Will the church ever abandon the belief that the Book of Abraham is historical scripture?

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

54 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

How about Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives and many other women, including those that worked at his home, plus adopted daughters? Is there any scripture mentioning this being right? Specifically marrying another living men's wives? I know there is a scripture in the Bible that specifically mentions not to marry sisters, or mothers/daughters. Leviticus 18:17-18. What about that?

So now you appear to be challenging the truthfulness of scripture (again, not recommended) by trying to use an example of a time when scripture appears to be in opposition to the actions of the Prophet Joseph.

Is there modern scripture about this? Yes. "Give Brother Joseph a break". We have plenty of prophetic statements about Joseph's character and righteousness (several have already been shared). I believe that the Prophet Joseph had instruction and revelation from the Lord (and that he was a prophet and president of the church, which none of us are here) and I'm plenty willing to accept the Lord's analysis of him rather than resorting to half-pieced-together facts. If you're interested in whether or not the Prophet Joseph had revelation to institute plural marriage, you're welcome to check out this article: http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-prophet-joseph-smith-commanded-practice-plural-marriage/

Law of adoption? Interesting topic. Just wanted to note, we have no proof that Joseph actually 'lived' with any of the other women he was married to - the only children he had were through Emma.

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

To the contrary, you have engaged in character assassination through repeating false statements about Richard Bushman, and thus judging him based on your own lack of knowledge.  It is as though there were no Scriptural provision against rumormongering or bearing false witness.  I fully expect that sort of thing from anti-Mormon attacks on the LDS Church and its leaders, but why do you do it?

You presume to know what is in my heart. You also presume it against what I have already said. I do not 'assassinate' Bushman, literally or figuratively. I give Bushman the benefit of the doubt as to motives and character. I simply disagree with some things he has written. To date, no one has shown me how any statements I have made were false, they have simply given heated responses full of their opinions.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

More semantics.  What good is this theoretical power possessed by Satan, if God does not allow him to use it?  Whenever we see Satan active in Scripture, it is always with the control of God under the eternal Law of Opposition.  Satan cannot function independently.  He must always go and request permission of God, as when he wants to test Job.  He does serve an important function, but always under the bridle of God.

Why do you insist I use semantics when I use not logic but scripture? And yes, you're right about God being in control. The point I made was not that God was not in control but that Satan's power is not God's power or God-given. It is God-allowed.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thus far, I have seen nothing that would suggest to me that you actually know the Scriptures.

I might say the same thing for you, friend, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So having historical knowledge and expertise is just like falling off a log?  So, actually studying history as an academic discipline is useless, and you portray yourself to us having that  knowledge.  Extraordinary.  Why then is it that nearly all of your statements about LDS history are blatantly false?

No. Knowledge and wisdom is all about going to the right sources and having them firmly in your grasp. I work for that and try to bring that view to others.

Again, why no scripture and evidence? You and others continue to state your opinion that I am saying things that are "blatantly false", yet you do not back up your opinion.

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If you attend BYU Education Week this coming August, will you condemn the BYU historians speaking there as heretics and apostates -- just because they don't seem to support your ldsanswers propaganda?  Or will you listen humbly and learn something from them?

You accuse LDS Answers of being propaganda without giving an iota of evidence against their article. I haven't gone that far with Bushman, and I've given many more reasons why he's wrong than you have given of LDS Answers. Did you read the article? No wait, I said that wrong. Did you seek for truth and doctrine in their article? Or did you just skim read without even paying attention to their message.

Why should I go to BYU Education Week to learn about Joseph Smith when I can learn it straight from Joseph Smith and the Lord? Scripture is scripture and academics is academics - scripture always comes first. I'm sure I could pick up some facts and academic learning about Joseph Smith from BYU Education Week, but I would be very surprised if they could teach me an important truth or doctrine about Joseph Smith that I don't already know. I'd be even more surprised if any academic knowledge shared could change my belief in Joseph Smith - what the Lord thinks and feels about the Prophet Joseph is obvious, and I'm planning to stick with Him. Sometimes when we already have the facts and the doctrine, it is time to stand up for the truth.

Why do you insist that I am not humble or open? I could say the same for you, but I will

give the benefit of the doubt. Back to my 'hierarchy', I do not simply accept opinions, but I will listen to facts and I will give heed to scripture.

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Thank you @ERayR! 

You attempt to assume I have no scholarly understanding. That is wrong. I just never allow any scholarly understanding to get in the way of my doctrinal and scriptural understanding.

The wise man is the one who takes scholarly information and doctrinal and scriptural information and finds an understanding of both that is reasonable.

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

28 minutes ago, ERayR said:

The wise man is the one who takes scholarly information and doctrinal and scriptural information and finds an understanding of both that is reasonable.

Yes, so long as your scriptural understanding is not dependent on facts, which sometimes are simply not complete. I put scriptures first but facts are definitely important and I believe they will always support the scriptures.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Yes, so long as your scriptural understanding is not dependent on facts, which sometimes are simply not complete. I put scriptures first but facts are definitely important and I believe they will always support the scriptures.

Fortunately, we don't need to choose which to put first when looking at scripture and Joseph's involvement with magic.

[bcuzbcuz]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

Last summer, I did some "flagging" for the gas company (directing traffic with stop/slow signs with another worker when one or both lanes needs to be stopped for work to continue). They were replacing old gas lines with new ones that had copper wire embedded so that it can easily be found. 

It was a massive job, with miles and miles of pipe. When I asked them how they located the pipe (they often didn't go in straight lines or logical/common sense directions), one of the workers showed me the copper rods they used. I said, "You're kidding!," and they were completely serious. How can you tell where the pipeline is using those? "You can feel it dip and jerk. Mostly, you can just feel it." 

That's the gas company's way to find old plastic/PVC pipes that don't have detectable metal.  

A quick search on Smithsonian.com, subject: dowsing will give a good review of how dowsing has been tested.

An even better article is at skepdic.com under Dowsing (a.k.a. water-witching, radiesthesia). The part dealing with map dowsers is intersting. "Map dowsers use a dowsing device, usually a pendulum, over maps to locate oil, minerals, persons, water, etc."  

"In 1949, an experiment was conducted in Maine by the American Society for Psychical Research. Twenty-seven dowsers "failed completely to estimate either the depth or the amount of water to be found in a field free of surface clues to water, whereas a geologist and an engineer successfully predicted the depth at which water would be found in 16 sites in the same field...."

There is also a good article about a double blind test in Germany: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_dowsing_the_failure_of_the_munich_experiments

"The outcome of those deliberations was a grant of 400,000 German marks (about $250,000), in 1986, to university physicists in Munich."

"The Munich dowsing experiments represent the most extensive test ever conducted of the hypothesis that a genuine mysterious ability permits dowsers to detect hidden water sources. The research was conducted in a sympathetic atmosphere, on a highly selected group of candidates, with careful control of many relevant variables. The researchers themselves concluded that the outcome unquestionably demonstrated successful dowsing abilities, but a thoughtful re-examination of the data indicates that such an interpretation can only be regarded as the result of wishful thinking."

In other words: Dowsing works for those who believe. Those who are skeptical cannot find verifiable proof.

[Calm]

"You are attempting to discredit scripture (usually not a good idea) by saying that our definition of the word 'magic' has changed"

No, I am not.  I fully respect scripture and try hard to understand it as both the authors and the Spirit wants me to...which may be different at times since sometimes I need to know something in my life that the authors may not have been addressing.

Just because I don't accept your interpretation does not mean I don't accept the scripture itself.

There are multiple definitions of the word "magic".  Do you deny this?

Do you believe the Bible is condemning sleight of hand tricks performed for entertainment as Satanic because it is defined as "magic" though everyone knows it is not supernatural in cause even if they can't perceive how it is done?

Edited February 1, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

" Just wanted to note, we have no proof that Joseph actually 'lived' with any of the other women he was married to - the only children he had were through Emma."

Would you condemn him if he had?

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

 Just wanted to note, we have no proof that Joseph actually 'lived' with any of the other women he was married to - the only children he had were through Emma.

You can't state that as a sure fact.  So far, there have been no other children proven, but that does not mean that his "only children were through Emma".

We know Joseph had physical relations with at least some of his wives (unless they were lying in their statements).  Even the church acknowledges this.

Edited February 1, 2017 by JulieM

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

"You are attempting to discredit scripture (usually not a good idea) by saying that our definition of the word 'magic' has changed"

No, I am not.  I fully respect scripture and try hard to understand it as both the authors and the Spirit wants me to...which may be different at times since sometimes I need to know something in my life that the authors may not have been addressing.

Just because I don't accept your interpretation does not mean I don't accept the scripture itself.

There are multiple definitions of the word "magic".  Do you deny this?

Do you believe the Bible is condemning sleight of hand tricks performed for entertainment as Satanic because it is defined as "magic" though everyone knows it is not supernatural in cause even if they can't perceive how it is done?

What is it that you disagree with my interpretation? