Church History And Faith Crisis Part 3

[Calm]

Yes, Kid gloves are a must it is how you drop their wall and build that trust. Let me ask is it worth it to offend one member who could have been rescued if along the way you also uncover 10 trolls and show them for what they are in doing so?

Let me ask is it any more worth it to offend one member who could have been rescued if along the way you have confronted 10 of what you perceive as overly aggressive posters if the member at risk is one of those ten who is offended by your confrontation of him because you chose not to use the kid glove approach on him?

If you are concerned about offending any member or seeker, then why do you not apply the kid glove approach to all you encounter in order to avoid any possible offense that might contribute to their losing and leaving their faith, whether they are open doubters, pretty set exmormons, closeminded LDS, openminded LDS, shy, assertive or aggressive LDS believers? Especially since it appears if I have read you right that you don't see aggressive posters as following Christ's instructions or having charity in their heart when they label you or others unfaithful, it seems to me you would be worried about these taking further steps away from the faith if they have already distanced themselves this much. Leaving the Church through the door of weakening faith is not the only door available to leave by. There may be only one way in which to enter into the path, but there are a myriad of ways to depart from it. And most anyone can take that misstep at any time. Will we be there with an hand held out to catch them before they fall if they seek it or do we give them a pushoff because we think they are a burden to the Church, disrespectful of their fellow members, say harsh and overly aggressive things about other members, etc.

My view is that it is just as likely that the one who looks strong is the one who will fall while the one who seems to be teetering on the edge all the time ends up with some pretty solid foot work. The posters I tried to approach with kid gloves as a mod (on another board) I believed had potentially brittle or fragile testimonies the way they described them, often being critical one week, being nothing will prevail against the faith the next week, reciting horror stories of interacting with church leaders that would send most people running for cover....and yet after years of postings I found little to no change being affected by my and some others' kid glove treatment of them and no change resulting from the more aggressive posters either. They still posted the same complaints in the same way, the same topics, the same stories, with them in the same perceived roles.

OTOH, there were quite a few 'solid, rigid' types that did change....some to soften up and expanded their faith, others went another route and tightened up, got so solid and rigid, so tight there was no room left in their heart for faith.

I have known along the way a few archdefenders who have acted as if nothing would move their testimonies of the truth, including some who were of the variety of labeling members they disagreed with as unfaithful or the enemy, etc. and who are now exmormons, having lost their faith along the way. I know of at least one of them that claims in part it is the actions of other LDS who refused to listen to him and instead harshly condemned him for his aggressive approach to those he saw attacking the faith. The other left with some expression of not having received enough support for his own concerns and efforts by those who were working so hard on supporting those who came to the board arguing for doubt. He perceived he was not cared as much about because he was already 'saved' in their minds and it was more important to them to go out looking for the one and coax that one back rather than to take time to minister to someone who considered himself a brother who had given his whole life to the faith and had ministered unto them for so long that it weakened him. He had been strong for others in the midst of their problems, they disappeared (in his view) when he first asked and then begged for help. They came when he started 'screaming', talking like the typical 'lost sheep' who had gotten in with some bad company, by then he felt it was too late. He was too tired and didn't find it sincere.

Just because a person doesn't come right out and specify a problem or concern doesn't mean they don't have them. If we are truly concerned about not only looking for the lost sheep, but keeping the 99 safe in the fold, then shouldn't we be using the kid glove approach on everyone regardless of circumstance. That is if one believes this kid glove approach is necessary.

Summary of my wanderings.....

IF you think a kid glove approach is the best way in all cases to deal with those in doubt, you must (to be consistent) apply it not to only those who express doubt but those who don't because one never knows when there is an unspoken doubt or when an ungloved remark might be forceful enough to unbury a doubt or simply to energize it to a point that it begins to actually matter to the individual who has never had a doubt matter to him before. If you do not choose to use this global approach while pushing for others to use it in specific areas, then I think you need to come up with some pretty good reasons why it is of upmost value in the first case and of little or no value in the second even though both cases are dealing with doubt. I would be concerned if your reasoning (or anyone else's who was trying to determine who to take to their hearts in fellowship) included something along the lines of 'I don't like those guys because I feel they metaphorically spat in my face so I feel no obligation to reach out to them, they had their chance or some such thing'.

Edited June 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[MitoticSlime]

RM, thanks for posting links to those other threads, I'll try to peruse those later.

I want you to know there are valid ways to still hang onto faith. When I look at the top issues Dehlin says cause Crisis of faith and take them one by one it is not impossible to make each of them work to the conclusion the church is true.

Yes, I agree that each issue individually has an answer you can come to that supports belief. But the list is large, some of the explanations I've heard seem strained and/or not credible to me, and when you compare it to a single conclusion that makes those issues all go away (ie, the church is not true), it makes belief difficult (but not impossible!).

But the historical issues are only at the periphery of my faith crisis, at its core are some experiences which have shaken my faith in the spiritual witnesses that led to my testimony in the first place. I don't feel comfortable sharing those in detail on this board, yet, but suffice it to say that I am finding it necessary to redefine how I decipher the Spirit speaking to me at the same time that I have learned many things about the church's origins that are disturbing to me. But I am not done searching yet, and the church has been good enough to me so far that I'm not going to give up on it without a fight.

I guess in the interest of further discussion, I'll ask this: How do you handle the first two issues on your list, the Book of Abraham and Joseph's polygamy/polyandry?

[Calm]

But the list is large, some of the explanations I've heard seem strained and/or not credible to me, and when you compare it to a single conclusion that makes those issues all go away (ie, the church is not true), it makes belief difficult (but not impossible!).

If one approaches it that way, one could point to marriage and the one conclusion that makes all issues surrounded by it go away (marriage isn't worth it or I don't love her). Does this make marriage more difficult to have that conclusion out there as possible option? If so, why?

I don't see why a conclusion that may or may not be true makes just by its existence (not by its truth value) belief difficult. I am not understanding the reasoning here.

[DBMormon]

MitoticSlime- I will address those two issues on my lunch break today. With the few minutes I have this morning I thought I would address this.

Yes, I agree that each issue individually has an answer you can come to that supports belief. But the list is large, some of the explanations I've heard seem strained and/or not credible to me, and when you compare it to a single conclusion that makes those issues all go away (ie, the church is not true), it makes belief difficult (but not impossible!).

The other side of the pendulum is just as true. There are too many evidences that little by little mount up and add up to something significant

Nahom/nahem/ incense trails bountiful

Chiasmus - too hard to explain even though critic try - Alma 36

The witnesses - while some try to poke holes in their accounts, when taken as a whole these would stand up in a court of law. 11 men who said they saw something, signed their name to it and stood by it even after being booted out of the church not on their terms (except David Whitmer and he was bitter too) yet they never go to the press, leave behind a last ditch effort to expose the truth. the tell their kids at their deathbed that it is true. That is strong

Book Of Mormon Authorship stusies/word print analysis - These even when done by critics say turn out statistically to say it is highly unlikely any of the proposed authors wrote it. It also is in the voice and language of several writers. To me this has values

Other ancient Documents - Joseph got too many things right. One example. Go online and google the "apocalypse of Adam" an ancient document. Then if you have been to the temple, while reading it find some very pertinent similarities. they are striking. How does Joseph luckily hit on that?

When i investigated the church at 17 - I went and read the new testament and made a mental list of my expwectations of the true church. Like other list other people have made, I found the LDS church strikingly similar to that list. I knew others were not it.

and finally - I am 100% certain that God is real. I have been awakened from my sleep and told to pray for people, and told names for callings and others awesome experiences. I am one who is very evidence based. I need all the facts, all the angles. In spite of that God still sends me inspiration that is pertinent to my acting in this church. so those are my thoughts. This list is mounting and comprehensive too. There are dozens of other little reasons as well but I am short on time these seemed the most crucial to me

See you at lunch time.

Edited June 13, 2012 by reelmormon

[MitoticSlime]

You are both right, my framing of the alternative to "the church is true" as a single conclusion was too reductive. I should have said that the preponderance of evidence on one side must be weighed against the preponderance of evidence on the other side. For me, that came out negative for the church, but I certainly understand why others would not come to the same conclusion. But I'm not going to argue point by point on that position, because that's not what this thread is for and I have no desire to convince anyone else that their faith is wrong. Moreover, in the end I hope you guys are right and that I can come to different conclusions. In many ways it would make things much easier in my life.

RM, you've given me some more things to think about, the Apocalypse of Adam was very interesting. Do you have any other ancient documents that you were thinking of that Joseph got right?

Once again, thank you for your thoughtful responses.

[bcuzbcuz]

First me - I have gone through a faith crisis several times in my life though the most recent several months ago was the worst. I came on here at the peak but found new ways to see old information from a few kind others here (LOG, Kevin Christiansen, and a few others) I also listen to even those of you who have bad approaches as the points you share can on some level still add new info.

Now answer to the question above..... I think there are adequate answers to every difficult issue. I think the Faith Crisis we are talking of is related to the church's inadequate methods of addressing those issues. elder Jensen says as much and says they are working to fix it. But becasue it was reactionary instead of proactive they have lost and are losing a lot of folks who didn't have to go.. Do I think the Church handles it with dishonesty.... no for the most part. I am sure a person or two along the way has withheld troubling info but that can't be blamed on the institution. could they do better - absolutely. and they say as much

Is that the point here? no I need most of you to come to grips with the fact you handle those in faith crisis the wrong way and you make matters worse... that to me is what is frustrated me from the moment I registered here. you see somewhat saying things you don't like so you let them have it... give it right back to them... that never works with those in faith crisis. They are frustrated and are looking for answers and you decide they are out to get you and bully them into a corner and make it personal. You need to find a way to say to yourself, I don't see it this way, but others do. If i am going to help I need to allow them to vent and kindly address their issues... old missionary addage BRT - build a relationship of trust... get them to let their walls down. You don't, you go on the offensive.. you say mean things, you ridicule, embarass and make it go beyond the line of no return. I absolutley believe in my heart some of you have casued folks to leave the church when they came here for answers and you handled them just like you do me. Instead of getting the love they need they feel attacked and off they go, final straw. Ease up boys, I am your brother. We may have sibling rivalry and we may disagree but do it with Love... that is the point

off to the doctor to xray the broken leg see progress,,,,, brb

I, for one, enjoy reading your comments, both for their content and their presentation. I enjoy coming to this site to read, listen, contemplate and discuss with others because, although I am no longer Mormon, my thirty years as an active, faithful, and diligent member did not leave my life unmarked. I no longer partake in church services or sacraments or temple work but my views on temporal matters share more with Mormons than with almost any other group that I can find.

I hope I am not argumentative but I do enjoy a good discussion. I have read the board guidelines more than once and I assume from them that as long as I follow those guidelines my comments are welcome. There are, however, some respondents here that answer opposing points of view in what, for lack of a better word, are nothing short of hostile. How else is someone to take the comment "Hope you enjoyed the Kool-Aid"?

This obvious reference to the Jim Jones tragedy, at the People's Temple in Guyana, I found both hostile and offensive. It certainly did nothing to further the discussion but sent a very clear signal to me that my comments were not welcome. Similarly the comment, "Thanks for playing" sounds like a 'I win, you lose' breast beating, victory crow by a poor sportsman.

If commenting on this site is some kind of "turf war" where the victor gets to piss on the loser, then I have definitely chosen the wrong site. I had hoped for adult discussion, not childish games. I'm too old for such.

But once again, I do enjoy reading your posts. And there are definitely a majority of respondents here who are insightful, thought provoking and civil.

[DBMormon]

MioticSlime and BcuzBcuz ,

Thank you for your comments.

First - I hope you see the importance of your being here. Some of these faithful need to see

1.) there are lots of us in this boat... perhaps falling on different sides of the conclusion but certainly lots of us.

2.) They need to hear when you agree and disagree. I have noticed since you two and Cwald jumped in that the negative posters have slimmed down. I think on some level they saw that what I was writing was striiking a cord with folks here in a postive way. I don't think they expected as much of that. Now they may see this and jump back on now just to say no I didn't but I think it is apparhent that occured on some level.

second -

RM, you've given me some more things to think about, the Apocalypse of Adam was very interesting. Do you have any other ancient documents that you were thinking of that Joseph got right?

Daniel Peterson has done some work on how the Book of Abraham matches up very well with newly discovered documents in the last forty years.

I have read several of them, but this is not my field so I do not know them by name. I know the dead sea scrolls from the Qumran site mention that the group called themselves translated to english - The church of the Latter Day Saints plus other parallels

http://www2.ida.net/...il/parallel.htm

I have read ancient documents that listed two priesthoods and age minimums for each office though the age minimums were slightly higher... like you had to be 21 to be ordained a priest

an ancient baptismal Font was found that looks familar

http://www.templestu...on-twelve-oxen/

by the this www.templestudy.com is an awesome site just to wander around in when you have time.

hope that helps.... I am sure others here know of some of these

Edited June 13, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

Calmoriah - I agree in reality with what your saying. Emotionally I am going to hold onto my side having valid reason for a bit longer. but truth be told, you are right. I just don't have warm fuzzies in my tummy over it.

Do you think some of the harsher people here are seeing though from other responses like cwald and mitotic slime, and paxton, and brian 2.0, bcuzbcuz.... that what I am saying actually does resonate with a lot of mormons? Did they understand that before? if the answers are yes and then no then all I am sharing and how I am sharing it is worth it

Edited June 13, 2012 by reelmormon

[Calm]

But I'm not going to argue point by point on that position, because that's not what this thread is for

In the end, such a point by point method is not that helpful in a 'challenge' situation (as opposed to seeking information) because people weight the points differently and even if one agrees that a massive amount of the points point one way, one point that is much more important to an individual than all the others combined can sway it a completely different way.

Better to identify what arguments are most important to a person and focus on those, imo. If these are satisfied, then the more trivial (to the person) ones generally can take care of themselves.

[Calm]

This obvious reference to the Jim Jones tragedy, at the People's Temple in Guyana, I found both hostile and offensive. .....

And against board rules, I hope you reported it.

If commenting on this site is some kind of "turf war" where the victor gets to piss on the loser, then I have definitely chosen the wrong site. I had hoped for adult discussion, not childish games. I'm too old for such.

Since you have read the board guidelines, I think you should be able to see the mods do not intend to let this happen, but they need our help by reporting the kind of stuff you point out above and then we need to step back and not play that game. If enough people do that, then the adult discussions tend to survive. It is when even those who protest against such games get involved in them that it goes downhill from what I've seen. The "ignore" button can help lessen the temptation to respond in aggressive or turf war ways.

[Calm]

Daniel Peterson has done some work on how the Book of Abraham matches up very well with newly discovered documents in the last forty years.

If you enjoy this kind of stuff, make sure you read the Traditions of the Early Life of Abraham (I think that's the title) when you get the chance if you haven't already. Beautiful book and great stories and info.

[Calm]

Calmoriah - I agree in reality with what your saying. Emotionally I am going to hold onto my side having valid reason for a bit longer. but truth be told, you are right. I just don't have warm fuzzies in my tummy over it.

I think we all have our hot button responses. It might be helpful to imagine when someone responses in what you think is an overly aggressive way that the subject may be one of theirs.

Plus you've got to realize that if you do react in an aggressive way, even if only in defence, some will see this as hypocrisy if you then turn around and criticize others for doing what they see as the same thing even though you see valid differences in the responses and your sincerity and credibility will be questioned...understandably in my view. (another good reason to leave the chastising to the mods). As long as you make an effort to limit your own aggression as much as possible, most posters in my experience will let things go as long as you don't use any aggression in response to your own aggression as examples of what not to do or choose that moment to chastise them or attempt to place blame on others for your own negative reactions. We are adults here on the board (those that post at least) and are expected by others to be responsible for ourselves. When we then try to point to others to blame while excusing ourselves, it doesn't look good, imo and in the opinions of most I've talked with over the years about it (it was one of the hot button issues for me as a mod on another board, couldn't stand those who whined about how unfair it was they were being attacked when they were in there slugging it out as much as anyone else or even worse were passive aggressive in their nastiness).

Blaming the victim doesn't help whether it's the questioner in a time of faith crisis or the defender who is being criticized for being a believer in irrational things, etc.

I may be confusing you with other posters, but my memory says that some of the original turmoil surrounding your posts was a result of this...calling others out on aggressive behaviour while they pointed to your own behaviour as aggressive as well as some interpreting your comments as a lack of recognition of what problems there are for the believing defender, what they have to deal with in favour of protecting questioners and outsiders simply because they are questioners and outsiders....and then the discussion turned more personal as it generally does in such cases. We all need to be careful not to let personal feelings overshadow actual content as then accuracy of interpretation of what others say goes way down.

Do you think some of the harsher people here are seeing though from other responses like cwald and mitotic slime, and paxton, and brian 2.0, bcuzbcuz.... that what I am saying actually does resonate with a lot of mormons? Did they understand that before? if the answers are yes and then no then all I am sharing and how I am sharing it is worth it

I don't know at this time how anyone else is viewing this thread and interpreting what it may be accomplishing. I think it is likely anyone reading will have a different response depending on how much they are aware of a poster's history and the past posting style of that history as these threads do not stand alone in a vacuum and as such there are too many influences on interpretation for me to even start to guess how others are interpreting this one and the others like it.

I would not be surprised though if they see and accept that what you have said resonates with many, but they may not see that resonation in as a positive way as you do. For example, other threads have talked about narratives and there may be perceived and real problems if someone latches on to a narrative because it resonates with him or her rather than attempting to explore his or her particular experience as unique (all our experiences are both shared and unique due to our shared characteristics and attitudes and our unique combination of those characteristics plus environmental and internal experiences). In looking for commonalities to establish stronger communication, we need to ensure we are not ignoring the actual issue for an individual and that individual needs to work at not allowing their voice to be altered by listening to others or their issues will never be really addressed and frustration and resentment will be the unintended but unfortunate result.

It is a balancing act, imo,

As far as understanding the issues before, I have yet to see a stupid poster on the board....or at least one that sticks around for more than a couple of posts and I have no doubt that all longtime posters have understood this issue is out there as you are not the first to discuss it. It has been discussed as long as the board has been in existence (and before that on other boards and in other places) and how to address it has been discussed as well.

I think where challenges to your comments and claims come in are most likely not in an ignoring of the issue itself, but disagreeing with the placement of responsibility (some posters may feel the need to defend the Church against claims of deception or betrayal, I know I do), the proper way to respond to the varied questions (few will debate responding in a positive way to positive sincere questions, the debate comes in when questions are seen as insincere or negative enough to appear baiting) or some other noncentral, but potentially important due to influence aspect.

Edited June 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding the opening questions, my take, FWIW,

1.) Many of you have gone through this. Why helped you come out the other side?

Understanding that "anomally emerges against a background of expectation," (See Kuhn, Structure, 64-65), and that with a different set of expectations, a different framework, I could easily accomodate the same information. That is, unexpected information is not self interpreting data, providing self-evident conclusions that force any objective and honest observe to submit to them. My dialogue essay on "New Wine and New Bottles" grew out of the one serious encounter I had. I also learned early on that I need not trust my case to the objectivity of the prosecution (indeed, I have often noticed a terminal lack of imagination on the part of those who are most vocal about demonstrating their ability to face problems without flinching), nor that I should expect omniscence and perfection from the defence.

2.) For those who lost faith and didn't recover, what would have helped, what would have benefeited you to regain faith?

I did not lose faith. On the contrary, I've learned a great many things that I very glad to know that I realize that would have completely missed had I given up, and would never have known what I was missing.

3.) What advice do you give someone who is trying to find it again and seems to losing it within the grasp of their hands each day?

First be concerned with removing motes from your own eyes. I particularly recommend the Perry Scheme for Congnitive and Ethical Growth, which deals growth in how we process information and deal with uncertainty, and Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms, which deals with the implications of our conceptual frameworks as networks of interconnected assumptions. Barbour also discuses a wide range of experiences that believers have reported in support of their faith. (I discussed these in my essay "A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience.") And reflect on the relationship of the wine to various wine bottles. The same information that shatters one container can fit nicely in another. Information that is crucial to one container might be completely overlooked by another.

4.) How would you change the advice for someone who is going through this who holds a major calling? One who has no calling at all? One who is burdened by other responsibilities of the world and has little alone time to work these things out?

We make time for what is most important. That is just as true for fathers, mothers, scholars, videogame addicts, workaholics, codependents, and English majors. Our choices from moment to moment proclaim our values. The doors that we choose to knock on, and sources and methods we employ to get them open, the time we give, and the examples we select as paradigmatic, as the basis of our generalizations about faith, all reveal great deal about our values.

5.)If you had the person one on one, face to face, what would you say to them?

"Give things time, re-examine your assumptions now and then, and keep your eyes open." The alternative is to insist on final answers now, to never inquire into the implications of one's own assumptions, and to try to decide your eternal future based on present knowledge. Think about how that might work out.

6.) What is your feelings, view, understanding of the beauty, peace, and fulfillment that awaits on the other side of this trial?

I'm very happy with what I continue to learn and find and experience. To have missed out on all of thise because I had given up over what now strike me as easily resolved would have been tragic.

7.) For those who lost faith, Are you happier now then you were when you were in Phase #1?, #2?, #3? What is your center revolved around now?

As my faith is not lost, not relevant.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 13, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[DBMormon]

^{Regarding Book of Abraham and Polyandry}

^{I think with any of these answers, they have been hashed and rehashed but here is my two cents.}

^{Book of Abraham – First there are at least one account that says this papyri was very long. What we have is much smaller then that. Is the one account false? I don’t know.}

^{Second ? While obviously the translation by joseph and the critic experts are not the same. One is a Egyptian funeral text and the other Abrahamic scripture. With that said Joseph did get some things right in regards to pointing out the meaning of some of the symbols in the hieroglyphs.}

^{Third – Is it possible that he looked at the papyri and thought that was where the revelation was coming from? He isn’t really a translator in the real sense of the word as we understand it. Think about the book of mormon. Joseph doesn’t know shorthand from portugese to reformed Egytpian. He is simply writing what God tells him to. He has no real way of double checking his work. He takes God’s word for it. Maybe God gives him the BOA and joseph simply thinks it comes from the papyri. Is that feasible? To me just as feasible as he made it up and just happen to hit on multiple ancient themes as well.}

^{Polygamy – no explanation needed as it is in the old testament}

^{Polyandry – different story. Either this was commanded by God for holy purposes or Joseph was a sexual pervert with a energetic libido.}

^{We know joseph was fertile and yet we only have one or two anoctdotal evidences of his having kids with those who were already married. The DNA they have done so far has come up empty in results in Joseph’s favor. Shouldn’t we hold out till there is proof he is a sexual maniac? Could most of these sealing be a form of adoption apoligist spek of? I am willing to cut him this break until evidence comes out that he was having intimate relations with some of them. Did he? Maybe and yet when it may have been so easy for him to have populated the earth with his offspring in abusing his power and authority we have so little evidence suggesting this was the case. Perhaps these were sealings of families together and not marriages.}

^{Now that doesn’t mean that bad choices were made at times and difficult situations that are heartbreaking don’t occur. But while your and my heart goes out to these people as they deal with polygamy, most of them saw it as a blessing. Who am I to tell them what was best for them?}

[altersteve]

As for the Book of Abraham, we must also point out that the Church has acknowledged on several occasions (including immediately after the papyri were rediscovered) that the papyri in its possession are Egyptian funerary texts, and takes no position on whether or not they were what Joseph Smith translated.

[altersteve]

Polyandry – different story. Either this was commanded by God for holy purposes or Joseph was a sexual pervert with a energetic libido.

Those aren't the only two options. Joseph could have been trying to obey God the best he could, even though marrying women who were already married was not God's intention. It's a very complicated issue.

[DBMormon]

Altersteve

As for the Book of Abraham, we must also point out that the Church has acknowledged on several occasions (including immediately after the papyri were rediscovered) that the papyri in its possession are Egyptian funerary texts, and takes no position on whether or not they were what Joseph Smith translated

What is the earliest record we have of the church admitting that at least in terms of what we have that this to the naked eye is not the book of abraham?

Also in regards to polyandry - your right it can be a whole lot more complicated then that.

.

[altersteve]

What is the earliest record we have of the church admitting that at least in terms of what we have that this to the naked eye is not the book of abraham?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Church_disclosure_of_%22Book_of_the_Dead%22

[Craig Paxton]

http://en.fairmormon...ok_of_the_Dead"

Could you please show me exactly where Joseph got his translation of these hieroglyphics correct?

Or maybe this one...

or maybe this one...

I don't believe Joseph translated any of these hieroglyphics correctly...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Could you please show me exactly where Joseph got his translation of these hieroglyphics correct?

Or maybe this one...

or maybe this one...

I don't believe Joseph translated any of these hieroglyphics correctly...

I don't believe that JS ever claimed to have translated these hieroglyphics. I am not entirely convinced that is what he was doing here.

[Craig Paxton]

I don't believe that JS ever claimed to have translated these hieroglyphics. I am not entirely convinced that is what he was doing here.

Ummmm....OOOKKK....

Explanation

1. The Angel of the Lord.
   
2. Abraham fastened upon an altar.
   
3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.
   
4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.
   
5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.
   
6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.
   
7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.
   
8. The idolatrous god of Korash.
   
9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.
   
10. Abraham in Egypt.
    
11. Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.
    
12. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.
    

I guess that would confirm my belief that the word Raukeeyang was completely made up...thanks for clearing that one up for me

Edited June 13, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ummmm....OOOKKK....

Explanation

1. The Angel of the Lord.
   
2. Abraham fastened upon an altar.
   
3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.
   
4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.
   
5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.
   
6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.
   
7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.
   
8. The idolatrous god of Korash.
   
9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.
   
10. Abraham in Egypt.
    
11. Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.
    
12. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.
    

I guess that would confirm my belief that the word Raukeeyang was completely made up...thanks for clearing that one up for me

Yeah, there you go Craig. For all I know that word is completely made up. After looking at Will's presentation in 2010 I have some what of a new idea of what was going on here. Also, I have not seen any were were JS claimed to have translated these records. And an explanation is really a different thing then a translation.

Of course, have you read Kerry Shirt's work on these Facsimiles? There are some interesting things in his research that he has found that corresponds with exactly what JS "explained".

Also, why do you assume I have not studied these before? You post it all as if I had no prior knowledge of them.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[zerinus]

Could you please show me exactly where Joseph got his translation of these hieroglyphics correct?

Or maybe this one...

or maybe this one...

I don't believe Joseph translated any of these hieroglyphics correctly...

I think that he translated all of them correctly.

[altersteve]

Could you please show me exactly where Joseph got his translation of these hieroglyphics correct?

No, I can't. But I'm sure there are others here who could.

[Kevin Christensen]

A good place to start is here:

http://www.boap.org/...bley/TrFac.html

Kerry Shirts' Sunstone presentation on Joseph Smith as an Egyptologist is also very helpful.

http://www.backyardp...preted-pdf.html

John Gee reporting on the discovery of a papyrus with a scene resembling Facsimile 1 and including the name of Abraham, among other things.

http://www.lds.org/e...&query=john gee

And of course, things like Nibley's books on the Book of Abraham, Rhode's papers on the interpretation of the Hypocephalus, Nibley's recent One Eternal Round. It's all there, for those who are really interested.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 14, 2012 by Kevin Christensen