Mormons Made Simple - learn about and discuss all aspects of Mormonism. (principle, eternal)

[justamere10]

Below is a link to the Book of Abraham that is being discussed in this and other threads. Why not read it online (it's short) and decide it's value for yourself?

Abraham

[juj]

Originally Posted by justamere10

I can't speak for Mormons but it is the thinking of this one Mormon that Jesus could have meant that as the firstborn spirit child of God the Father made in His image and likeness he was there at the beginning of all things pertaining to God's celestial family. And that as the one chosen to work out the essential atonement for the sins of all mankind he will also be there at the end of that great Plan of Salvation when all of God's children who gained physical bodies are finally resurrected and assigned to a kingdom of glory, or one with no glory.

But my guess is that you understand those quotes differently than you expect Mormons to?

Where do you read that it involves "God's celestial family". Either the Bible is devinely inspired or not. I understand the Bible is secondary to your Book of Mormon, but it must be the foundation, if anything (to Mormons), that your book is built on.

Jesus said I am the beginning and the end. Since you don't believe in the trinity as most Christians do and as early Christians agreed on, you wouldn't believe that Jesus, as God, is eternal and omni-present and that He is God's Word made Flesh. Jesus is the summation of God's truth for ALL time and not just during the reign of His "celestial family". What makes God perfect is that very omni-presense. He is the total knowledge available because of it. How can I worship a god that has only been around during the lifetime of a "celestial family". God for you is no more than a saint for us. I don't worship saints. By defining that your God is the head of a celestial family obviously implies that there are other "celestial families". Thus you believe in mulitple Gods and are thus breaking the first of the ten commandments.

Now, I know that the Mormons have a seemingly good answer for anything, but God did give you a mind to reason. The biggest lie in the world is the lie that a religion doesn't have to make sense within itself and to historical and archaeological evidence. In all religions, if you investigate doctrines and dogmas, you follow the path and come to the point of faith. That point should not be the moment you walk in the door or the first step of the investigation.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by juj

Either the Bible is devinely inspired or not.

It is divinely inspired.

I understand the Bible is secondary to your Book of Mormon, but it must be the foundation, if anything (to Mormons), that your book is built on.

The Bible is not "secondary" to the Book of Mormon. Is the gospel according to Mark secondary in your mind to the gospel according to Luke?

Jesus said I am the beginning and the end. Since you don't believe in the trinity as most Christians do and as early Christians agreed on, you wouldn't believe that Jesus, as God, is eternal and omni-present and that He is God's Word made Flesh.

What "early Christians" agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity? Clearly none of them prior to 325 A.D. did. You talk of 4th century Christianity as if it was the same as 1st century Christianity. Surely you don't believe it was.

God for you is no more than a saint for us.

Do you really think you're in a position of telling me what God is to me? I can't imagine anybody being so presumptuous as to tell people of another religion what they believe!

[MovinOutWest]

Originally Posted by juj

By defining that your God is the head of a celestial family obviously implies that there are other "celestial families". Thus you believe in mulitple Gods and are thus breaking the first of the ten commandments.

I disagree with your conclusion. We have one God and only one God. Could there be other heads of celestial families out there that we don't know about? I suppose it's possible, it's really of no concern to me because if there are, we don't worship them, they are not our heavenly father. We only have one heavenly father. It's not like my neighbor comes from a different "celestial lineage" than I do. All people on earth come from one God. God told the people of earth in the 10 commandments that we are to worship him only, and that's what we do. So I don't see the belief of other celestial families as being in opposition of the first commandment.

[justamere10]

Originally Posted by juj

Where do you read that it involves "God's celestial family". Either the Bible is devinely inspired or not. I understand the Bible is secondary to your Book of Mormon, but it must be the foundation, if anything (to Mormons), that your book is built on.

Jesus said I am the beginning and the end. Since you don't believe in the trinity as most Christians do and as early Christians agreed on, you wouldn't believe that Jesus, as God, is eternal and omni-present and that He is God's Word made Flesh. Jesus is the summation of God's truth for ALL time and not just during the reign of His "celestial family". What makes God perfect is that very omni-presense. He is the total knowledge available because of it. How can I worship a god that has only been around during the lifetime of a "celestial family". God for you is no more than a saint for us. I don't worship saints. By defining that your God is the head of a celestial family obviously implies that there are other "celestial families". Thus you believe in mulitple Gods and are thus breaking the first of the ten commandments.

Now, I know that the Mormons have a seemingly good answer for anything, but God did give you a mind to reason. The biggest lie in the world is the lie that a religion doesn't have to make sense within itself and to historical and archaeological evidence. In all religions, if you investigate doctrines and dogmas, you follow the path and come to the point of faith. That point should not be the moment you walk in the door or the first step of the investigation.

The Bible is in the LDS canon, as is The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

Mormons do not bow down to the unbiblical dictates of the scholars who attended the 4th century Nicene councils, so for me God is not just a "saint" or some incomprehensible "mystery" amalgam of three multiple gods crammed into one body or whatever as some churches still require their members to accept. To me, God the Father is the literal Heavenly Parent of the immortal spirit made in His image and likeness that animates, like a hand inside a glove, the mortal tabernacle within which it resides until the inevitable death of the physical component.

So yes, unlike you who are apparently accepting of what Nicene and other scholars want you to think, I see the world, the universe, everything as a family affair, and we, human beings, as children growing up to be like their Heavenly Parent, or by their consistent choice towards evil, unlike Him.

The New Testament records that Jesus often prayed to God the Father for guidance. I personally do not think that he was praying to himself! In the same manner that I have only one father of my physical body, I have only one Father of my spirit body. He is the One I know as God the Father, and no other.

[juj]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

It is divinely inspired.
The Bible is not "secondary" to the Book of Mormon. Is the gospel according to Mark secondary in your mind to the gospel according to Luke?

What "early Christians" agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity? Clearly none of them prior to 325 A.D. did. You talk of 4th century Christianity as if it was the same as 1st century Christianity. Surely you don't believe it was.

Do you really think you're in a position of telling me what God is to me? I can't imagine anybody being so presumptuous as to tell people of another religion what they believe!

The concept of the Trinity was agreed on and formalized in the 4th Century in the Nicene Creed, but was introduced by Tertulian in writing somewhere between 150 and 230 AD. The concept or tradition always predates the written word so it's origin is even earlier than that. That could easily put the "Trinity" in the first hundred years of Christianity. Since my religion is 2000 years old, that would be early Christianity to me.

See the funny thing is the rest of the billion or so Christians would like to think that they are in the position to tell you that there is only one God for all time and the mere thought of multiple gods and celestial families takes us back to the ancient Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians.

Now don't get me wrong. I have liked every Mormon I have ever met. They seem to be model Christians that follow a religion that is Christian-like, but it is unfortunately and clearly NOT based on orthodox Christianity. While we can learn family values from Mormons, we unequivocally must disregard the Mormon's doctrine and theology.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by juj

Now don't get me wrong. I have liked every Mormon I have ever met. They seem to be model Christians that follow a religion that is Christian-like

That's good to know.

but it is unfortunately and clearly NOT based on orthodox Christianity.

We don't claim that our religion is based on "orthodox" Christianity. "Orthodoxy" is defined by the doctrines that ultimately prevailed. I don't believe that "orthodoxy" (i.e. a unified set of doctrines that were upheld by the majority of Christians) even existed in the second and third centuries, and I am aware of a number of non-LDS scholars who have expressely stated that fact.

While we can learn family values from Mormons, we unequivocally must disregard the Mormon's doctrine and theology.

Feel free to do that. As long as you don't misrepresent our theology (and I am not accusing you of doing that, since I haven't read enough of your posts to be able to come to that conclusion), I am 100% okay with your rejecting it. Incidentally, my guess is that you are not an Evangelical Christian but are either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Am I right?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by justamere10

Below is a link to the Book of Abraham that is being discussed in this and other threads. Why not read it online (it's short) and decide it's value for yourself?

Abraham

Fig. 1. The Angel of the Lord. ("The soul of Osiris (which should have a human head - Smith altered it. It is missing in the rediscovered fragment )"
Fig. 2. Abraham fastened upon an altar. ("Osiris coming to life on his couch, which is in the shape of a lion")
Fig. 3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice. ("The God Anubis (who should have a jackal's head) effecting the resurrection of Osiris" - again, Smith altered this? - it is missing in the rediscovered fragment and the head is pencilled in.)
Fig. 4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh. ("The funeral bed of Osiris")
Fig. 5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah. (Canopic jar portraying Qebehsenuf with a falcon's head - one of the four sons of Horus - these are found with many Egyptian burials. They contain human organs)
Fig. 6. The idolatrous god of Libnah. (Canopic jar portraying Duamutef with a jackal's head - one of the four sons of Horus)
Fig. 7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah. (Canopic jar portraying Hapy with an ape's head - one of the four sons of Horus)
Fig. 8. The idolatrous god of Korash. (Canopic jar portraying Imsety with a human head - one of the four sons of Horus)
Fig. 9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh. ("The sacred crocodile, symbolic of the god Sedet"
Fig. 10. Abraham in Egypt. ("Altar laden with offerings")
Fig. 11. Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians. ("An ornament peculiar to Egyptian art")
Fig. 12. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.
("Customary representation of ground in Egyptian paintings (The word Shauman is not Egyptian, and the Hebrew word is badly copied)"

Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.
(The spirit of the four elements (according to Champollion), or rather of the four winds, or the four cardinal points; the soul of the terrestrial world. This god is always represented with four rams' heads, and his image has certainly been altered here. — They have also evidently made a very clumsy attempt at copying the double human head of the god figured above, fig. 2, instead of the four rams' heads. The word Jah-oh-eh has
nothing Egyptian in it; it resembles the Hebrew word [redacted] badly transcribed." (emphasis in original) The name hieroglyph above the central figure is Chnm-Re, the Egyptian "First Creator" god who organized
everything out of the primordial chaos.)

Fig. 2. Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other
planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an altar, which he had built unto the Lord.

("Ammon-Ra, with two human heads, meant probably to represent both the invisible or mysterious principle of Ammon, and the visible or luminous principle of Ra, the sun; or else the double and simultaneous principle of father and son; which characterizes divinity in the religion of ancient Egypt. — The word Oliblish is no more Egyptian than those already met with, nor than those which are to be found in the Mormon
explanation.")

Fig. 3. Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed.
("The sun god Ra, with a hawk's head, seated in his boat. In the field the two symbolical figuring, according to M. de Rougé, the fixed points of an astronomical period.")

Fig. 4. Answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens; also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand; answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time.
(Deveria commented; "The Hebrew word [redacted], Roki'a, expansum, solidum, ecclum, firmamentum, besides being badly described, has no relation whatever to this figure, which represents a mummified hawk,
called in Egyptian Ah'em. It is the symbol of the divine repose of death; its extended wings have reference to the resurrection.")

Fig. 5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is
the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power
through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.

("The mystic cow, the great cow, symbolizing the inferior hemisphere of the heavens. It is called the virgin cow at ch. 162 of the funerary ritual, which particularly enjoins that its image be painted on the hypocephalus, and another image of it in gold on the throat of the defunct. It is the form of Hathor, who figures on several monuments under the name of noub, gold. Behind the cow is a goddess, whose head, represented by a mystic eye in a disk, is incorrectly copied." (emphasis in original)

Fig. 6. Represents this earth in its four quarters.
("The four funerary genii, the sons of [Horus], Amset, Hapy, Tioumautew, and Kebhsoniw.")
Fig. 7. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.
("The form of Ammon, with a bird's tail, or Horammon (?). An ithyphallic serpent, with human legs, offers him a symbolical eye. This last figure has certainly been altered in the hypocephalus of the Mormons.")
Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.
Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.
(Four lines of the linear heiroglyphic text, which are numbered from bottom to top, instead of top to bottom. The meaning is: O great god in Sekhem, O great God, Lord of heaven, earth, and hell...Osiris S'es'esq...")
Fig. 10. Also.
Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.
Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the own due time of the Lord.

("Four lines of writing similar to the former, of which they are the pendant. They appear to be numbered upside down, and are illegibly copied."
"Two more lines which cannot be deciphered in the copy. It begins above the god with two human heads, fig. 2 ; and there is in it twice mention made of a sacred dwelling-place in Heliopolis. "
"These columns of writing, illegible in the copy. It is evident to me that several of the figures to be found in these various MSS. have been intentionally altered.")

The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.
Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.
("Invocation (text at bottom line below the illustration): O gods of the necropolis, gods of the caverns, gods of the south, north, west, and east grant salvation to the Osiris Hor, the justified, born by Taikhibit.")

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head. [This is clearly a female figure. Arq]
("Label for Osiris (text to the right of figure 1 of facsimile 3): Recitation by Osiris, Foremost of the Westerners, Lord of Abydos(?), the great god forever and ever(?).")
Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.
("Altar, with the offering of the deceased, surrounded with lotus flowers, signifying the offering of the defunct." --Theodule Deveria)
("Label for Isis (text to the right of figure 2 of facsimile 3): Isis the great, the god's mother.")
Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand. [again, a clearly female figure Arq] ("Label for Maat (text to the left of figure 4 of facsimile 3): Maat, mistress of the gods.")

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand. ("Label for Hor the deceased (text in front of figure 5 of facsimile 3): The Osiris Hor, justified forever.")

Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.
("Label for Anubis (text in front of figure 6 of facsimile 3): Recitation by Anubis, who makes protection(?), foremost of the embalming booth,...")

Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.

(The translation by both Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists bears no resemblance to the text of the Book of Abraham as purportedly translated by Joseph Smith. Several excerpts of these modern translations are shown below.
BYU scholar Michael Rhodes summarized the content of the papyri as follows:
"The Hor Book of Breathings is a part of eleven papyri fragments... from three separate papyri scrolls. Joseph Smith Papyri I, X, and XI are from the Book of Breathings belonging to Hor (Hr) the son of Usirwer. Joseph
Smith Papyri II, IV, V, VI, VII, and IX all came from a Book of the Dead belonging to Tshemmim (Ts-sri.t Min.), the daughter of Eskhons (Ns-Hnsw). Finally, Joseph Smith Papyrus III is part of Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead belonging to Neferirtnub (Nfr-ir(.t)-nbw).[Wiki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

Wiki...sorry, but it is so useful. However, nobody with any familiarity with Egyptian funerary texts, let alone those who can read the characters, could possibly take Smith's translations seriously.

