Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: How to answer questions about the Book of Abraham

129 comments | Read story

Clarify | 5:38 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

Innocence:

Please expound on your statement.

Ken | 6:14 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

As a Mormon this article is of interest, but as a newspaper/Internet news reader, I still wonder why this kind of inner religious discussion finds its way into print anywhere in a local newspaper, much less the front page.

Can a Utah Mormon help a non-Utah Mormon out, cuz I ain't getting it....

The book of ABRAHAM? | 6:30 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

What is the book of ABRAHAM?Is it the book of Mormon?I am not lds.I read B.O.M and find it more or less the same with the BIBLE.I dont see the need GOD would like another same book for us all,coz the BIBLE is most complete compare to the BOM.I dont believe that JOSEPH SMITH is a prophet or the church is true.As far as i know CATHOLIC church is the true church that is founded by PETER,and JESUS has said that HE will be there always,Thats why despite lots problems that the church faces,CATHOLIC church still stand firmly till today.Anyway,i love the way the LDS church take care of the members well, and the fact that mostly LDS people so kind and remember God in daily life.Frankly i love LDS people more than other faith.

Comments continue below

Chris | 6:48 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

Couldn't Joseph Smith have believed he was translating from the BoA, when really he was staring at the book of the Dead? This may have just been an object to exercise faith in... Similar to his translaton of the Book of Moses (Existing version of the Bible).

People who claim to know either way don't. God has given us the opportunity to judge for ourselves. Anti's will never prove Mormon Doctrine false. Mormons will never prove their doctrine true. Exercise faith wisely!

In the Middle | 6:51 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

Don't forget Elisha, who angrily called on bears to tear taunting children limb from limb. It seems he's not a big fan of being called bald.

Sarah | 8:12 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

The problem is, nobody ever said that Joseph Smith translated that exact piece of papyrus. It was attached, but nobody knows WHEN it was attached. Joseph Smith never explained exactly by what means the Pearl of Great Price came to be, just that it'd been translated with help of the papyrus manuscripts. It could have been a different piece of parchment, or it could have been through prayer and a revelation of other means.

The PoG, D&C and BoM have all been subjected to computerized writing analyses, by the exact same means that verify for the courts whether a particular document was written by a specific person, and checked against writing samples of everybody involved, and guess what? The BoM was written by MULTIPLE authors, the PoG had at least two different authors, and the D&C had another author altogether, and none of them were Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdrey, Emma Smith, or any of the other people Joseph had working as his scribes.

Joseph didn't write any of it, and neither did his friends or family. This was verfied by several non-LDS companies who used even more conservative checks than the LDS experts did. Find another excuse.

Ex-Mormon Form Letter | 8:31 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

Hi, I wanted to help out some of the anti-mormons here. It seems to me that the rantings here are quite cliche at times so I am providing this form comment for them to cut and paste.

Hi. I was a Mormon for _ years. Then one day my wife/husband/cousin/goldfish came home from meetings and told me that his/her/its gospel doctrine teacher said Brigham Young was a republican/democrat/man/prophet/American. They also said that the prophet asked us to tithe/fast/pray/bathe/vote/hug more often. I have now left the church and I have never been more happy/enlightened/overweight/depressed/angry/annoying in all my life. You mormons are all sheep/followers/satanic/blind/ and will burn if you don't repent/leave the church/send $100 to the Tanners and their Frighthouse Ministry.

Smiles people.

from Michigan | 9:08 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

The BOA was and is pseudepigrapha.

Loren | 9:47 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

Lamanite DNA, Book of Abraham questions, Salamander Letters....seems the Lord is kind even to the anti's...everybody needs something to work on right? The real question is, what side are you on? Faith challenges are as old as humankind and come in all forms...If you haven't had your own answers from the Lord above yet, the rest is a waste of time...Wasn't that the main point of Joseph Smith's mission? Got Testimony?

Ed Schow | 10:20 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

As far as I can see reading this comment is a waste of time.It is a waste of time from my perspective because the authors are intent on proving the Book of Abraham is false. I suspect that most of the people who resort to noting more than to bring down the Church as an organizatin that has no value.

