Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: How to answer questions about the Book of Abraham
129 comments | Read story
Emme | 4:45 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
I recently went to a quite famous art museum exhibit and saw writings from the
Book of the Dead. It seems that the Egyptians had not only hieroglyphics, but
script..so much for "reformed Egyptian." While I read about such
years ago, it was still startling to see the papyrus with my own eyes. It
wasn't "anti" literature that showed me the way out, but
scriptural resources themselves. Clearly there was no interpretation...none.
No Sale. | 6:14 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
I wish the church would just stop with the baloney. I still attend because my
husband is in the bishopric and the kids seem to like it. But every time I read
one of these FAIRS excuses it makes me...., well it makes me want to find
another church.
Stop explaining, stop apologizing, it makes all LDS seem retarded.
Stop explaining, stop apologizing, it makes all LDS seem retarded.
Ron Bybee | 7:47 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
It appears Brian Hauglid's answer to the question: "How should we
answer questions about the Book of Abraham?" is this: Don't try. Just
keep on believing in the Church and pretend nothing is wrong. Just bury your
head in the sand, cover your ears, and keep repeating to yourself: "I know
its true, I know its true..."
I will give Brian Hauglid credit for emphasizing that LDS apologists need to be more kind. I left the Church almost 9 years ago, and it was brought on by just such ignorant, rude "defenses" as the examples Hauglid gave. In my case, it was a member of the Stake Presidency in Arizona who responded to my sincere questions. He had no idea what he was doing, but refused to admit it. Instead, he attacked me and my questions in a very rude and insulting way. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. It is obvious to me that when the person asking sincere questions is made to feel they are a sinner and "anti-" for no other reason than because they have questions and don't "know", there is something fundamentally wrong with the Church.
I will give Brian Hauglid credit for emphasizing that LDS apologists need to be more kind. I left the Church almost 9 years ago, and it was brought on by just such ignorant, rude "defenses" as the examples Hauglid gave. In my case, it was a member of the Stake Presidency in Arizona who responded to my sincere questions. He had no idea what he was doing, but refused to admit it. Instead, he attacked me and my questions in a very rude and insulting way. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. It is obvious to me that when the person asking sincere questions is made to feel they are a sinner and "anti-" for no other reason than because they have questions and don't "know", there is something fundamentally wrong with the Church.
Comments continue below
The Trolls Are Up Early Today | 7:52 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Emme, No Sale, We doubt your authenticity.
Your spirit of Smugnessm (and without even putting forth any backing), doesn't hold a candle to the real spirit of God, nor to intelligent discussion of why you doubt.
There has always been far more about the Restoration period, that no one living knows yet, than is known.
Ronald Reagan described the critics well: "It's not what he knows that bothers me, it's what he knows that isn't so."
Your spirit of Smugnessm (and without even putting forth any backing), doesn't hold a candle to the real spirit of God, nor to intelligent discussion of why you doubt.
There has always been far more about the Restoration period, that no one living knows yet, than is known.
Ronald Reagan described the critics well: "It's not what he knows that bothers me, it's what he knows that isn't so."
My2Cents | 7:57 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
After reading this article, I am no closer to understanding how the Book of
Abraham was translated. Surely, there must be some answers. I wish the Church
would provide them.
Saddened | 8:04 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
The problem as I see it is apologists and antis are mirror images of one
another, just different sides of the same coin. When will people realize that
you cannot win either side of this "argument" with logic, intellectual
reason, or scientific proof. That is not the way Heavenly Father works when it
comes to spiritual matters. It takes reason of the "heart" in order
to understand and gain a spiritual testimony. I know the antis will say,
"there is no way to know without proof" (that's okay) and the
apologists will say, "but we have to stand up for our beliefs". The
Spirit is not a spirit of contention (argument). It will touch those who are
earnestly seeking to know the truth. Once they know, as long as they continue
to nourish their testimony it will grow. If not, it will fade and then
disappear.
If you are a believer, then enjoy your faith and let others live their lives as they choose. If you are a non-believer, then allow us to believe as we choose and we should honor your right to disagree.
If you are a believer, then enjoy your faith and let others live their lives as they choose. If you are a non-believer, then allow us to believe as we choose and we should honor your right to disagree.
innocence | 8:14 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
When we want to see ourselves first as children to Heavenly Father, many of us
just never grow up and live our Earthly life to the fullest.
Mormon Scholar | 8:45 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
I think Hugh Nibley sums-up the answers to most of our questions regarding the
translation of the Book of Abraham:
�Did he [Joseph Smith, Jr.} really think he was translating? If so he was acting in good faith. But was he really translating? If so, it was by a process which quite escapes the understanding of the specialists and scholars, and lies in the realm of the imponderable."
�Today no scholar, either Mormon or not, claims that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham through ordinary scholarly channels. Therefore, one must wonder how any amount of checking along ordinary scholarly channels is going to get us very far.�
- Dr. Hugh Nibley, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p. 101
�Did he [Joseph Smith, Jr.} really think he was translating? If so he was acting in good faith. But was he really translating? If so, it was by a process which quite escapes the understanding of the specialists and scholars, and lies in the realm of the imponderable."
�Today no scholar, either Mormon or not, claims that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham through ordinary scholarly channels. Therefore, one must wonder how any amount of checking along ordinary scholarly channels is going to get us very far.�
- Dr. Hugh Nibley, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p. 101
Bill | 9:31 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Mormon Scholar,
I can't quite decide if the quote from Hugh Nibley strenghtens my faith in the Book of Abraham or weakens it! I am leaning toward the latter.
I can't quite decide if the quote from Hugh Nibley strenghtens my faith in the Book of Abraham or weakens it! I am leaning toward the latter.
Emme | 9:41 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Doubt my authenticity all you like but then do a search on the Louvre and Book
of the Dead. You are offered and I accepted earphones and a device for
listening to information on specific pieces (you key in the number), the Book of
the Dead papyrus for one. In it details the Egyptian script v. hieroglyphics.
Sorry for not being the troll that you wanted me to be. I am though, ex-mormon
based on fact over the burning of my bosom from yesterday's sausage and
sauerkraut dinner. Again, there was no interpretation by J.S. but there was one
using the Rosetta Stone.
Tyson | 9:44 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
To God works with Fallible Men,
"That's not the doctrine of the LDS Church. Nothing in this life is free from error or perfect including the Bible since men are involved."
"Even if God is perfect in all things he must work with fallible and human people when revealing his will and teachings to mankind."
Everything you said makes perfect sense.
Trouble is, why isn't everything you said sufficient to justify the Catholic Church as still being the one, true, holy Church despite all the imperfections of the men involved in it?
If what you say is true, and a Church can be true despite fallible men and their mistakes, there could never have been an "Apostasy". If there could never have been an Apostasy, then there never was a reason for a "Restoration". Joseph Smith should have just listened to your reasoning and joined one of the "True" churches of his day and stopped criticizing the fallibility of men in those Churches.
Please help me understand why your arguments work for the LDS Church but no other Churches?
"That's not the doctrine of the LDS Church. Nothing in this life is free from error or perfect including the Bible since men are involved."
"Even if God is perfect in all things he must work with fallible and human people when revealing his will and teachings to mankind."
Everything you said makes perfect sense.
Trouble is, why isn't everything you said sufficient to justify the Catholic Church as still being the one, true, holy Church despite all the imperfections of the men involved in it?
If what you say is true, and a Church can be true despite fallible men and their mistakes, there could never have been an "Apostasy". If there could never have been an Apostasy, then there never was a reason for a "Restoration". Joseph Smith should have just listened to your reasoning and joined one of the "True" churches of his day and stopped criticizing the fallibility of men in those Churches.
Please help me understand why your arguments work for the LDS Church but no other Churches?
Just a Guess | 9:58 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Perhaps Joseph Smith wasn't acting as "prophet" when he
"translated" the Book of Abraham. Isn't that the excuse given
for all the other discrepancies and falsehoods taught by the church?
Maybe the "Urim and Thummin" was on the blink and Joe couldn't find his hat and "peepstones" that day.
Maybe the "Urim and Thummin" was on the blink and Joe couldn't find his hat and "peepstones" that day.
Hocus Pocus | 10:03 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Interesting that nowhere does Mr. Hauglid even attempt to address the truth or
facts about the so-called "Book of Abraham." He dances all around it.
Why bother with the facts, just as long as we keep the faith?
Dave | 10:48 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Re: Ron B.
I understand your hurt, but you must realize that there are some very ignorant ward, stake leaders and members. I have learned to ignore some of the twisted views of some, as well as some of the people. There are some members who should not be in leadership, because they have the potential to drive others away. The LDS doctrine is not easy and is sometimes a hard one to swallow, but I do it for my family.
I understand your hurt, but you must realize that there are some very ignorant ward, stake leaders and members. I have learned to ignore some of the twisted views of some, as well as some of the people. There are some members who should not be in leadership, because they have the potential to drive others away. The LDS doctrine is not easy and is sometimes a hard one to swallow, but I do it for my family.
In the Middle | 10:58 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
All this bashing is just crazy. Is there something in the Book of Abraham (not
knowing a thing myself) that's going to cause a person to do evil things?
Does it teach immorality or Godlessness, or something that will ruin a person if
they follow it? In fact�what are these Mormons doing to
ruin civilization like people are saying? I'm not a fan of either
side...Mormons should quick apologizing and keep pouring out humanitarian
support with their big bucks. The anti's need to get a life...this is so
fruitless. The authenticity of many parts of the Bible seems equally as
questionable. The fact that you guys all trust a bunch of Jewish scribes (who
are CLEARY tainted) and New Testament writers (who are CLEARLY tainted) more
that this Smith guy or anyone is hilarious to me. Study the History of the
Bible�it will scare the average Christian to death!
To: Tyson | 11:09 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
You must have posted on the wrong comment board. There is no "God works
with Fallible Men" on this board. Sorry.
Rodger | 11:24 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
How come some LDS members like to ACT and call themselves scholars? I really
doubt anyone of you on here is any kind of a scholar. And I certainly hope none
of you teach my kids in grade school either.
Oh, and to the "TROLL"-SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! You are one of the earliest ones on here.
The book of Abraham was written so that people could take and leave if they didn't like the writings.
Oh, and to the "TROLL"-SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! You are one of the earliest ones on here.
The book of Abraham was written so that people could take and leave if they didn't like the writings.
Anonymous | 11:40 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
I was a Mormom scholar, but i left. Now i am a scholar of deep fish diving.
Anonymous | 11:50 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Tyson,
It's simple, the absence of authority by the laying on of hands. History bears that out as does (Heaven forbid) faith in revelation. I'm sorry if that's not intellectual enough or may not be found in current DNA evidence, or may defy a convaluted self-made justification to hang onto the fringe. Laugh and chide me into non-intellectual oblivian if you wish. I'm in good company and I like it there. I've not failed in business, I take no anti-depressants, I trust my kids believe in Alma 32 and the First Principle of the Gospel, and I don't wish to display in public forum any Church job my spouse has to justify or bellow out my lack of commitment to the principles I espouse or that which I may have pitched out the door. That may not be intellectual enough for some but it does err on the side of not leaning too much on my own understanding. Someone smarter than all of us foresaw all of this as well.
It's simple, the absence of authority by the laying on of hands. History bears that out as does (Heaven forbid) faith in revelation. I'm sorry if that's not intellectual enough or may not be found in current DNA evidence, or may defy a convaluted self-made justification to hang onto the fringe. Laugh and chide me into non-intellectual oblivian if you wish. I'm in good company and I like it there. I've not failed in business, I take no anti-depressants, I trust my kids believe in Alma 32 and the First Principle of the Gospel, and I don't wish to display in public forum any Church job my spouse has to justify or bellow out my lack of commitment to the principles I espouse or that which I may have pitched out the door. That may not be intellectual enough for some but it does err on the side of not leaning too much on my own understanding. Someone smarter than all of us foresaw all of this as well.
Not Intellectual Enough | 11:54 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Satan left but has never gone away. Amazing how many follow his example.
Thomas | 11:55 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008
The Book of Abraham was one of the first things that made me question the
Church, starting from when I noticed the similarities between the facsimiles and
illustrations of concepts in ancient Egyptian religion in my children's
book "The Usborne Book of World History."
From all the evidence, it's the most reasonable conclusion that papyri attached to Facsimile 1 (which the text of the Book of Abraham references) are what Joseph Smith referenced in "translating" the Book of Abraham. The writing on those papyri doesn't contain the Book of Abraham. That's a giant problem to work around.
From all the evidence, it's the most reasonable conclusion that papyri attached to Facsimile 1 (which the text of the Book of Abraham references) are what Joseph Smith referenced in "translating" the Book of Abraham. The writing on those papyri doesn't contain the Book of Abraham. That's a giant problem to work around.
square head | 12:14 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
All you fact lookers, you act like facts are some sort of eternal truth. Well
just think at the time of colombus the world was square so i hope your still
holding on to that fact, because after all facts dont ever change right?