Please, please, do understand that there is no way that Smith's 'Abraham' papyrus (as we see, from two different papyri) is anything to do with Abraham.

[Hueffenhardt]

Arequipa, you have yet to encounter all the various theories that the Mormon apologists on FAIRLDS offer for why the interpretation of those facsimilies don't match up.

They claim there is hidden mystic meaning that cannot be found in a literal translation. They claim that the facsimilies have been altered through the years as they were copied by Egyptian priests, and that Joseph restored the original meaning, etc. And many other theories. Back in my questioning days, I clung to any possibility that preserved Joseph as a Seer and translator. But, then I showed that those theories don't work.

Facsimilie 2 was actually missing portions due to damage before Joseph ever saw it for the first time. One of Joseph's scribes drew that facsimilie in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers exactly as it was. Joseph, supposedly by revelation restored the damaged parts. But, the characters he put in the missing places were taken in sequence from the text of a different scroll he had which was written in a different age, with hieroglyphics from a different time.

That is what I believe to be a dead giveaway that Joseph knowingly tried to deceive us, and was not just following the false impressions that came into his mind. The evidence is contained in his restoration of Facsimile #2. (His restoration of Facsimile #1 is also incorrect according to Egyptologists and I agree, but he may have felt (thinking he was inspired) that what he drew was supposed to be there). However, with Facsimile #2, his restoration is more telling.


The drawing at left comes from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and is of the damaged hypocephalus that was the source of Facsimile #2. Now an honest man who had no special gift or knowledge to know what originally was in the damaged areas might have left those areas blank when he included this facsimile in his published translation of the papyri.

A man who followed the mistaken impressions of his mind thinking he was receiving revelation might notice a pattern, that there were supposed to be hieroglyphics there, and imagine some characters there and draw them in. Perhaps they would be true hieroglyphic characters from his memory of looking at the other true characters. We would expect to see a repeat of some of the existing characters on the hypocephalus. Or, perhaps he might be impressed to draw new characters from his imagination believing them to be real. (There is some evidence that Joseph may have done just that to fill in some missing characters from different papyri fragments as evidenced in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers). A true prophet might accurately restore this hypocephalus with the correct characters through revelation.

But, Joseph was neither an honest man (for he did not leave the area blank), a mistaken man following the impressions of his mind (for he did not put some random characters in the missing place), nor was he a prophet (for what he "restored" was not only incorrect judging by an actual Egyptian translation of the text, but the characters he "restored" were hieratic rather than hieroglyphic characters and from a different time period). No, Joseph was none of those things. He was knowingly deceitful because he filled in the missing sections of the figure by copying in order hieratic characters from a section of a different papyrus. It was not just an artistic restoration with some handy characters, for these characters were supposed to have meaning. In his guide to interpreting Facsimile #2, he says this regarding the meaning of those characters that they "will be given in the own due time of the Lord." Remember these characters are meant to complete the string of already existing characters in the outer ring of the figure. Joseph wanted us to think that he was restoring missing content, but he was actually plagiarizing characters from a separate and unrelated document. That is deception. I cannot see how he could honestly think those characters belonged there.

Interestingly, those characters came from what is known as the sensen papyrus. In the translation papers, the characters from the sensen papyrus are paired with verses from the text of the Book of Abraham. So these characters are reused. Once to fill a gap in Facsimile #2, and once as the source for verses in the text in the Book of Abraham.




In my opinion, Joseph knowingly, actively defrauded us in his "restoration" of Facsimile #2.

Here is a nice artist's rendition: http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org/blog/?p=21

[juj]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

That's good to know.

We don't claim that our religion is based on "orthodox" Christianity. "Orthodoxy" is defined by the doctrines that ultimately prevailed. I don't believe that "orthodoxy" (i.e. a unified set of doctrines that were upheld by the majority of Christians) even existed in the second and third centuries, and I am aware of a number of non-LDS scholars who have expressely stated that fact.

Feel free to do that. As long as you don't misrepresent our theology (and I am not accusing you of doing that, since I haven't read enough of your posts to be able to come to that conclusion), I am 100% okay with your rejecting it. Incidentally, my guess is that you are not an Evangelical Christian but are either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Am I right?

I am an ex-Lutheran Roman Catholic and joyfully and proudly so.

Peace be with you and all Mormons.