Following Up on Yesterday's Lesson

[cinepro]

If it's your own phrase, putting it in quotation marks is not just improper punctuation, it's confusing.

I'll come clean and admit I was secretly hoping for notoriety on this blog.

One day...

[Daniel Peterson]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this, but it took me a while to dig through all forty-two of these publications.

I am chagrined and embarrassed to report that I did not find any trace of polemics in the sources you so generously provided. This has forced me to conclude that gratuitous polemics cannot possibly be the principal purpose of FARMS; which is after all, a multifaceted and diverse organization.

Exactly.

You are, perhaps, a bit closer to salvation.

Henceforth, you will not be hearing from me any more talk about gratuitous polemics being the principal purpose of the global FARMS organization; at this point, the most that can be said is that some polemics may be among the many activities of FARMS authors.

Of whom there are several hundred, who have published many thousands of pages of material.

This has been a real Galileo Event for me. I

[Mortal Man]

This is a prime example of why I find it difficult to damn you to hell altogether.

Why thank you William.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll come clean and admit I was secretly hoping for notoriety on this blog.

One day...

Thanks for the mid-day chuckles.

This blog is "great."

The occurrence of "extraneous" or "improperly used" "quotation marks" is one of my "pet" annoyances, as you can "probably" tell.

[Mortal Man]

Perhaps it would help us in "moving forward here" if you would identify some specifics in the "four-fifths of everything [you] put down" that you no longer stand by.

It's pretty much all covered here.

[volgadon]

Why thank you William; although, I'm a little disappointed nobody commented on my "Primary sources" remark.

No more than I am by your ignoring my response on that very issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's pretty much all covered here.

Umm, no it's not.

I asked for specifics. Your answer is unresponsive.

[William Schryver]

It's pretty much all covered here.

Well, I wouldn't be too hard on Professor Nibley for making a mistake or two in his day, especially when it comes to things Egyptian. After all, it was only a little while ago that "conventional wisdom" in Egyptology suggested that lion couches were never used for human sacrifice, but only for embalming purposes. Now we also know that is not true. So, time marches on, and as truth reveals itself, we increasingly find out that Joseph Smith's interpretations of the so-called "facsimiles" are not nearly as "wrong" as when Reverend Spalding's carefully selected group of early 20th century Egyptologists first passed judgment.

It makes one wonder what the picture will look like in another generation or two ... here is the patience of the Saints.

[Mortal Man]

No more than I am by your ignoring my response on that very issue.

I never claimed you ignore primary sources, nor have I ever claimed you ignore Primary sources. Had you watched the Brady Bunch episode I provided, you wouldn't be having this problem.

[mathilde]

If one accepts that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham by revelation, it is not at all difficult to conceive that in the process, he could have corrected or did correct, also by means of revelation, any or all errors in transmission of the text that may have occurred over time. This is hardly a troublesome issue.

For me, this is a troublesome issue. The content of Abraham 1:24 "...and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land" has at least in the past been used as scriptural backing for the idea that not all races could hold the priesthood. I'm old enough to remember getting that impression and hearing discussions about this during Sunday School. If we believe the book of Abraham is directly inspired, correct, preserved by the hand of God and given to us by the gift and miracle of revelation, then every bit of content is sacred and holds up to inquiry. I'm not saying the church rises or falls with it. But I am saying the content matters, questions about it are fair and reasonable, and sometimes the answers are simpler and less complicated than we're willing to admit.

[William Schryver]

For me, this is a troublesome issue. The content of Abraham 1:24 "...and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land" has at least in the past been used as scriptural backing for the idea that not all races could hold the priesthood. I'm old enough to remember getting that impression and hearing discussions about this during Sunday School. If we believe the book of Abraham is directly inspired, correct, preserved by the hand of God and given to us by the gift and miracle of revelation, then every bit of content is sacred and holds up to inquiry. I'm not saying the church rises or falls with it. But I am saying the content matters, questions about it are fair and reasonable, and sometimes the answers are simpler and less complicated than we're willing to admit.

For some reason I never cease to be amused by those who think to counsel God on matters of policy and doctrine. Of course, these "ark-steadiers" tend to come from both sides of any issue. Thus you have those who, in essence, tell God He never should have done a thing, while at the same time you have others telling Him He never should have stopped that thing.

I'm a big believer in bending and shaping my views to conform to those of God, rather than expecting His views to conform to mine, and I always bear in mind the fact that "what is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another," therefore I never wed myself too strongly to a perspective that is as apt as not to change at some point in the future.

[MorningStar]

MM, your argument is falling apart like a house of cards. Just like the house of cards that fell because of Marsha's charm bracelet. Do you remember that one?

[Mortal Man]

MM, your argument is falling apart like a house of cards. Just like the house of cards that fell because of Marsha's charm bracelet. Do you remember that one?

I remember it well. Are you saying that her charm bracelet represents the Book of Abraham?

[Mortal Man]

I agree. If it weren't for places like FAIR, I probably wouldn't be member of the church anymore. After learning about the actual facts of the Book of Abraham, I was devastated. Reading LDS apologetic material helped me get past what what seemed to be obvious blunders in the church. The best resource I know of for the Book of Abraham is at Jefflindsay.com. He has some very long and detailed articles about the Book of Abraham.

Hi StuddleyG,

Are there any particular FAIR web pages that helped shore up your faith or was Jefflindsay.com solely responsible for reclaiming your testimony?

MM

[MorningStar]

No, your nitpicking represents the charm bracelet. It's true that the gospel isn't centered around the Book of Abraham. The Book of Mormon was instrumental in the restoration of the gospel, but the gospel is centered around Christ. I wouldn't say that the Gospel is centered around Luke, Alma, Exodus, Moses, or D&C Section 89. It's centered around revelation from the Lord. Do FARMS or FAIR deny that The Book of Abraham is scripture? That I would find problematic.

[Mortal Man]

I wouldn't say that the Gospel is centered around Luke, Alma, Exodus, Moses, or D&C Section 89.

What about Matthew, Mark, John and 3 Nephi?

[Vance]

I wouldn't say that the Gospel is centered around Luke, Alma, Exodus, Moses, or D&C Section 89.

Not only is his argument falling apart, he isn't paying attention either.

[Mortal Man]

Not only is his argument falling apart, he isn't paying attention either.

I read her statement quite clearly Mr. Vance. If the Gospel is not "centered around Luke" or the other Gospels, then I'm curious to find out what "Gospel" she's talking about.

[Deborah]

I read her statement quite clearly Mr. Vance. If the Gospel is not "centered around Luke" or the other Gospels, then I'm curious to find out what "Gospel" she's talking about.

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ: The gospel is our Heavenly Father's plan of happiness. The central doctrine of the gospel is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, "The first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost"

The scriptures are not the Gospel but rather teach the principles of the gospel.

[Pahoran]

Mr. Chandler decided to travel around the country showing people the mummies, and in the summer of 1835 he came to Kirtland, Ohio. There he met with Joseph Smith, who told him that the writings could be interpreted. Later some friends of the Prophet bought four mummies and the rolls of papyrus from Mr. Chandler. Joseph Smith studied the letters and grammar of the Egyptian language, and then, with the help of the Holy Ghost, he translated the writings on the papyrus rolls. The writings Joseph Smith translated tell about the ancient prophet Abraham and are now published as the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price."

Yes, and the problem is?

Exactly what FARMS or FAIR-published statements do you find that contradicts the above? Taking the bold-and-huge bit as being your point: CFR that there is any FARMS or FAIR-published statement to the effect that Joseph did not "study the letters and grammar of the Egyptian language".

And then, CFR that there is any FARMS or FAIR-published statement to the effect that Joseph did not "with the help of the Holy Ghost... translate the writings on the papyrus rolls."

Thanks for your help.

In a previous post I mentioned another Primary lesson, Lesson 9: Jehovah Makes Covenants with Abraham,

[William Schryver]

Mathilde cited an extract from the Primary lesson manual:

Mr. Chandler decided to travel around the country showing people the mummies, and in the summer of 1835 he came to Kirtland, Ohio. There he met with Joseph Smith, who told him that the writings could be interpreted. Later some friends of the Prophet bought four mummies and the rolls of papyrus from Mr. Chandler. Joseph Smith studied the letters and grammar of the Egyptian language, and then, with the help of the Holy Ghost, he translated the writings on the papyrus rolls. The writings Joseph Smith translated tell about the ancient prophet Abraham and are now published as the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price."

To which Pahoran replied:

Yes, and the problem is?

Exactly what FARMS or FAIR-published statements do you find that contradicts the above? Taking the bold-and-huge bit as being your point: CFR that there is any FARMS or FAIR-published statement to the effect that Joseph did not "study the letters and grammar of the Egyptian language".

And then, CFR that there is any FARMS or FAIR-published statement to the effect that Joseph did not "with the help of the Holy Ghost... translate the writings on the papyrus rolls."

Thanks for your help.

Although I very much appreciate and agree with the general idea of what Pahoran is saying here, I have to say that I think it is very unfortunate that the primary manual reads the way it does, and I am confident that the material will be revised the next time the correlation department revisits the lesson manuals.

Why?

Number one because there is no basis for the statement that the Prophet Joseph Smith

[Vance]

I read her statement quite clearly Mr. Vance.

Really?

. . . but the gospel is centered around Christ. . . .

What part of "but the gospel is centered around Christ", did you miss?

If the Gospel is not "centered around Luke" or the other Gospels, then I'm curious to find out what "Gospel" she's talking about.

Gee, I wonder.

Could it be the gospel that "is centered around Christ"?

[Mortal Man]

I have to say that I think it is very unfortunate that the primary manual reads the way it does, and I am confident that the material will be revised the next time the correlation department revisits the lesson manuals.

I suppose that next you'll be telling us that popcorn balls don't come from apricot trees?

[MorningStar]

I suppose that next you'll be telling us that popcorn balls don't come from apricot trees?

What is wrong with you? That song isn't about popcorn balls on apricot trees! Just the popcorn! But you could probably stick the popcorn together into a ball with some syrup from a maple tree.

[MorningStar]

Really?

What part of "but the gospel is centered around Christ", did you miss?

Gee, I wonder.

Could it be the gospel that "is centered around Christ"?

Oh good. You picked up on that.