I suppose that you have a right to doubt the Church as an organzation. But I doubt that the logic that is presented is a path of light.

I studied argumentive debate in high school and did not find it condusive to a just finale.

It's funny | 10:28 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

God told us to ask him in prayer, like a child asks his father and He will give to us liberally. I don't recall reading in the scriptures the commandment to "scour the Internet" or "seek for scientific proof." His says to do his will to find out if His commandments come from God. He tells us to read and pray about the Book of Mormon, to live the commandments and see if we are not blessed. Every time we keep the Sabboth Day or pay tithing we are blessed. When we live the law of chastity, we are blessed. When we read scriptures, pray, fast, serve, we are blessed. The scriptures become more and more meaningful. We experience more peace and joy and less doubt. Is this not real? To me this is so much more revealing than trying to run down something someone said about a man who lived 150 years ago and try to figure out the motives of the writer or witness. It's a fruitless search and can never be as real to the seeker as direct communion with God through prayer, searching His Word and living His Commandments.

EX | 10:30 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

Thanks Joseph, the BofA exists. The difficulty is not with the book, but the myths of how it is received. Try reading it. No problems with JS or the BofA that a little effort at understanding can't explain.

desert rat | 11:04 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

As soon as you refer to yourself as a "scholer", you aren't.

I spent several months intently and prayerfully studying all the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham. I even read from all these "smart" former Mormons.

Bottom line: the text of the Book of Abraham is solid, and there really is no explanation of where it came from way back in the early 19th century other than somehow Joseph received it through inspiration. All the bruhaha about the facsimiles and translation methods is a lot of meaningless speculation. I still have a solid conviction that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. No, you can't cut faith out of the equation when it comes to seeking God's truth.

mark | 12:36 a.m. Aug. 16, 2008

You know, of all the strange comments here, none of them is close to the one made by "ex mormon form letter."
I am surprised more people don't go running from the LDS church as fast as they can and as far away as possible, if the poster of this vile little post is the type of person produced by the LDS church.
Downright scary.

Hal | 9:34 a.m. Aug. 16, 2008

OK, let's talk about the content of the Book of Abraham.

First context. The Old and New Testaments are called that because they are "testaments" of Jesus Christ. Their purpose is to tell the "good news" that Jesus, God incarnate, condescended among mankind to provide them salvation. The Old Testament is included with the New Testament to show that the ancient prophecies about the Messiah were fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.

What does the Book of Mormon add? Nothing. It is "Another Testament" of Jesus Christ. We already have the Old and New Testaments, so we never needed another testament.

Now what does the Book of Abraham give us? Does it tell us anything about Jesus Christ? Not really. It tells of Abraham in Egypt. ï¿½Jehovahï¿½ saves him and promises his seed will be blessed. We already have that in Genesis. Then Chapters 3-5 get into the wacky LDS theology, and are essentially a polytheistic re-write of the first few chapters of Genesis! The entire BoA does nothing to elucidate Jesusï¿½ moral teachings, nor to ï¿½testifyï¿½ that Jesus is the Son of God or the Savior of the world. Nothing.

Anonymous | 10:20 a.m. Aug. 16, 2008

I find it fascinating that LDS people will try to defend the Book of Mormon as being of divine orgin by arguing that it came about by miraculous means. They say that Joseph could not possibly have produced it without divine help. In short, their argument is: because the origin of the BOM is difficult to explain, it must have come about by divine power.

Then they turn around and try to excuse the obviously NON-divine origins of the Book of Abraham and tell us to focus on the content! Ignore the historical evidence that Joseph did NOTHING to "translate" ancient documents (despite the heading saying "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt"). And now we have Mormon "scholars" admitting that Joseph didn't even "translate" the Book of Mormon! Instead, he used a "seer stone" with his face in a hat! Apparently, he didn't even need the papyrus from Egyptian mummies nor the "Gold Plates" at all!

Why is this important? Because historical evidence is discrediting the literal translation explanations for the BoM and the BoA. The Church doesn't want to play in the "evidence" game anymore. They lose.

Thomas | 1:03 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008

"Thou shalt kill" and "Doubting Thomas" --

I stand by my statement. There's a difference between God appearing to tolerate a lie (or even rewarding it, in the case of Exodus 1:17-21) and expressly commanding it. (I think your reference to 1 Samuel 1:1-5 is a mistake, "Thou shalt"; the passage doesn't say what you cite it as saying.)

I believe that God cannot lie. In law, when a person orders another person to lie, it is treated as if the first person himself lied.

Now, I do believe that there are some circumstances where a lie is the lesser of two evils, like in the case of the Egyptian midwives in Exodus 1 or the situation of a person during World War II lying to hide a Jewish family from the Nazis. But it's interesting that, in scripture, God generally leaves this choice between two evils to human beings. There's an interesting parallel to the LDS doctrine of the Fall, where God's purpose was that Adam and Eve would eat of the forbidden fruit -- but he did not command them to do so.

Navigating a morally ambiguous world is our job. Moral perfection is God's territory.

To Hal | 2:40 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008

According to your logic, one or two of the gospels would be enough, because basically, they all tell similar stories, except for the gospel of John maybe. So which ones do you want to keep? I'd go with Matthew and John, my favorite ones. Get rid of all the "unnecessary" extra stuff.

And how can you stand reading the OT at all? It's full of weird stories. The name Jesus Christ is not even mentioned once. The prophecies that talk about him comprise not very many chapters in total. The ones that do, are repeated in the NT. Stories like Lot offering his daughters to the mob or daughters sleeping with their father are not edifying at all.

The BofA tells of Jehovah's (Jesus Christ in LDS theology) dealings with Abraham. Sorry if you can't get anything out of that.

And keep your offending language to yourself. If the preexistance is wacky LDS doctrine to you, that's fine; you don't have to be insulting about things though that others hold sacred. It's not very mature nor competent.

Hal | 4:10 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008

"The BofA tells of Jehovah's (Jesus Christ in LDS theology) dealings with Abraham. Sorry if you can't get anything out of that."

What is there to get? It is just a rehash of the same things that are in Genesis! It adds nothing to Christian doctrine, moral teaching, or anything else. It isn't worth the ink it was written with.

To Hal: | 6:05 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008

The Book of Abraham tells of the nature of heaven, the true war in heaven, the eternal nature of spirits, and that we were foreordained to our respective roles before we were born. It also discusses how Abraham himself was set to be sacrificed by his own father, one of the reasons that sacrificing his only son was such a horrific test. None of these things are outlined in the Old Testament. The Book of Moses reveals that God the Father has the form of a man, that there are inhabited worlds without number, that man is the offspring of God, that Cain was actually in league with the devil and wasn't just tempted to slay Abel, that Enoch was an amazing prophet who led his people in hundreds of years of righteousness and that the entire lot of them were lifted up to heaven. None of those are described in the book of Genesis either.

There is MUCH in both books that not only add to Christian doctrine and moral teaching, but that are beautiful prose and truly inspiring reads. They outline the entire Plan of Salvation, our true purpose in life. They're worth much more than just ink.

In the Middle | 6:18 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008

This stuff is draining. When I was a kid, Christopher Columbus was a hero. Today he's considered a violator of human rights. This Smith guy...no matter what you say...has done nothing to hurt the world or come close to the Columbus debate. THAT is a question of evil, or not evil...not this book's writings. Why is everyone so obsessed with the Mormons? I just don't get it. I'm heading back to the middle here...both sides are too closed minded for me and should be ashamed. Aren't there better things to debate? Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, helping the widow...you know...that "Jesus" kind of stuff. I bet he'd be ticked off reading this stuff.

Fascinating Book | 1:42 a.m. Aug. 17, 2008

The Book of Abraham is the most interesting Book I have ever read. The doctrines contained in it are incredible. What makes me really laugh is all the antiï¿½s that say Smith made up the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham is also a fabrication and so on. Wow this Smith guy must have had an IQ higher than anybody that has ever lived on this planet to create such a deception. The fact is he was not that smart. I guess Emma his wife must have been a co-conspirator with him since she stated that Joseph could not even compose a simple letter much less write the BOM or the P0G for that matter.