Matt | 12:17 p.m. Aug. 15, 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.
Done and done since 1999.
Thanks Hugh Nibley!
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.
Done and done since 1999.
Thanks Hugh Nibley!
BLG | 12:41 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
There is all kinds of information out there on the B of A. Scholars have written
hundreds of pages on this topic. If you want to understand something better you
need to do your home work. This IS the age of information; you obviously have a
computer, do a few searches. fairlds.org is a good place to start.
BLG | 12:47 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
In the Middle-
You make me laugh, but in may ways your comments are very true. Your statement is a good example of looking for the good and realizing that all religions require one to have faith to believe.
You make me laugh, but in may ways your comments are very true. Your statement is a good example of looking for the good and realizing that all religions require one to have faith to believe.
ramper | 12:49 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Wow! A hornet's nest!
There are things in the Church I have no testimony of. There are some I do. There are some things I have little faith in. There are some I have great faith in. When I hit the potholes/roadblocks I rely on those things that do strengthen me and try to whittle away the doubts over time as more faith and knowledge arrive. I have realized there are few real experts in human form and it becomes all the more important to rely on the Spirit to enlighten, strengthen, and guide. I am a real 'work in progress' and the construction site is lifelong.
There are things in the Church I have no testimony of. There are some I do. There are some things I have little faith in. There are some I have great faith in. When I hit the potholes/roadblocks I rely on those things that do strengthen me and try to whittle away the doubts over time as more faith and knowledge arrive. I have realized there are few real experts in human form and it becomes all the more important to rely on the Spirit to enlighten, strengthen, and guide. I am a real 'work in progress' and the construction site is lifelong.
I want to believe | 12:57 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
I'm confused as to how Mr. Hauglid's suggestions help answer any
questions about the Book of Abraham. It appears to be more a discussion on how
to sidestep such questions.
The TRUE facts are plain and simple. The documents traditionally held up by the church as those used to "translate" the BoA have nothing to do with the words written by Joseph Smith. That leads me to try to reconcile in my mind what really happened and narrow it down to one of two conclusions:
1) JS was a gifted story teller and used those skills to create the BoA, which introduces myriad questions about the authenticity of everything he produced.
2) JS was simply inspired by God and used the Egyptian papyrus to help draw inspiration, which leads to more questions about why he would then need to justify the BoA with "evidence" he knew was not real.
So which is it? I can never argue that the message of the LDS church is anything but good. It's a wonderful organization, but all evidence points to dishonest origins, which gives me pause. Anyone that states otherwise, simply hasn't studied the origins or is being dishonest themselves.
The TRUE facts are plain and simple. The documents traditionally held up by the church as those used to "translate" the BoA have nothing to do with the words written by Joseph Smith. That leads me to try to reconcile in my mind what really happened and narrow it down to one of two conclusions:
1) JS was a gifted story teller and used those skills to create the BoA, which introduces myriad questions about the authenticity of everything he produced.
2) JS was simply inspired by God and used the Egyptian papyrus to help draw inspiration, which leads to more questions about why he would then need to justify the BoA with "evidence" he knew was not real.
So which is it? I can never argue that the message of the LDS church is anything but good. It's a wonderful organization, but all evidence points to dishonest origins, which gives me pause. Anyone that states otherwise, simply hasn't studied the origins or is being dishonest themselves.
defacto | 1:50 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
I researched the facts and in fact i facted that i could fact that i am a fact.
Ken Baguley | 1:53 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
This comment section appears to be a dumping ground for wild and crazy guys...I
certainly don't want to give anything further to be pounced on with glee.
Thomas | 2:04 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
By the way, "square head," it's incorrect that scientists thought
the world was "square" at the time of Columbus. Educated people had
known it was spherical since the time of the ancient Greeks. The more ignorant
common people (stuffed to the gills with religious orthodoxy and nothing else)
thought it was a round, flat disk. I'm not sure *anyone* ever thought it
was "square."
Thomas | 2:04 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
"In the Middle" -- "Is there something in the Book of Abraham
that's going to cause a person to do evil things?"
Arguably, yes. The Book of Abraham is the only major religious scripture I know of in which God expressly commissions a lie. (See Abraham 2:23-24.)
It's interesting that the introduction of this "it's OK to lie sometimes" doctrine came at about the same time the original D&C Sections 101 and 103 came out, denying that the Church was practicing polygamy (which it was), and lying to cover up polygamy was widespread.
So Abraham 2:23-24 promotes a kind of moral relativism, which definitely can promote evil.
"Square head" -- Science contains mechanisms to identify mistakes and correct them. Religion doesn't. It has to be dragged kicking and screaming away from its errors, and has a habit of immolating, shunning, or excommunicating those who have the temerity to point them out.
Science only does this when it's politicized. (See global warming and human intelligence for two examples of such politicized scientific fields.)
Arguably, yes. The Book of Abraham is the only major religious scripture I know of in which God expressly commissions a lie. (See Abraham 2:23-24.)
It's interesting that the introduction of this "it's OK to lie sometimes" doctrine came at about the same time the original D&C Sections 101 and 103 came out, denying that the Church was practicing polygamy (which it was), and lying to cover up polygamy was widespread.
So Abraham 2:23-24 promotes a kind of moral relativism, which definitely can promote evil.
"Square head" -- Science contains mechanisms to identify mistakes and correct them. Religion doesn't. It has to be dragged kicking and screaming away from its errors, and has a habit of immolating, shunning, or excommunicating those who have the temerity to point them out.
Science only does this when it's politicized. (See global warming and human intelligence for two examples of such politicized scientific fields.)
light and wave | 2:25 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Newton came out and said that light was a particle, there was very good evidence
for it. Then others discovered a wave light nature to light, and there was very
good evidence. Now we just accept both without a good understanding whats going
on.
The LDS church has points that seem refutable. Others that seem like otherwise. Yet the non refutable parts stand firm, but so do the other parts that suggest otherwise.
The LDS church has points that seem refutable. Others that seem like otherwise. Yet the non refutable parts stand firm, but so do the other parts that suggest otherwise.
dear thomas | 2:31 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
My primary teacher played right into your hands, thats it i'm done, the
church isnt true, i have failed myself and you. Please forgive the fact that i
am not perfect!
Tyson | 3:03 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Sorry, I have difficulty keeping all these MormonTimes articles straight. I
meant to post this on "Historians create visionary project" in
response to a previous comment.
But it seems to apply here as well. Take it for what it is worth. I still haven't gotten a good answer. The comment by Anonymous | 11:50 a.m. was useless (a lot more going on with that person than we care to know about).
But it seems to apply here as well. Take it for what it is worth. I still haven't gotten a good answer. The comment by Anonymous | 11:50 a.m. was useless (a lot more going on with that person than we care to know about).
zig maulf | 3:26 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Thanks Ramper for showing us how to use mindnumbing faith promoting platitudes
to avoid honesty and facts. And thanks Mormon Scholar for helping us understand
it doesn't really matter how he translated--just as long as he thinks he
did (er . . or says he did) should be good enough for good faithful mormons
(and if it isn't you need to go pray for more faith) . . This is the most
honest and illuminating thing i have ever heard a mormon scholar say.
Freeman | 3:41 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Matt 12:17pm:
So, you left the church because your friend didn't know the origin of the BoA? You laugh at his/her sincere answer, but what's really funny here is how so many who have "left the church" can't really leave it alone. Done since '99? Then let go...
So, you left the church because your friend didn't know the origin of the BoA? You laugh at his/her sincere answer, but what's really funny here is how so many who have "left the church" can't really leave it alone. Done since '99? Then let go...
God works with Fallible Men | 3:45 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Tyson,
"Everything you said makes perfect sense.
Trouble is, why isn't everything you said sufficient to justify the Catholic Church as still being the one, true, holy Church despite all the imperfections of the men involved in it?"
Everything I said is sufficient to justify the Catholic Church as "still being the one, true, holy Church despite all the imperfections of the men involved." In fact, that is the argument that they make.
"If what you say is true, and a Church can be true despite fallible men and their mistakes, there could never have been an "Apostasy"."
That's not true because men can be SO FALLIBLE that they cause a Church to fall into apostasy because God "ceases to strive with them."
"If there could never have been an Apostasy, then there never was a reason for a "Restoration"."
But there could have been an apostasy like I have already noted.
"Please help me understand why your arguments work for the LDS Church but no other Churches?"
I wouldn't try since I don't believe my argument works only for the LDS Church.
If I did I might have an answer for an argument I'm making but this isn't one.
"Everything you said makes perfect sense.
Trouble is, why isn't everything you said sufficient to justify the Catholic Church as still being the one, true, holy Church despite all the imperfections of the men involved in it?"
Everything I said is sufficient to justify the Catholic Church as "still being the one, true, holy Church despite all the imperfections of the men involved." In fact, that is the argument that they make.
"If what you say is true, and a Church can be true despite fallible men and their mistakes, there could never have been an "Apostasy"."
That's not true because men can be SO FALLIBLE that they cause a Church to fall into apostasy because God "ceases to strive with them."
"If there could never have been an Apostasy, then there never was a reason for a "Restoration"."
But there could have been an apostasy like I have already noted.
"Please help me understand why your arguments work for the LDS Church but no other Churches?"
I wouldn't try since I don't believe my argument works only for the LDS Church.
If I did I might have an answer for an argument I'm making but this isn't one.
In the Middle | 3:46 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Thomas...
Ok...you made me read this book (pretty cool...on the Mormon's website)...weird but interesting. I believe your story about Abraham lying is in the Old Testament, so that doesn't work. Bible is full of a lot worse than that. Tons of deception all through the OT. Was it OK for Jacob (a PROPHET) to lie to his father and say he was Esau? Seems to have been at least "sanctioned" by God. I think Joshua (A PROPHET) and gang was pretty rough on the non-Israelites. Was that torture with you? I really can't find anything here that "promotes evil" as that might have been. May be a made up book...but for what purpose? Doesn't say anything about the Mormon religion or Mormon books? Isn't this just another Book of Mormon in your eyes? Authored by a man? Again�what�s the big deal and the need for everyone to thrash the Mormons? The one�s I know seem to be pretty faithful�maybe a little blind but I could say that about anyone posting on here.
Ok...you made me read this book (pretty cool...on the Mormon's website)...weird but interesting. I believe your story about Abraham lying is in the Old Testament, so that doesn't work. Bible is full of a lot worse than that. Tons of deception all through the OT. Was it OK for Jacob (a PROPHET) to lie to his father and say he was Esau? Seems to have been at least "sanctioned" by God. I think Joshua (A PROPHET) and gang was pretty rough on the non-Israelites. Was that torture with you? I really can't find anything here that "promotes evil" as that might have been. May be a made up book...but for what purpose? Doesn't say anything about the Mormon religion or Mormon books? Isn't this just another Book of Mormon in your eyes? Authored by a man? Again�what�s the big deal and the need for everyone to thrash the Mormons? The one�s I know seem to be pretty faithful�maybe a little blind but I could say that about anyone posting on here.
Doubting Thomas | 3:52 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Read the bible...more lies, deceptions, and cold blooded murder (of which even
God "repented" of) than a soap opera. Very weak argument to "in
the middles" question. It's that kind of rhetoric that will make
someone like him (or her) study the Mormon church. How would like to be
responsible for that?
You aren't his audience | 3:53 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Hocus Pocus,
"Interesting that nowhere does Mr. Hauglid even attempt to address the truth or facts about the so-called "Book of Abraham." He dances all around it. Why bother with the facts, just as long as we keep the faith?"
That's not true. Hauglid has addressed the truth and facts about the Book of Abraham in publications and other venues. This wasn't a talk about the Book of Abraham but how to talk to people about the Book of Abraham.
He was also talking to a group of people who knows how to do research, and to locate sources to use. You can begin your own research by reading:
1) "Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant" by Brian Hauglid and John Gee.
2) "Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham," Edited by Brian Hauglid, John Gee, and John A. Tvedtnes.
Once you have read these two books I would be more than happy to provide you with additional books, talks and articles written by Hauglid. Please let me know when you are finished.
There will always be people who think that every talk, article or book should address what they want them to address instead of being geared to another audience.
"Interesting that nowhere does Mr. Hauglid even attempt to address the truth or facts about the so-called "Book of Abraham." He dances all around it. Why bother with the facts, just as long as we keep the faith?"
That's not true. Hauglid has addressed the truth and facts about the Book of Abraham in publications and other venues. This wasn't a talk about the Book of Abraham but how to talk to people about the Book of Abraham.
He was also talking to a group of people who knows how to do research, and to locate sources to use. You can begin your own research by reading:
1) "Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant" by Brian Hauglid and John Gee.
2) "Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham," Edited by Brian Hauglid, John Gee, and John A. Tvedtnes.
Once you have read these two books I would be more than happy to provide you with additional books, talks and articles written by Hauglid. Please let me know when you are finished.
There will always be people who think that every talk, article or book should address what they want them to address instead of being geared to another audience.
to square head | 3:59 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
the lds church has the book of abraham papyri in its possession. it
doesn't say what joseph smith wrote that it said. how can that fact be
refuted? how is the ability to read going to change with some eternal truth?
Who has authority? Does it exist | 4:06 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Tyson,
"But it seems to apply here as well. Take it for what it is worth. I still haven't gotten a good answer. The comment by Anonymous | 11:50 a.m. was useless (a lot more going on with that person than we care to know about)."
I agree with you about the Anonymous post. It was a rambling and incoherent post that does not address the central issue. I have already made a post in response to your question but it hasn't been posted yet.
That being said, I think would like to point out that you won't get a "good answer" because any answer given will not satisfy you. You built an argument for me that I wasn't making.
I didn't state that my points don't equally apply to the Catholic Church or even for that matter Islam. My argument would equally work for Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad.
The anonymous poster did make one valid point and that was that he believes that the Catholic Church doesn't have the authority to confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands or in other words it no longer has the Priesthood which is the central issue.
"But it seems to apply here as well. Take it for what it is worth. I still haven't gotten a good answer. The comment by Anonymous | 11:50 a.m. was useless (a lot more going on with that person than we care to know about)."
I agree with you about the Anonymous post. It was a rambling and incoherent post that does not address the central issue. I have already made a post in response to your question but it hasn't been posted yet.
That being said, I think would like to point out that you won't get a "good answer" because any answer given will not satisfy you. You built an argument for me that I wasn't making.
I didn't state that my points don't equally apply to the Catholic Church or even for that matter Islam. My argument would equally work for Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad.
The anonymous poster did make one valid point and that was that he believes that the Catholic Church doesn't have the authority to confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands or in other words it no longer has the Priesthood which is the central issue.
Ken Baguley | 4:10 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
God did not, nor ever will comission a lie. Abraham's wife was his sister
through another wife of his father Terah. This made her a half-sister. This was
mis-leading to Pharaoh. But that was truth...
Patrick | 4:11 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
From what I can conclude about the early parts of the church, is that the only
things that can actually be substantiated are attacks on the character of the
people. Anything that attacks the real substance of the church has to make a
jump of sorts. For instance, the Book of Mormon has all kinds of arguments
about where it came from, who wrote it, etc, but everything that attempts to
prove it wrong have to make a jump(I.E. no proof). The fact remains that the
book is there, and as much as the critics like to ignore it there is a growing
amount of work to prove its authenticity. The Book of Abraham is similar. I
know the texts dont match, but the fact remains that a growing body of evidence
is there to support its authenticity, even if we dont know exactly how we got
it. You have to make the jump that he made it up, but if he did he sure nailed
a lot of things about abraham that were not known at the time.
Jimmy | 4:11 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
my departure from the church was a result of having the opportunity of chatting
casually with members of FAIR while. Some of them are far too contentious to
inspire people to see the truth and may cause those with already weak
testimonies to look elsewhere for the truth.
In the Middle | 4:19 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Are there people on here that actually beleive the Book of Mormon is true but
NOT the Abraham book?
Wow...seems...seems...seems weak or something...
Wow...seems...seems...seems weak or something...
Sale | 4:23 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Hey no sale...I think I've seen you in church. Bunch of kids? Acting all
happy and religious? You even bore your testimony?
How do you even live with yourself.
How do you even live with yourself.
Thou shalt kill | 4:50 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
Thomas,
"Arguably, yes. The Book of Abraham is the only major religious scripture I know of in which God expressly commissions a lie. (See Abraham 2:23-24.)"
This isn't true. The Bible also sanctions lies. In Genesis 12 the Lord doesn't explicitly tell Abraham to lie about his wife but Abraham does. He does it again in Genesis 20.
So God had ample opportunity to condemn Abraham for his actions and to instruct him to desist and punish him if he didn't yet Abraham is blessed. In addition to this Isaac does the same in Genesis 26. In Joshua 2 Rehab lies to protect the spies Joshua had sent.
In Exodus 1:17-21 the Lord blesses the Midwives who lied to Pharaoh. In 1 Samuel 1:1-5 God instructs Samuel to lie about his intentions. There are also numerous other examples where God either instructs someone to lie or where he condones it afterwards.
