Posted on 04/06/2002 12:22:31 AM PST by P-Marlowe
Just got done watching the second session of General Conference (will be broadcasting again over the Internet tomorrow 10am-2pm and 4pm-6pm Mountain Time), and now I have some errands to run. Will be back.
When Egyptologists translated this piece of papyrus, they found that it contained absolutely nothing concerning Abraham. Instead, it turned out to be a pagan funerary text known as the "Book of Breathings," a work which actually evolved from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Book of Breathings did not come into existence until the later stages of Egyptian history - just a few centuries before the time of Christ. Like the Book of the Dead, it was buried with those who died in ancient Egypt. It is filled with magic and pagan gods. It was obviously written by a very superstitious people, and is quite different from the religion taught in the Bible. The fact that the papyrus Joseph Smith used as the basis for his Book of Abraham is in reality the Book of Breathings cannot be disputed because the name "Book of Breathings" appears clearly on the fourth line of the fragment. In 1968 two Egyptologists from the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute, Professors John A. Wilson and Klaus Baer, identified the papyrus as the "Book of Breathings." A translation by Klaus Baer was printed in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, pp. 119-20. Professor Richard A Parker, Chairman of the Department of Egyptology at Brown University also translated the papyrus. Professor Hugh Nibley stated that "Parker is the best man in America for this particular period and style of writing." Professor Parker's translation reads as follows:
I pointed out that that will not be the case we will still be individuals as we are now and be recognizable by others that we know now.
As for Gods above God, as Joseph Smith pointed out a father reasonably has a son and a son reasonably has a father. Truth is reason, would God confuse us by going against reason? That is my own thinking on that.
I have not studied in great detail this subject so could be speaking out of turn here. I know that God is my father and Jesus Christ is my brother and the savior of this world. That's all I need to know.
If they stick to it, then do they dispute the findings of the Egyptologists?
Do they have their own confirmation from any secular source?
Also, does the book of Mormon teach about a Plurality of Gods? If so, where?
I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
I will probably post it after this one. I think this particulay thread is a good warm up to this doctrine. King Follet might be too much to handle in one day, eh?
You claim to be a heretic. What heresy do you subscribe to?
I myself am a certified subscriber to the "I am not a Calvinist" heresy. Since I am not an Arminaian either, I am certified from both camps. I believe I am also a certified member of the "pre-millenial dispensationalist" heretic society as well.:-)
Is that from the "King Follet" sermon? Boy, that really brings God down to street level, doesn't it?
I have to admit that I am not familiar with this (his descendants being cursed) being in the Bible. It certainly would appear that a great amount of conflict in the world is caused by this, but I couldn't find a scripture that directly stated the curse. Galatians 4:22-31 makes this same observation of conflict also, but doesn't seem to call it a curse. And Gen 16:12 seems more a prophecy than a curse.
As for being condemned, wasn't it just one verse from when the child with Hagar was born and when the Lord appeared to Abram and walked with him, and makes a covenant with him? Doesn't sound like anything close to condemnation.
Besides, God's promise made in Gen 15:4 was that Abram would have an heir out of his own bowels, and not an heir from his servants. Hagar shows up in Gen 16. The promise that the now-Abraham received that the now-Sarah would have children was made in Gen 17. The timeline seem funny for it to be a curse.
Doesn't the Bible state that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife? If the early Mormon bishops were polygamists, weren't they violating this directive?
Good question. Paul did give Timothy and Titus some instructions regarding the church organization. And he did indicate that a Bishop should be married. But did he say in either place that a Bishop must be the husband of only one wife. It would be hard to say, with what we know, if Paul meant he must have only one wife, or only that he must be married.
Sounds like we may have to agree to disagree on this one.
Yes, you need to post the King Follett sermon in its entirety for there I think is where Mormons get their doctrine on gods and it's given straight from the stammering lips of the prophet himself.
"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Ps. 90:2; emphasis added)
"Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? There is no searching of his understanding" (Is. 40:28; cf. Ps. 102:25-27)
God is Creator of all things:
"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from tee womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretch forth the heaven alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Is. 44:24)
"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else" (Is. 45:18)
You are correct. Ishmael wasn't cursed-- Isaac got the birthright, but Ishmael's seed got other gifts and a bright heritage. Old Esau now, that's a different story and he comes from Isaac.
Funny! I will argue scripture and even non-scriptural sources and if Calvinism agrees with what I understand, which it often does, I agree. If a Calvinist, or Mormon, or whatever posts something I disagree with, I say so. We have to be honest, that's the most important thing. And we can't let doctrinal differences affect how we relate to the person behind the post.
One thing that goes against their position is the fact that the Book of Mormon contains several thousand verses that are exact quotations from the King James bible. So the logical conclusion is that If the book of Mormon verifies the translation of the King James Bible then they do not have that excuse to fall back upon. Do they?
You have laid out the scriptures rather well. Now can we get a logical response? Can we get a scriptural response? We shall see.
I have it prepared to be posted. However I will wait until someone else requests it. Otherwise I will let this thread run its course.
Would anyone else care to have the King Follet sermon posted? Or should we continue to comment upon this one?
Well I am getting an education in the LDS..so I would like it posted..
Here's the Link:
On another thread the other day, Restornu quoted an authority of some sort from your church (McConkie or McConkle, something like that] to the effect that the Bible was "pre-eminent" or "foremost" (I am doing this from memory and that may not be the word) among the 'standard works' of your church.
A couple of questions:
1. Does your church establish a prioritization among its 'authorative books' vis-a-vis the Bible? If so, what is that priority? Where is that officially recorded? If one 'authority' states something like that, can some other say something contrary? How does it become the 'official' position of your church? [Obviously, to Biblical Christians, this is an important question.]
2. Has that priority changed at all over the life of your church?
3. Assuming arguendo that the Bible has priority over the other authorative works, is that priority used to justifiy changes in doctrines based upon the "other works", i.e. the Smith books?
4. Finally, on a slightly different but related tack. There have been a very large number of textual discoveries relating to the Biblical text since Smith died (I think, for example, we have 4 or 5 times as many manuscripts and fragments as were known in 1830-1850.) Most Protestant scholars and (I think) even most catholics favor the critical text (derived from these discoveries) while the KJV is based on the much later textus receptus (the Byzantine). I understand your church to favor the KJV. Is that because you think the text is more faithful to the original (like our KJV-only folks do) or because the translated language is closer to that 'translated' by Smith in his books?
5. Finally, is there a central respository for the major changes in your church doctrine as a result of 'visions' (or other form of 'revelation') purportedly given to your church leaders when doctrine is changed. [I noticed a citation to "official decisions". Is that it?] Is that central series on the web?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
LOL. When you tell a judge that you have just a couple of questions does he allow you to ask 5 compound questions of ulitmate significance? Or does he cut you off at two?
BTW those are Really good questions. I had never heard that the Bible is pre-eminent in LDS theology. The order that I recall was the Book of Mormon (said to be the fullness of the gospel) followed by the Doctrine and Covenants (the latter day revelation) followed by the Pearl of Great Price, followed by the Bible -- but only "insofar as it is translated correctly."
If the Bible is pre-eminent, that is a major change since I last darkened the door of an LDS ward. Clearly a step in the right direction. But I'd like to see some documentation on that one.
Welcome to the discussion. I look forward to your input.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.