Emma of all people would have had the best motive to denounce her husband as a fallen prophet and a fraud, because of his practice of polygamy which greatly hurt her, but she never did even though she left the Church.

The three witnesses to the BOM never denied their testimonies even on their death beds and they all left the Church too. How does someone leave the Church but not denounce it? Maybe the critics can explain that to me.

There was a fire | 10:57 a.m. Aug. 17, 2008

I came across this in my research

ï¿½After the death of the Prophet the mummies, together with the records on papyrus, were left in charge of his mother, Lucy Smith. She afterwards parted with them, under what circumstances is not positively known. Finally, the records and mummies found their way into Wood's Museum, in Chicago, where, according to the statement of the editors of the Plano edition of Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and his Progenitors, by Lucy Smith, they were destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871.ï¿½

It could have been the real papyrus was destroyed in the fire.

Regarding Hal | 2:24 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008

Are you aware the the Jewish people do not call it an "old Testament" because that would suggest something new and improved is required.

To fascinating book, I hate to break this to you but you needn't be brilliant to be deceptive or even followed. Deut. 18:22
"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him" shows us exactly how to discern a false prophet. One need only a single error to be discounted and yes J.S. prophesied time and again and the "thing follow not, nor come to pass."

No Muss No Fuss Solution | 3:17 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008

The brethren could just say Joseph Smith apparently wrote it himself when he wasn't acting in his official role as "Prophet, Seer and Revelator", and the writings were just his own personal opinion. That would solve it nicely--the same way they explain everything else.

And while they are at it, they could also explain that it was the same about polygamy and the Book of Mormon. Or that Joseph's scribe was the one who got it wrong. Joseph was talking too fast, etc., like one of the True Believers posted earlier.

to there was a fire | 3:33 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008

Unfortunately you seemed to have forgotten that there are facsimiles which direct us to the Book of Breathings which can actually be translated using the Rosetta Stone. First it was claimed that J.S. translated the "reformed Egyptian" though actually script hieroglyphs and then when that proved patently false he was inspired by the facsimiles. I come from the South and that's called lying.

Re: Fascinating Book | 4:38 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008

I can explain it to you. Are you a parent? Emma would not want to denounce the deceased father of her children the same way I will not say anything bad about my ex-husband to my children (although I believe it myself). It would hurt them.

As for the 3 witnesses, why would they admit to helping someone perpetrate a fraud as huge as this one?

Re: There was a fire | 4:43 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008

If you continue on with your research, you will find that the papyri were recovered and returned to the LDS church. I can't remember the date...maybe the early 1970s? There is a picture somewhere with General Authorities receiving them (seems to me Spencer Kimball is in the picture). The church has them and they do not say what they're supposed to. The pictures and the script were "interpreted" incorrectly.

Part 2 Re: There was a fire | 6:44 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008

Yes, I remember it too. It made the real newspapers, not just the Deseret News. The papyri were discovered and given to the LDS church. That was when the church turned them over to Hugh Nibley to study them and prove they were what Joseph Smith said they were. I was a true believer back then and it really bolstered my faith. That is until Hugh Nibley's article came out in the Ensign and it turned out to be a bunch of apologetic hogwash. At least Nibley admitted that it was just a funeral text, but then went on to say something gibberish about how it could have "inspired" Joseph Smith, blah, blah, blah. That only served to convince me that it was all garbage.

the truth | 7:33 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008

You can believe in Book of Abraham or not.

We can conjecture about how it came about as much as we want.

You believe one or another, or reject all and substutute your own.

But the fact remains the Book of Abraham does exist.

And writing experts say Joseph Smith did not write it.

why people get so caught up in facimiles and papyri, and who said what, or wheter nibly was leven ooking at same stuff Joseph looked at, and who knows what.

No one can know about any of that stuff with assurity.

The fact is we have the (a?) Book of Abraham and Joseph did not write it or the Book of Mormon ( which was proven to have been written by several authors, none of which match Joseph Smith, as would be expected since it isthe collected writings of several people as it claims to be)

And neither Books writings match any known living person.

All the naysayers have are baseless stories, claims, and opinions, or worst all they will rationalize and make-up reasons not to believe any proffered evidence or consider any other possiblity. Howe close minded!

To: the truth | 8:17 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008

As to "why people get so caught up in facimiles and papyri, and who said what, or wheter nibly was leven ooking at same stuff Joseph looked at, and who knows what...." The reason people get caught up in it is because Joseph Smith himself said that was what he translated it from. And also, the Church itself will be the first to document that the papyri is authentic.

And to argue that it is real because it exists is also nonsense. The Wizard of Oz exists too, but that doesn't make it real.

Go ahead and stick your head in the sand. That is the only thing you can do if you want to believe. I choose not to do so however.

Fear is the reason.... | 8:47 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008

Why don't people ever "denounce" certain things in their life? Fear of the unknown. Many people have left, have "denounced" and are happy and just fine.

Re: To: the truth @ 8:17 | 9:52 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008

"The reason people get caught up in it is because Joseph Smith himself said that was what he translated it from."

Actually, he didn't say that at all. All he said was that he had translated the PoG from papyrus documents found. Nobody knows exactly which ones they were, or what happened to them, or how that translation took place. He never pointed to those exact documents and said "this is where that came from."

the truth | 11:30 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008

Re: to the truth:8:17

Weal comparison indeed., the authtor of the Wizard of Oz never claimed the book be ture account of anything or that the people in it existed.
So find another book where "author" or "translator" has claimed it is fact.

And still have not addressed the question of who actually wrote it.

Analysis of it's writng and the BOM's writings, by expersts, have shown it is not Joseph Smith's nor any contemporary of his.

You want to claim Joseph Smith wrote all this Himself and you can't even prove he authored it. Which he never claimed to, only translated it, or recieved by in some divine way.

The church only aquired some questionable papyri in hopes might what Joseph Smith translated, it appears to not be the case. It doesn't mean there wasn't other papyri at one time that Joseph Smith translated, that may have burned in fire.

We only know he gave it to someone else and it is now gone.

We do know the papyri once existed and the Golden plates, we have witnesses who said the saw and touched it.

You can make-up reasons why they didn't recant, but the fact remains they didn't.

mark | 12:50 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008

The truth, you say, "And writing experts say Joseph Smith did not write it."
I was wondering if you could direct me to the source of this statement. Which writing experts? Will you give me the names and the name of the study?

to:Re: To: the truth | 4:27 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008

The problem remains that you need only pull out your P of GP to see specific facsimiles. That directs you, if you are not an ostrich, to the Book of Breathings. Yes, it's just that simple.

to : the truth | 5:51 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008

Actually we know that the papyri once existed and continue to exist because of the facsimiles contained within the records of the P of GP v. Book of Breathings. Had J.S. been inspired enough to not add those cute little pictures, we wouldn't know the facts as we unquestionably do.

To the truth @11:30 p.m. | 9:57 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008

Let me get this right. Because someone says it it true, makes it true? Is that what you are saying?

Now that is solid logic.

Ello | 10:40 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008

The BoA is obviously not translated from Egyptian Papyri, anyone can see that. But if you believe in it, then believe. Don't let people with opposing views get under your skin.
Nothing is worth fighting over, especially religion.

Thomas | 10:58 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008

To those who argue Joseph Smith could not possibly have written the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon himself, look up Rosemary Brown.

Thomas | 11:59 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008

I strongly suspect that if you applied stylometric analytical methods to Shakespeare's plays, you will "prove" that Will Shakespeare couldn't possibly have written them.

Wordprint analysis is not a widely accepted scientific discipline. It makes a number of assumptions that have yet to be demonstrated about people's use of language. It's interesting, but far from compelling evidence.

One potential problem is that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham contain a mix of original, unique content, and paraphrase or quotation from existing Biblical texts. You *would* expect some variation between the writing style of Joseph Smith, and the that of the translators of the King James Bible whose language comprises large blocks of the Book of Mormon.

My personal writing style has varied quite a bit during my life, and it still varies depending on what kind of writing I'm doing, and how much editing I perform. (Dashed-off Internet posts are usually a lot wordier than my other writing, for example.)

Re; No Sale | 12:18 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008

So what, specifically, don't you like about the Church? Don't say it's with how the members act because Christ said that it is by their fruits that one would know if someone is a true disciple of Christ or not, and generally speaking, members of the Church do an excellent job of representing the Savior and doing their best to emulate the Master. Does that mean LDS members are perfect. Nope. Far from it. 13+ million members and there are bound to be some bad apples.

Anyway, so what's your beef SPECIFICALLY?

For Matt, 12: 17PM | 12:36 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008

"I have a funny story about how the BoA played the major role in my exit of the mormon church. I was learning (all from church sources) about some problems in the church, and when I learned about the BoA issues, I sincerely asked my friend (thinking I was the only person who had never heard of these issues) what was his take on it.

His response? (and you might call me a liar to my face, but hand-to-heaven this was his verbatim answer)

"I believe it to be true as far as it is translated correctly".

A-BWAHAHAHAHA!

At that moment I realized that the average member has NO CLUE as to the real history of their faith."

Not true, Matt. Not true at all.

Here's the history of MY faith:

I read the Book of Mormon intently, pondered it often, prayed about it and God told me the book was from Him. That revelation occured in my mother's kitchen, late at night, about the Summer of 1984.

In the Summer of 1985 God told me again, through the Holy Ghost, as I spoke in Church in Liberty, MS that the Book of Mormon was true.

Dan Maloy
Enid, OK

I Have A Question | 12:57 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008

This question is only for those who do not believe in the claims of the LDS church, ie, "one true church, Joseph Smith a prophet, the Bof M is God's word", etc.

I have yet to see, after many, many months of reading these DesNews forums, in which a single, solitary "anti", has acknowledged this:

Is it not possible that God can communicate truth from Him to man through the Holy Ghost?, (ie, through some form OTHER than just intellectual, academic knowledge), and if so, is it not possible that IF knowledge can be communicated that way, if such knowledge runs against what numerous imperfect men would say is "the absolute truth", that it would STILL be wise to hang onto what God says is true rather than what man says is true?

I'm honestly not poking any non-believer in the eye but I see antis' and doubters by the hundreds say that man must only believe what he can see or obtain from a book (never mind if the journal was written over a hundred years ago and purports to be "true"....) but I have yet to see ANY anti admit that God trumps all.

Anyone?....

To Thomas, 2:04 PM | 1:10 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008

You said that the Book of Abraham was false (and therefore Joseph Smith was not a true prophet) because, essentially, Abraham 2: 23

SlowS | 1:23 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008

Wow, what mental gymnastics. Author DeGroote did not provide any real information about how to provide a rebuttal about the questions of the BoA. He did instruct you how to sidestep the whole issue. Why do they print this drivel?

For Thoma, 2:04PM (complete) | 1:22 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008

(sorry, hit "enter" early)

You said that the Book of Abraham was false (and therefore Joseph Smith was not a true prophet) because, essentially, Abraham 2: 23-24 states that the Lord told Abraham to lie?

"22 And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon;

23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will sayï¿½She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise:

24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live."

Mormon doctrine, as well as the Bible, says that all people are spirit "children of God" (see Romans 8: 16-17). Therefore the Lord did not lie since Abraham and Sarah, spiritually speaking, WERE brother and sister.

I hope that helps.

SlowS | 1:30 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008

My beef, specifically is that they have changed the teachings and doctrines too many times during my five decades as a church member. That's my beef, and I'm finally mature enough to recognize it.

Anonymous | 1:36 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008

I add to Thomas' recommendations John Ballou Newbrough. Look him up as well as his Oahspe Bible. Fascinating parallels with Joseph Smith! Newbrough included many things in his Oahspe Bible that he could not possibly have known!

SlowS | 2:37 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008

To "I have a question"
It's quite possible. But why does your our Church keep changing it's history?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.