Warts and all kind of history

[Doctor Steuss]

I wish FARMS articles would always put the date at the top.

That particular article is a chapter excerpt from Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon.

[Ray Agostini]

Too many try to confine the N&E Covenant with plural marriage only and it encompasses much more.

It may encompass more, but the original purpose of the revelation was to justify polygamy.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

Incidentally, God didn't "command" it. It was Sarah who suggested it.

Genesis 16:

1 Now Sarai Abramâ??s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.

2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

3 And Sarai Abramâ??s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

IOW, it's in line with what the Book of Mormon teaches, that polygamy should only be for "raising up seed". It had nothing to do with being a "requirement" for exaltation.

[Mortal Man]

The lack of any "smoking gun" proving it a forgery is vastly more puzzling, if it is not what it claims to be.

See page 379 for your "smoking gun". https://byustudies.byu.edu/Shop/PDFSRC/11.4Nibley.pdf

Nibley's "Scribes Did It" theory fails for many obvious reasons, including the fact that he misrepresented the dates of their disaffection.

[Mortal Man]

The question still comes up as to what it is Joseph actually translated from, regardless of what we may have now.

That question is exactly what the KEP answers. The KEP demonstrate that JS and his scribes associated the first chapter of the BoA with JSP I & XI.

[Deborah]

It may encompass more, but the original purpose of the revelation was to justify polygamy.

No, the purpose was to answer the question as to why Abraham was justified in plural wives. Joseph rarely received a revelation where he didn't first go to the Lord to ask a question; and then the Lord revealed the doctrine and principle, whether it was which church was right, Priesthood or marriage.

Incidentally, God didn't "command" it. It was Sarah who suggested it.

As this section revealed Sarah was obeying the law and the commandment was from God. This is why we have living prophets to clarify such things.

IOW, it's in line with what the Book of Mormon teaches, that polygamy should only be for "raising up seed". It had nothing to do with being a "requirement" for exaltation.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING! You are the one making it a requirement for exaltation. BTW someone asked about the seed. Many of the great future leaders and prophets of the church came from these early polygamous unions. The foundation leadership of the church were from those great families who remained faithful as they moved west.

[Hermes]

My full and "self-righteous fanatism" is duly revealed in your BoM. If you don't abide by it, nor understand it as it was plainly written, then that would not surprise me, because not a single Mormon soul here abides by the Book of Mormon's counsel to avoid contention, either.

You serve God with your lips.

casting judgment with such a wide net is not a good idea, ray antagonisti. take a day off and come back with less judginess. i still love you though~hermes

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ray is not alone in this. I have ***never*** seen critics honestly explore the entire chapter in Jacob. They ***ALWAYS*** fall short, as Pahoran has so masterfully noted of Ray not giving full context. If there is an exception to this, I would gladly like to see it. When it comes to polygamy and the Book of Mormon Not one single critic has ever been honest about it, ever.

Oddly, Tom Kimball on an email list to which I belong just proof-texted the same part of the Book of Mormon, stopping short of verse 30 of course.

"Raising up seed" isn't the same as a binding covenant necessary for exaltation.

Obedience to God's command would be the principle in question.

...and what kind of seed did Joseph Smith plural marriage raise up?

I don't know of any direct descendants resulting from JS's plural marriage. I do, however, see many descendants of those who followed the prophets example in the practice. Good enough for me. Further, Section 132 is not confined to plurality of wives.

[Mortal Man]

What are you talking about?

We were talking about the "weight" of FARMS evidence vs. the "weight" of critics' evidence. I'm saying that, in order to keep our balance from breaking, we should first subtract all the aspersions and vitriol.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It may encompass more, but the original purpose of the revelation was to justify polygamy.

Incidentally, God didn't "command" it. It was Sarah who suggested it.

Genesis 16:

IOW, it's in line with what the Book of Mormon teaches, that polygamy should only be for "raising up seed". It had nothing to do with being a "requirement" for exaltation.

WEll crap, I think the original purpose of the the revelation was about putting sugar on cereal. Now what is the revelation really about, that is a diffrent story.

You can think what ever you want but what actaully happened is a diffrent matter.

To finish off your last statement show me one verse in the D&C that says that polygamy is required for the CK? I am unaware of such a verse.

[Daniel Peterson]

we should first subtract all the aspersions and vitriol.

But if we do that, we w n't b abl t s y m ch. In fac it m ght shut s up alt geth r.

[e=mc2]

We were talking about the "weight" of FARMS evidence vs. the "weight" of critics' evidence. I'm saying that, in order to keep our balance from breaking, we should first subtract all the aspersions and vitriol.

I see you'll still try to distract anyone from the actual evidences and arguments FARMS brings forth.... clever, very clever. It's the critics mantra. FARMS are snotty, they personally attack with ad hominim, and are mean spirited, therefore nothing they write is worth reading. If we take all the nastiness out, there is little left. That sounds noble, but it ***still*** virtually ignores the dismantling that FARMS gives the critics, on pretty much every subject they write on, which is, truly, just about every subject in existence having to do with Mormonism.

But if we do that, we w n't b abl t s y m ch. In fac it m ght shut s up alt geth r.

[gitxsanartist]

Just as Abraham was, when he married four more women in his old age and had children with them, I suppose.

And as Jacob was, when he married four women, including two sisters, and the divinely given birthright descended to a son of the second of his polygamous wives.

And as Moses was, when he gave laws requiring already-married men to marry their dead brothers' widows.

Evidently your opinions--based upon uncritically accepting the shifting mores and politically correct platitudes of the dominant culture--are the unfailing guide to modern revelation.

I must have missed the bit where it tells us that he came up with unpopular and dangerous revelations purely for fun.

The lack of any "smoking gun" proving it a forgery is vastly more puzzling, if it is not what it claims to be.

As indeed the Church has been ever since it obtained the papyri in question.

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the post where you told us of your qualifications in egyptology. People with considerable training in that discipline disagree with you.

You got that one right.

Well no, you won't. You'll say it as you see it, which is the best any of us can do anyhow; but it's a little arrogant to assume that how you see it is just the way it is. That isn't true of anything, including your own reflection in the mirror.

You got that one right as well.

Regards,

Pahoran

I won't waste my breath on you, or should I say my finger muscles. Read the following on the BOA:

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

You will learn more from this one article on the BOA than you will from the church, Sunday School or the Ensign in 50 years.

[Deborah]

You will learn more from this one article on the BOA than you will from the church, Sunday School or the Ensign in 50 years.

I suggest you read this article: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham_papyri

[gitxsanartist]

I suggest you read this article: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham_papyri

I just did, at least until I came to this section and then I had a good laugh, read the following from the link you just gave me:

Since Facsimile 1 appears to be a fairly typical scene from Egyptian funerary texts, the critics note that other similar Egyptian motifs depict the priest (an embalmer) with the head of Anubis (an Egyptian god) rather than a bald, human head. Other comparable Egyptian embalming scenes do not show the priest holding a knife, they do not show any man pleading or praying, and they generally show two hawks. The critics claim that Joseph Smith drew in the missing parts by adding (incorrectly) those things which we find in the LDS version of this Egyptian scene. What Joseph saw as fingers of Abraham's outstretched hands, for instance, were actually (according to the critics) the wing-tips of the missing second hawk.

Many LDS scholars believe that the scroll was damaged after Joseph translated the vignette and some evidence seems to support this view. One early Latter-day Saint who saw the papyri in 1841, for instance, described them as containing the scene of an altar with "'a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it.'"[16] Similarly, Reverend Henry Caswall, who visited Nauvoo in April 1842, had a chance to see some of the Egyptian papyri. Caswall, who was hostile to the Saints, described Facsimile 1 as having a "'man standing by him with a drawn knife.'"[17]

Some considerations: there is at least some evidence that the LDS version has precedence in ancient Egyptian drawings. Some LDS researchers, for instance, have argued that the fingers/wing-tips look significantly more like fingers (according to Egyptian drawings) than hawk wing-tips. A number of scholars have noted that the Egyptians were very specific in how they drew wings and thumbs.[18]

It's also interesting to note that although embalming priests are typically drawn with Anubis heads in Book of Breathings motifs, other Egyptian graphics show that Egyptian priests are represented as bald and that Anubis heads were worn as masks to emulate the gods.[19] When compared to other Egyptian drawings, some of the Book of Abraham restorations are plausible.

That last sentence kills me, is that the best we get? The BOA fascsimile is "plausible"? I guess what the apologetics are suggesting when you really read between the lines is that they restored fascsimile is questionable but given all the other evidence perhaps we can still salvage this mess. The last statement really sums it up, plausible (but not likely).

[e=mc2]

I just did, at least until I came to this section and then I had a good laugh, read the following from the link you just gave me:

Since Facsimile 1 appears to be a fairly typical scene from Egyptian funerary texts, the critics note that other similar Egyptian motifs depict the priest (an embalmer) with the head of Anubis (an Egyptian god) rather than a bald, human head. Other comparable Egyptian embalming scenes do not show the priest holding a knife, they do not show any man pleading or praying, and they generally show two hawks. The critics claim that Joseph Smith drew in the missing parts by adding (incorrectly) those things which we find in the LDS version of this Egyptian scene. What Joseph saw as fingers of Abraham's outstretched hands, for instance, were actually (according to the critics) the wing-tips of the missing second hawk.

Many LDS scholars believe that the scroll was damaged after Joseph translated the vignette and some evidence seems to support this view. One early Latter-day Saint who saw the papyri in 1841, for instance, described them as containing the scene of an altar with "'a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it.'"[16] Similarly, Reverend Henry Caswall, who visited Nauvoo in April 1842, had a chance to see some of the Egyptian papyri. Caswall, who was hostile to the Saints, described Facsimile 1 as having a "'man standing by him with a drawn knife.'"[17]

Some considerations: there is at least some evidence that the LDS version has precedence in ancient Egyptian drawings. Some LDS researchers, for instance, have argued that the fingers/wing-tips look significantly more like fingers (according to Egyptian drawings) than hawk wing-tips. A number of scholars have noted that the Egyptians were very specific in how they drew wings and thumbs.[18]

It's also interesting to note that although embalming priests are typically drawn with Anubis heads in Book of Breathings motifs, other Egyptian graphics show that Egyptian priests are represented as bald and that Anubis heads were worn as masks to emulate the gods.[19] When compared to other Egyptian drawings, some of the Book of Abraham restorations are plausible.

That last sentence kills me, is that the best we get? The BOA fascsimile is "plausible"? I guess what the apologetics are suggesting when you really read between the lines is that they restored fascsimile is questionable but given all the other evidence perhaps we can still salvage this mess. The last statement really sums it up, plausible (but not likely).

Actually, any good historian you read goes with plausibility rather than that stupid word "proof." Plausible in history is the goal. It is only the naive who pretend there is proof of much in history. And I can prove it - LOL! And I am quite serious. Check here http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/whycant.htm

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, any good historian you read goes with plausibility rather than that stupid word "proof." Plausible in history is the goal. It is only the naive who pretend there is proof of much in history. And I can prove it - LOL! And I am quite serious. Check here http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/whycant.htm

SHhhhhh!!!!!

You need to prove it.

Good point BTW.

[Jason]

I won't waste my breath on you, or should I say my finger muscles. Read the following on the BOA:

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

You will learn more from this one article on the BOA than you will from the church, Sunday School or the Ensign in 50 years.

You mean you will read more speculation about the BOA than you might have heard in Church.

[gitxsanartist]

Actually, any good historian you read goes with plausibility rather than that stupid word "proof." Plausible in history is the goal. It is only the naive who pretend there is proof of much in history. And I can prove it - LOL! And I am quite serious. Check here http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/whycant.htm

I wasn't asking for proof, just a little more evidence supporting their ridiculous claim that somehow the drawn in portion wasn't incorrect. Give me statements from a number of well known Egyptologists supporting their claim that Anubis should be drawn with a man's head. Yes, what they are saying is plausible or probable however I give the probability about 5% based on what I seen so far and based on the weakness of the apologetics arguments, you may see it differently.

[Daniel Peterson]

I see it differently.

I think more highly of John Gee's estimate of what is Egyptologically plausible -- (M.A., University of California at Berkeley, Ancient Near Eastern Studies; M.A., Ph.D., Yale University, Egyptology -- than I do of your opinion of what is Egyptologically "ridiculous."

[LifeOnaPlate]

A lot of former Mormons I know become experts in Egyptology upon leaving.

[ttribe]

A lot of former Mormons I know become experts in Egyptology upon leaving.

Or just prior to...

[Tarski]

Actually, any good historian you read goes with plausibility rather than that stupid word "proof." Plausible in history is the goal. It is only the naive who pretend there is proof of much in history. And I can prove it - LOL! And I am quite serious. Check here http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/whycant.htm

Yes! Plausibility. Extremely important.

However, with all due respect, it is amazing what you apparently find plausible (I have watched your videos and I am aware, of course, of the claims for your religion).

From where I stand, these things are akin to Erich von Daniken's stuff (or actually worse). There is mountains of literature and lives dedicated to collecting evidence of von Daniken and his ilk's theories and claims. Like Nibley, some of these Ufologists types have an inexhaustible reservoir of factoids at their finger tips and an ability to find parallels and patterns where the rest of us suspect projection, imagination and creativity (faces in the clouds sometimes look amazingly detailed).

I am loath to be yet again accused of being insulting, but in the interest of honesty, I must say that I believe that your intellectual style is similar, therefore I find it ironic that you would bring up plausibility as a serious consideration.

Second point, I find it is the religionists that more often inappropriately appeal to the concept of proof (rather than evidence, theoretical consistency, or plausibility). When we (skeptics) point out the lack or solid evidence for the supernatural they reply that their own beliefs cannot be disproven with 100% certainty (so there! Angels are real!)

[Daniel Peterson]

Like Nibley

And, with that, he's dismissed.

Like John Nash, the crazy Princeton professor who was the subject of the film A Beautiful Mind, Tarski has a doctorate in mathematics . . .

[talisyn]

I say its the opposite:

If anyone expects the members of the Church to be imperfect, they are going to be disappointed.

What I mean by that is I see in the church a similar "white-washing" of people's past, especially if they were members when they went prodigal for awhile. It's only "kinda" taboo to talk about your wayward past before you joined the church, but its majorly taboo in the church to talk about your sinful past after your baptism, (and maybe before your true conversion). Its as if we worry the faithful ones will get jealous or something and decide to give it a whirl.

When was the last time you heard somebody's inspiring story about their journey thru excommunication and re-baptism from the pulpit, or even at a fireside, or as a comment in sunday school? Probably never. But there are gold-mines of wisdom stuck in the goofy tradition of never letting people know you weren't perfect. If its presented without glorification, I believe our past "bad" experiences can be very worthy for even youth to hear. Its part of who we are, its led to the final product. This is on my mind right now because I currently have a new bishop who just chastized a great YW leader in our ward (TWO hours with her in his office), who dared to tell the girls her story of teen pregnancy years ago. She's an awesome example of turning your life around. Its part of who she is. Most other christian churches believe such stories of "real conversion" are inspiring. Not ours. We worry the kids will think they can get away with it. We think our kids are stupid. Here's the deal, ALL those girls already knew that leader had that in her past. We just never talk about it, but all KNOW IT, so we might as well make something constructive out of it. Its how I feel about church history too.

I believe the jacked-up past of both the church and its members can be useful to know and learn from. It can keep people from making the same mistakes.

I like how you think. It's the same kind of thinking I use on my daughter.

I don't think the LDS church has 'hidden' questionable history, I feel it's mostly members not wanting to hear it. Until they do....then it's 'omgosh the sky is falling nothing makes sense anymore whywhywhy I'm melting I'm melting!!'

If everyone was as perfect as obviously I am then this stuff wouldn't happen.

So the question is not 'why is the LDS church 'hiding' stuff?', but 'how do we make members do their own research so it's not such a big deal to them?'

[Tarski]

And, with that, he's dismissed.

Like John Nash, the crazy Princeton professor who was the subject of the film A Beautiful Mind, Tarski has a doctorate in mathematics . . .

??

I would not go so far as to say that Nibley was crazy. What is your point?

By the way, you should clarify your own thinking here. The words "like Nibley" cannot possibly be a dismisal of Kerry since the content of my post is unchanged if you remove those words. The words "Like Nibley" are an "aside".

(Edited to correct typo: would--> would not)