"So Abraham 2:23-24 promotes a kind of moral relativism, which definitely can promote evil."
Yet that's exactly what the scriptures do. The commandments of God change according to His will. There are times when He says "Thou shalt not kill" but then instructs Moses to slay his brethren.
"Arguably, yes. The Book of Abraham is the only major religious scripture I know of in which God expressly commissions a lie. (See Abraham 2:23-24.)"
This isn't true. The Bible also sanctions lies. In Genesis 12 the Lord doesn't explicitly tell Abraham to lie about his wife but Abraham does. He does it again in Genesis 20.
So God had ample opportunity to condemn Abraham for his actions and to instruct him to desist and punish him if he didn't yet Abraham is blessed. In addition to this Isaac does the same in Genesis 26. In Joshua 2 Rehab lies to protect the spies Joshua had sent.
In Exodus 1:17-21 the Lord blesses the Midwives who lied to Pharaoh. In 1 Samuel 1:1-5 God instructs Samuel to lie about his intentions. There are also numerous other examples where God either instructs someone to lie or where he condones it afterwards.
"So Abraham 2:23-24 promotes a kind of moral relativism, which definitely can promote evil."
Yet that's exactly what the scriptures do. The commandments of God change according to His will. There are times when He says "Thou shalt not kill" but then instructs Moses to slay his brethren.
rightascension | 4:54 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
I did not find this article at all useful. The easiest way to deal with the
Book of Abraham is to
1 -- stick with the text, which is perfectly fine.
2 -- realize that Joseph Smith used the pictures to illustrate the story and that is all.
3-- realize that Joseph Smith made some mistakes in putting meanings to the pictures.
1 -- stick with the text, which is perfectly fine.
2 -- realize that Joseph Smith used the pictures to illustrate the story and that is all.
3-- realize that Joseph Smith made some mistakes in putting meanings to the pictures.
the truth | 5:10 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008
IF you all want answers here AN answer:
The current papyri and book of the dead are a corrupted and twisted, perverted version used by egytians which was based on an older original written by Abraham.
Joseph Smith by divine revalation gave us the Original.
There you go, all is answered. Every i dotted, every t crossed. And demonstrates how their could be two translations. Answer: there is not, but translations of different versions.
Take it for what it is, or at least be sincere, study, ponder, and find your own answer.
The current papyri and book of the dead are a corrupted and twisted, perverted version used by egytians which was based on an older original written by Abraham.
Joseph Smith by divine revalation gave us the Original.
There you go, all is answered. Every i dotted, every t crossed. And demonstrates how their could be two translations. Answer: there is not, but translations of different versions.
Take it for what it is, or at least be sincere, study, ponder, and find your own answer.
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.
- High school girls basketball: Top 20 1:40 a.m.
- High school swimming rankings 1:28 a.m.
- High school girls basketball rankings 1:19 a.m.
- High school boys basketball rankings 1:00 a.m.
- Preps of the week 12:49 a.m.
- Y. volleyball beats UVU 12:46 a.m.
- Sports on the air 12:43 a.m.
- Utah Jazz: Game at a glance 12:40 a.m.
- Williams' late jumper tops Spurs 12:34 a.m.
- Revive full food tax? 12:19 a.m.
- Cougars going back to Vegas
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl
- Witness: Mitchell stalked victims
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
- Bring the true spirit of Christmas
- Utes excited to go to San Diego
- BYU professor remembered
- Winter weather is here to stay
- Answers for the BCS
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
261 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl203
- Letters: Global warming a lie156
- Cougars going back to Vegas147
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil134
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony100
- Harpring's NBA career is over96
- Utahns want health care reform bills78
- Utes excited to go to San Diego75
BYU athletic officials began negotiating last week with the organizers...
Latest comments
When Boozer was shooting the free throws, why Sloan didn't substitute Mathew...
actions, I will be forced to be accountable for them. I refuse. I am an...
What's with the Utah fans flashing the double L sign?
@mark: So Sam da Ham... you were just making it up?" I'm a climate...
"I have no idea why BYU fans are talking smack about bowl opponents. Even if...
You say to "quit whining and play somebody." Isn't that what everyone is...
Reading these comments, I start wondering-- Whatever happened to faith? Why...
All those numbers when all you reall need to know is that BYU has beat Utah...
All thos numbers when all you reall need to know is that BYU has beat Utah...
So Sam da Ham, when you said this: "Not so. Al Gore is poised to make...
Advertisements