

 

[ironduck]

Newawd, it sounds like you're basically brushing aside the study of language and history because we can never be sure anyway.

Just keep in mind that the subject here are hieroglyphics and greek. What scientists do you disagree with exactly? Do you think that in a hundred years we'll go back and find that we completely misinterpreted all the hieroglyphics that we're reading today?

Oh, and you can always find individual scientists who will advocate something ridiculous; usually they're being used as 'experts' on something that's not their chosen field of study. Creationism and the likes of Michael Behe is a prime example here.

That really isn't relevant. If you have some papyrii I'm sure you can get them translated by mainstream egyptologists, possibly even in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

So you accept that the Bible can be taken allegoricaly in places and is not inerrant. Good. Why the mental block for the BoM then? And not every single word a prophet speaks is to be taken as God's word - guess what, there are gradations of importance here also, as there is in the Bible (as you've already agreed).

You just jump right in without reading everything, don’t you?

(Emphasis added) So what do I believe regarding the Bible? I believe the Old Testament is the history of God and his people as seen through the eyes of His people. These are documents written by man. Therefore they are subject to error. The majority of it is verifiable through outside sources. The places named still exist. You can go there and find much archeological evidence, and much has been found.

I believe the New Testament is the story and theology of Yeshua of Nazareth. (Jesus is Greek for Yeshua.) Once again these are documents written by man. There are inconsistencies, but much of it is verifiable through outside sources. There are the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, the Dead Sea scrolls, and the writings of Josephus and Philo. Additionally, there is archeological evidence that supports the writings.

And you're missing the forest for the trees. There is much else to consider when evaluating a religion than the quality of the history in its scriptures - its theology, practices, adherents, and so on, and I pointed out a few posts back. If you want to claim the BoM as an obvious forgery, fine, you won't get past that. But I don't think a reasonable examination of the evidence can g
et close to such a conclusion. I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe the historicity of the BoM is your only reason for your negative opinion of Mormonism

Once again, I am going to assume that you haven’t read my other posts. Start back on post 282 of this thread and work forward reading what I have written. Granted you’ll have to wade through all that nonsense on masturbation and Mormon marriage practices. Then come back and see if you can answer your own question.

@Sir Bugsy: No, I can assure you that missionaries are not taught 'courses' to 'spin the inconsistencies' of the Book of Mormon. They tell us to avoid getting into arguments at all, it is a matter of praying and asking God if it is true, which I note you apparently refused to do.

I just explained my position a few pages back. I have read the Book of Mormon and I prayed and I used the brain God gave me, and the answer I got back was that it wasn’t true. Period. End of story.

The fact is, just because some scientists say that those graphics aren't what Joseph Smith claimed they were, doesn't mean that it truly the case. It could be that the original meaning of the pics was what Joseph Smith translated, but over a few hundred years the meaning was lost, and the meaning ended up being more in line with what Bugsy's scientists believed.

All this is *especially* true when you are dealing with symbols! Look at a cross. It means one thing to one person, and something else entirely different to another? The swastika used to be a cross. I think that its meaning has changed quite a bit over the last 100 years has it not? Yet a scientist can claim that he knows exactly what an entire 'painting' (yes, I know it's not really a painting) meant over a period of a few hundred years?! And to claim that it couldn't have meant anything else to different sections of society or in different centuries?!

Lets be honest, the notion is just silly.

you guys crack me up! Now these are my scientists! Damn, I hope I don’t have to pay all their salaries. Have you ever heard of the Rosetta Stone? Have you ever heard of Jean-Francois Champollion? The translation of hieroglyphics is not something mysterious. They can be read as plain as you are reading what I am writing here in English. The only thing that is silly is your argument.

Having said that, I'm not the 'blind faith' kind of guy. This subject has sparked my curiosity. I guarantee you there is a good explanation, or there wouldn't be any archeologists in the LDS church (and there are many). I'm going to look into it and give you the best answer I can as soon as I can. Time is a constraint, I know, but I'll see what I can do.

One other thing that you have to keep in mind is that there are groups and organizations out there that exist *solely* to attack the LDS church. Nothing more. That is why they exist. They spend countless hours trying to dredge up stuff like the stuff that Bugsy has been posting. It's not hard to find, just google a little and you can find TONS of anti-mormon stuff. Heck, my dad found tons of stuff at local churches without even needing to use a computer.

Anyhow, I'll get back to you as soon as I can with more info...

You are a blind faith kind of guy. That’s OK. The world needs people like you and your church needs people like you. I have been studying the LDS church for many years. As I said back in post 282, I live in the second most Mormon populated area outside Utah. I approach the subject with logic and an objective look at the evidence. And I use that logic and evidence to defend my faith. I have seriously looked at the LDS church. I almost married a Mormon lady (she passed away before we got to the altar.) I have weighed all the evidence and have concluded that the LDS church is based on too many falsehoods, intentional deceptions, and questionable teachings and theology.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That is your opinion. I can't say that I can agree with you at all. It did sound, earlier, like you had refused to actually pray about the Book of Mormon, based on what you thought of it, but I guess you did. All I can say is, you obviously got a different answer from me. I also haven't seen these 'intentional deceptions', and saying that a theology is questionable rather depends on one's defenition of 'acceptable' theology.

As far as the places of the Bible being identified: so what if we know where Goshen or Ephesus were, or something like that. There is no question that the Bible was written roughly during the time that much of it takes place, so identifying the historical background does not prove a single thing about its theological contents. By that argument, the Doctrine and Covenants that we use must be true; after all, it mentions places like Chicago, and Fayette, New York, and I've actually been to those places.

 

[Newawd]

you guys crack me up! Now these are my scientists! Damn, I hope I don’t have to pay all their salaries. Have you ever heard of the Rosetta Stone? Have you ever heard of Jean-Francois Champollion? The translation of hieroglyphics is not something mysterious. They can be read as plain as you are reading what I am writing here in English. The only thing that is silly is your argument.

@Sir Bugsy: Have *you* heard of the rosetta stone Sir Bugsy? Have you studied it even a little? Do you know when it was carved? Do you know when Abraham lived and died? I guess you are right Sir Bugsy, I guess it is silly to think that *maybe* it is *possible* that a language and or religious practices *might* have changed in *2000* years.

Sorry if I sound a little annoyed, but your tone in that last post was very condecending. Yes, I have heard of the Rosetta Stone. At BYU, in Utah (a Mormon college) they have done extensive research on the Rosetta Stone. They have courses dedicated to its study. Sadly, I did not take any of those courses, but it doesn't take months of study to learn that Abraham lived and died ~2100 BCE, and that the Rosetta Stone was carved in 196 BCE. That is an almost 2K year spread. We're dealing with symbolism, and in 2K years, even you must admit that symbolism can change greatly.

And the Rosetta Stone itself? How's bout this quote from this URL:

http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/writing/rosetta.html

"How did Champollion decipher hieroglyphs?

Champollion could read both Greek and coptic.

He was able to figure out what the seven demotic signs in coptic were. By looking at how these signs were used in coptic he was able to work out what they stood for. Then he began tracing these demotic signs back to hieroglyphic signs.

By working out what some hieroglyphs stood for, he could make educated guesses about what the other hieroglyphs stood for. "

You claimed that you could read and write in english about as well as he could read hieroglyphs. Considering that his interpretations were educated guesses, I'm hoping that you can read and write english a little better than that. I'm joking by the way, of *course* you can read and write english better than Champollion could read heiroglyphs.

Think about how much english has changed over the last 100 years. Now think about how much it would change in 2000 years. Now think about how much it would change if the only people who knew how to write it were the priests (as was the case with heiroglyphs).

Don't get me wrong, I know we have an OK understanding of what heiroglyphys mean in most cases. See, the problem is that languages evolve. By the time of the rosetta stone, heiroglyphs mostly were used to denote sounds. That's not how it started though. It started with the pictures representing *words*. That's a little trickier.

Of course, I learned much of this stuff just googling here and there (lol, talk about language changing... imagine how someone would have replied to you 20 years ago if you had told them you were going to google something). Also, I admit that my statements have a definate slant on them. All I'm saying is that it is a little... assumptive to say that the heiroglyphs in the book of Abraham *could not* have meant what Joseph Smith said they meant when they were first written 4100 years ago (2000 years before the Rosetta Stone).

Oh, and by the way, if I had blind faith why would I have bothered to do this research?

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[Newawd]

Oh, and sorry Bugsy. I *do* skip around a bit. Every time I get to a part where people are trying to convince me how great masturbation is, and how positive it's effects are upon society and people in general, I chuckle and skip down a few posts.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

That site is a good start. But the story of how Champollion figured out hieroglyphs is a classic. The coolest part is that all his theories have been proven again and again. His work was the basis for an entirely new science – Egyptology. Scientific method – observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing – is something my engineer’s mind grasps easily and is one of my primary reasoning tools.

In the United States and in Christendom in general, religion and science are at odds with each other. It is one of the things I admire about Islam. Islam in general (but not completely. They have had their moments) embraces science and scientific method as a way of finding out about God.

Champollion was discouraged by Vatican officials from publishing his findings because they contradicted the Vatican’s teachings on the great flood. Look at the treatment of Galileo and Teilhard as two examples. Most Christian churches reject archeology unless is agrees with their beliefs. Ask a Southern Baptist about dinosaurs and he/she will tell you that they have lived in the last 6000 years because that is how old the earth is according to a strict interpretation of Scripture.

 

[bhsup]

Ask a Southern Baptist about dinosaurs and he/she will tell you that they have lived in the last 6000 years because that is how old the earth is according to a strict interpretation of Scripture.

Hmm. That's interesting given that I'm a Southern Baptist. Considering that I believe the earth is billions of years old, that evolution happened, and that both of those are in complete harmony with the literal interpretation of The Bible, I'd have to say your comment was a gross generalization.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Gross generalizations are too easily come by when it comes to religion, I think. Just look at this thread: MattBrown, Newawd, and I are all Mormons and follow the teachings of the church pretty closely, but even then we have vastly different views on some things (such as the Book of Abraham).

 

[Sir Bugsy]

Hmm. That's interesting given that I'm a Southern Baptist. Considering that I believe the earth is billions of years old, that evolution happened, and that both of those are in complete harmony with the literal interpretation of The Bible, I'd have to say your comment was a gross generalization.

The Southern Baptist Convention preaches that Scripture is 100% accurate and infallible. They preach that the world is less than 10,000 years old and a six-day creation. So how does the fossilized bones of dinosaurs fit in? They preach that they have lived in the last 10,000 years. That they co-existed with man here on earth.

Here is a link from their website:
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/home.html

 

[bhsup]

The Scripture is 100% accurate and infallible, I don't disagree with that. The first 7 days were of longer period of time. Here's a nice link that sums it up pretty good. Yes, they were days, but not in the way you're thinking. There is absolutely no contradiction, so I have no problem saying evolution and an ancient earth are in harmony with Scripture.

Now, regarding the Southern Baptist Convention saying the earth is less than 10,000 years old, unless you are claiming that I and all other Southern Baptists have to be 100% in lockstep with the Southern Baptist Convention to be a Southern Baptist, then your claim was still a gross generalization.

Let's let this go here, or you start a different thread of you want. This is supposed to be Matt's (and others') Mormon Q&A thread.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

You and I are in agreement. We as humans don't know what a day is in to God. Who's knows. He may only be on Tuesday after his first day of rest.

I was just quoting what the SBC has put out, just like I have quoted from what the LDS church has put out. As individuals we are usually free to express our own opinions of our faith.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think that to be a true Southern Baptist doesn't mean accepting everything the SBC says as infallible. It's probably not as dependent on its hierarchy as, say, Mormonism (even then, technically, one can be Mormon without subscribing to everything the LDS Church says; see the fundamentalist Mormons, aka polygamists) but that would be better served by creating a Southern Baptist-specific thread.