LDS The Book of Abraham

1. 52

   passingthewordposted 12 years ago

   The Book of Abraham (official Mormon doctrine)
   
   Joseph said that he translated the papyri into the Book of Abraham. After the papyri was evaluated by Modern scholars, it revealed to be a common Egyptian burial scene with no mention of Abraham. For further studies go to www.carm.org “The Book of Abraham Papyri and Joseph Smith” and http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html. If you further your studies on this issue you will find that Joseph Smith had no idea what he was doing when he attempted to translate the Papyri.
   Another lie from Joseph Smith.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the expose.
      (Yeah, CARM is a very informative site).

      replyreport
   2. 62

      Daniel Carterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ...and the Book of Mormon is strangely similar to "A View of the Hebrews" published 6 years before the Book of Mormon. And even more strangely, it was written by a Robert Smith. No relation, apparently.
      
      And so the list goes on and on and on. And yet the devout among the Mormon Church are immovable. These bits of evidence won't shake them because they can't consider what they believe to be anything less than true, otherwise it would completely destroy life as they know it.
      
      This is an individual journey. In the end, you begin to realize that everyone is where they are supposed to be. And you accept that you are no longer a victim of what you were told, or taught, or perpetrated on to you, and you decide that being a victim sucks, and you look at life as either a total waste, or an untapped opportunity to see where the journey goes. And if you can get out of victim mode and start living with curiosity and an open mind, the most amazing things start to happen. And you look at your devout friends and family of any religion or organization and are able to let them live as they need to, and you live your own life as you see fit.
      
      All the anti-Mormon or anti-Anything sentiment starts to melt away because you start to see life for what becomes really important to you, and as it happened for me, religion is certainly at the bottom of that list.
      
      Live and let live. It's okay to agree to disagree.

      replyreport
   3. 79

      pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That's very interesting.
      
      I am wondering whether or not your campaign (seems like one) to expose the LDS for whatever is better spent with those who actually are followers of mormonism. It is their beliefs you are challenging and it makes more sense to me that you would discuss what you now believe with them?

      replyreport
      1. 52

         passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I have shared many times on hubs. The biggest thing that i have shared is about the great apostasy. i have  posted it in the past. i ll find it and post it again.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I was thinking more about those you were on a mission with? Not sure that your campaign will have that much affect on a virtual forum. Then again one may never know.

            replyreport
            1. 52

               passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               we get that done too.

               replyreport
               1. 52

                  passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  j

                  replyreport
   4. 61

      Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This is all news to me. There is no Book of Abraham in any Bible I am aware of.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         It's a book in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the LDS books of scripture, along with the Bible and the Book of Mormon

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well if it is not Holy Scripture in the Holy Bible, then it holds no religious standing in my eyes.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               That's fine. You don't have to believe it...
               
               It's a good read though.

               replyreport
            2. 59

               A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Dave, I hope you realize just how incredibly narrow-minded that statement.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I hope you realize that I am entitled to my views, regardless of how you might view them.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes Dave, you are entitled to make incredibly narrow-minded statements.
                     
                     The point I was trying to make was that other religions view your beliefs as having "religious standing" even though they may not agree or follow them.
                     
                     It is a point of making an acknowledgement of their beliefs and yours.

                     replyreport
         2. 52

            passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            the book or mormon is apart of satans plan to deceive the world. Dave if you read it, take it as so.

            replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   That brings up a thought that has fascinated me over the years. You can find the failed prophesies of Smith and every charismatic leader that has started a sect over the last century or two. People know these leaders lied, but the movements they started live on.
   
   Even today. Charismatic evangelical leaders make bold and bizarre claims that are quickly shown to be lies, but their popularity never wanes. I've always wondered, but never gotten an intelligent response, why people follow.
   
   Doesn't the Bible say if a prophet lies they are not of God? I guess we all see and believe what we want, or need, to see.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So what does that mean for things like the story of creation and the age of the earth?
      
      Frankly it seems fair to say the bible itself has lied about how long we have been on the planet and the whole descending from Adam and Eve. For starters, the species would not be viable without 40 breeding pairs, for generic variety needed to have continuing generations of healthy offspring.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yeh. I agree. A literal interpretation is too bizarre to swallow.

         replyreport
      2. 52

         passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You have to read the bible man. the bible said the the earth it's self is very old. older then what people say.
         On the sixth day God created man
         genesis 1:26
         26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
         
         Do you see the word (Them) God made fisherman, those to watch over the animals. then he made adam the man that tils the ground the farmer.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            And where exactly does it say that then?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               LookingForWaldenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Genesis 110:462 And then the Lord said, "This earth be mad old, older than thou dumb mortal man thinks"

               replyreport
            2. 52

               passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Read genesis chaper 1
               Looking....... that is funny.

               replyreport
3. 61

   LookingForWaldenposted 12 years ago

   Didn't the church of lds like not allow black people in it for a hundred years?

   replyreport
   1. 52

      passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      They didn't allow them to receive the priesthood. But they allowed them in when.
      The Real reason Blacks were allowed into the Priesthood of the Mormon Church.
      
      1) The church was threatened by the US government of losing their tax exemption if they did not stop their discrimination against Blacks.
      
      2) The LDS church was having conflicts with the NAACP
      
      3) Black athletes were boycotting against BYU
      
      4) The church built a multimillion dollar temple in Brazil. Blacks were not able to work in the temples at that time so the LDS church did not have anyone to work the temple.
      
      5) The church had several law suits against them, due to their discrimination against blacks.
      This is why the church change their minds. It was not what God said.

      replyreport
4. 63

   Perspycaciousposted 12 years ago

   While I have posted a book-length piece with 17 tests for comparing modern churches to what Christ himself established with and through his disciples, I am compelled to mention the ultimate test in His words as recorded in John 13:35:  "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."  The individual can love their neighbors as Christ would love those neighbors, and be on solid ground.  But there are some things which one individual can not accomplish alone.  Then it is nice to be in a church in which the members show their discipleship by how the show their love for each other and those around them.

   replyreport
5. 52

   passingthewordposted 12 years ago

   I see mormons don't want to touch this issue.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      mel22posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think any belong to HubPages , they are all over at https://www.familysearch.org/

      replyreport
      1. 52

         passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I am Sorry. I don't understand what you are getting at.

         replyreport
6. 60

   mel22posted 12 years ago

   i'm not really getting at anything... just that LDS owns that site and they are all busy with genealogy at the moment.

   replyreport
7. 52

   passingthewordposted 12 years ago

   Official Church Response to Book of Abraham Problems (Ensign, July 1988, Page 51:)
   
   
   one is explanation takes into consideration what Joseph Smith meant by the word translation. While translating the Book of Mormon, he used the Urim and Thummim rather than dictionaries and grammars of the language. Translating with the Urim and Thummim is evidently a much different process than using the tools of scholarly research." (So even though the The papyri scrolls say something else the Urim and thummim besicly makes up what ever it wants. If this is true why even you the papyri.
   
   Another one is "In reality, the actual method Joseph Smith used is far less important than the resulting book of scripture he produced." So just ignore the fact just take it.

   replyreport
   1. 52

      passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      not very popular.

      replyreport
8. 76

   SamboRamboposted 12 years ago

   I'm LDS, and a Hubber, and I happen to not be doing genealogy. I discovered this thread just today.
   
   You may be interested in learning that - initially - Joseph Smith was discredited because he named the four figures under the lion couch in Facsimile No. 1 as: the false gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash - which linguists at that time said really represented the four quarters of the known world.
   
   Lately, though, it has been discovered that those four names can be associated with places. For example, Elkenah sounds like El-Canaan, who is the god of Canaan or the land northward. If you want to see how the other names represent the other directions, let me know, and I'll send them. But according to the author of Apocalypse of Abraham 18, "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,[Garden City: Doubleday, 1983-1985] vol 1, p. 698, it's possible those gods (whose names do appear in earlier texts) represent the earth and its four quarters.
   
   By the way, those same four figures are in Fig. 6 of Facsimile No. 2. Note that in this illustration they are labeled as representing "this world in its four quarters."
   
   Would you like me to dispel other myths about the origin of the Book of Abraham?

   replyreport
   1. 52

      passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      yes please do send it.
      And I am sure that all this evidence you will provied magicly appeared after 1967. When the papyrus was found and translated correctly.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         SamboRamboposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Some of the conclusions made against the Book of Abraham are due to a misunderstanding about the original papyri extant. The following history of the papyri was found at:
         
         http://www.churches.net/churches/utmiss … raham.html
         
         and says:
         
         “After Smith's death in 1844 his mother Lucy Mack Smith took custody of the papyri. In 1847 Emma Smith, who had now remarried took charge of the papyri. After her death the papyri spent the next hundred years in the care of the Metropolitan Museum at Brooklyn from 1918 until their rediscovery in 1962. For the majority of that time Dr. Ludlow Bull had charge of the documents adding them to the catalogue of the museum. It was by examining this catalogue that Walter Whipple found them again.”
         
         The actual history is very different:
         
         Joseph said that a **part of the set [of papyri]** contained a copy of an ancient text attributed to Abraham. Also, (before 1967), he had said that some were **epitaphs.** “Epitaphs” is in the same family as funerals, so that part wasn’t a surprise to us.
         
         When Lucy obtained the Egyptian artifacts, she soon turned them over to Emma Smith. Emma, in turn, “sold four mummies to Abel Combs” on May 25, 1856. Then, there seems to be a tri-proned fork in the road: 1) One fragment was brought west by pioneers. 2) Later, in 1856, two mummies with some papyri was turned over to the St. Louis Museum. Those items then went, in 1863, to the Chicago museum, and then considered lost in the Chicago fire of 1871. 3) In 1918, Mrs. Alice Heusser of Brooklyn, daughter of Combs’ housekeeper, approached the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art about the Egyptian artifacts she had in her possession. It is not known how many she had. The artifacts were not turned over to the NY Museum until 1947. In 1967, the LDS Church finally took possession of the remaining fragments (see Jay Todd, "Papyri, Joseph Smith," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.3).
         
         Only 25% to 50% of the original papyri made it to the Church offices in 1967. Therefore, it is conceivable that the part that had the story of Abraham was among the lost or burned pieces.
         
         Now, I’ve shown you in my first post how some symbols in the facsimilies were first shown to be mistranslated, but later substantiated by discoveries of multi-level meanings. And the discoveries continue: In many cases, Joseph Smith’s comments on the facsimilies show correlations with what scholars have learned recently.
         
         The complexity of symbols in ancient Egyptian religious writings is becoming more and more recognized, and scholars are still struggling to get them right. New discoveries had prompted Robert S. Bianchi to say that ancient Egyptian signs and symbols were meant to be interpreted on many levels. He said that most of the documentation from ancient Egypt was made by and for the elite and would have been lost on commoners. He further admits:
         
             "How is a modern person to understand the significance of ancient Egyptian visual representations? Wilkinson tries to provide a framework. But what we get, time after time, is an 'either ... or' scenario in which Wilkinson himself vacillates between what may be the 'symbolic significance' of a representation or 'simply the result of artistic convention.' How is the student to decide...?" (Robert S. Bianchi, "Magic and Religion in Ancient Egypt," Archaeology, 48, no. 2 (March/April 1995): 72-73.)
         
         Considering the struggles Egyptologist are still facing today, it is quite astounding that Joseph Smith got so many things “dead on” in his day.
         
         If you have any specific questions or issues, I would be glad to answer them. Or, if you wish that I just continue sending the next things that come to mind, I’ll do that, too.
         
         -- Samuel Richardson

         replyreport
9. 76

   SamboRamboposted 12 years ago

   All my responses on this thread are not meant to prove anybody else wrong, nor are they intended to discredit your logic or your beliefs. My main objective is to see that the truth (as I see it) regarding the beliefs, motives and intents of the LDS Church is broadcast. When I see something that is misquoted or misrepresented, I feel it my duty to correct it. And I don't intend to judge the person that puts forth the material I wish to correct, because I know that, indeed, it seems logical or right. Also, it is made to look correct by reason of the accompanying description of that claim. So in review, I'm addressing the text, not attacking the author of it. With that said, let me continue:
   
   @Daniel Carter:
   "...And yet the devout among the Mormon Church are immovable. These bits of evidence won't shake them because they can't consider what they believe to be anything less than true, otherwise it would completely destroy life as they know it."
   
   This doesn't describe me at all, and there are many like me. I was born in the Church, and was very active in it growing up. Then, around 40 yrs. of age, I started to think, and the logic of the LDS doctrines made no sense. So I stopped going, and swore to my friends I'd never go back. I started drinking coffee, and began to consider what type of pipe tobacco I liked best. This new lifestyle was comfortable to me. After some months, maybe even years, certain things began to happen that turned my attention "upward." The result is a series of very strong messages from God and the Holy Ghost. Among them were answers to the doubts that my "logical" thinking caused. Those events, and the Spirit giving me positive witnesses regarding LDS doctrines, brought me back into the Church. This had nothing to do with family or missionaries. It was something that happened between me and God.
   
   @passingtheword:
   "They didn't allow them to receive the priesthood. The real reason...."
   
   Joseph Smith ordained at least two Blacks to the Priesthood. Any decisions after that was made after revelation and much prayer. Yes, there was pressure from the world in later times to allow the priesthood to all, but a final decision didn't come for quite a while, because the Brethren were awaiting an answer from God.
   
   There is a precedence to "racism:" In the Bible, God selected only one tribe, at first, to hold the priesthood. He also allowed the gospel to be preached only to the Jews, at first.
   
   @Emily R:
   "You can find the failed prophesies of Smith ... I've always wondered, but never gotten an intelligent response, why people follow."
   
   I would be very interested in knowing of Joseph's failed prophecies. All I know of, is the prediction that he would find money up north. But that's about all. And that one, I believe, was based on conditions that weren't met.
   
   The reason why I keep believing, is that 1) I haven't really accepted the evidences given as being failed prophecies (ask me for details, if you wish), and 2) the witness of the Holy Ghost was so strong, full of love, and came with additional insight, that I feel I won't be forgiven if I ignore it, as a denial thereof could constitute blaspheme against the Holy Ghost (see Mark 3:28-29).

   replyreport
   1. 52

      passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      i read that web site.
      The way i read it was kind of weird.
      It is like God would take an X man comic book and would have a man translate it to mean something completely different.
      the figures had nothing to do with Abraham had nothing to do with Kolob nothing to do with what is written in the the LDS "Book of Abraham"
      You need to check to see if that is the true Holy spirit from God. Those that were following Jim Jones believed that it was the holy spirit that was leading Jim Jones.
      The devil is real good at tricking people.
      Maybe Joseph Smith did get divine inspiration. But i have to say that it was not inspiration from God the true God.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         SamboRamboposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The devil tricks people with counterfeits. He invents something that is close to what God offers us. He does this by mixing truth with lies. He did that in the Bible, starting with Eve. This is why Jesus said He would send the Holy Ghost to teach us truth. He said the Holy Ghost would speak through the heart, and that the truth would be spiritually discerned. There are biblical sources to these, if you want them. Therefore, before believing anything that a professed man (or woman) of religion would present to us, we must ask God if it be true. The answer will be felt in our hearts. It's unmistakable. The devil can appear as an angel of light, but he can't imitate the witness of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, ultimately, we can only blame ourselves, if we make bad choices.
         
         I asked God about the LDS Church, and about other churches and religious organizations or ministries. To date, all the positive answers I received are for the LDS Church.
         
         As I mentioned in a previous post, we don't have the papyri that contains the writings of Abraham; they got lost, or burned in the Chicago fire. Another evidence of this, is that there are at least two witnesses in recorded history who described some of the papyri as being in good condition, and having red and black rubrics or highlights. What we have today is remnants that are not in good condition, neither do they have red and black rubrics or highlights.

         replyreport
         1. 52

            passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Just think about this.
            Satan's first temptation was telling eve that she can become a god. one of the last ones (which i believe is going to be the great apostacy) Is in rev 13. when the anti christ will be teaching a better way to salvation.
            
            Sound alot like what Joseph smith taught.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               SamboRamboposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               So does your change of subject mean that we have closed off the issue of the Book of Abraham, and that I have dispelled the misconceptions regarding it? If so, I'm glad, and happy to move on. If you prefer, we can start a new thread on the issue you just brought up, so that the title of this thread doesn't throw people off. However, I'll will respond to your concerns here:
               
               Satan's first temptation is found in Gen. 3:1-5. It doesn't say he promises that Eve will be a god, but be **as** gods, knowing good and evil. When Satan temps, he mixes truth with lies, to pull people in. What Satan promised regarding knowing good and evil was true, because in Gen. 3:22, God acknowledged that man "...is become as one of us, to know good and evil."
               
               You could be right that Rev. 13 is talking about the anti-Christ. If it sounds like Joseph Smith, I would earnestly ask God in the name of Jesus Christ if your suspicions are true. And I would do it sincerely, with an open mind, because Joseph Smith and the restoration through him seems to be the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and is also consistent with Jewish prophecies. After you do this, please let me know how it went.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Be careful, if you use too many facts some people can't handle it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 52

                     passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Jaxsonraine, what facts do you have. You two have said that all of the proof was burned. Is that considered facts.
                     The only facts that we have is that Joseph Smith mistranslated the Papyris that are available to everyone to see.
                     Yes Mis Translated. There is no getting around it.
                     and I didn't say that Joseph Smith was the anti christ . He just mislead the people with is false doctrine like satan will do.

                     replyreport
               2. 52

                  passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I am not done, this is just a response to you statement about the devils tricks.
                  Jaxsonraine, what facts do you have. You two have said that all of the proof was burned. Is that considered facts.
                  The only facts that we have is that Joseph Smith mistranslated the Papyris that are available to everyone to see.
                  Yes Mis Translated. There is no getting around it.
                  and I didn't say that Joseph Smith was the anti christ . He just mislead the people with is false doctrine like satan will do.

                  replyreport
10. 76

    SamboRamboposted 12 years ago

    Passing, It is suspected that some of the papyri was burned, because of the Chicago fire, which happened at the time the papyri were thought to be at the museum there. But the following is evidence that we don’t have all the papyri now, that Joseph had then:
    
    Joseph F. Smith wrote that he watched his uncle (Joseph Smith) as he rolled out the papyri on the floor of the mansion house. When fully opened, he said it took up two rooms. What we have today will fit on a desktop.
    
    Another evidence of this, is that there are at least two witnesses in recorded history who described some of the papyri as being in good condition, and having red and black rubrics or highlights. What we have today are remnants that are not in good condition, neither do they have red and black rubrics or highlights. The combination of those two witnesses with the scrolls extant being few is considered solid evidence that we have fewer papyri today than what Joseph had. This, mixed with Joseph F. Smith’s account, makes the evidence even stronger. Therefore, it is generally confirmed that what Joseph translated the Book of Abraham from is now missing.

    replyreport
    1. 52

       passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       well these papyri that are left behind have side notes on them. written by Joseph Smith, which are trying to translated the papyri. and like I shared before, the translation is incorrect.
       
       The translation is incorrect, you can't get past that. the papyri that are available are translated incorrectly. If those are incorrect i am sure the rest would be.

       replyreport
       1. 76

          SamboRamboposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          When you say "side notes," you are referring to the EA&G (Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar) convention that Joseph started. He hoped to use the text off the papyri, in his private attempt to create the convention. He claimed no divine assistance in this project. After a while, he abandoned the work, as he didn't have enough discernible correlations between English and Egyptian. The side notes you mentioned are not translations; they are random notes and characters put down to test their relationships. A careful examination revealed this to be the case.
          
          Joseph did not get very far before he abandoned the project; it resulted in only a page and half of notes. The LDS Church, knowing that it was only a scholarly exercise, had no intention of publishing this project. But recently, the documents were stolen, and anti-LDS people published it, as if the Church were presenting it to the world.
          
          Because it was an abandoned project, and therefore had no definitive basis or structure, then - of course - it would seem a farce. This is why the anti-LDS people published it, to attempt to disprove Mormonism.

          replyreport
          1. 52

             passingthewordposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             And the notes were all wrong. abandoned? the Book of Abraham is still here.
             I am confused what you are tryng to say.

             replyreport
             1. 76

                SamboRamboposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I thought you were talking about another project Joseph started. He began a project on his own, not claiming divine help; it was a scholarly project, an attempt to create an Egyptian alphabet and grammar convention, based on his translation of the papyri he had in his possession at the time, which he abandoned. When you said "papyri with side notes on them," I thought you were talking about that project. The side notes were random characters, put there to test their relationships. Joseph could see it wasn't going to work, so he abandoned it. It was not intended to impress anybody.

                replyreport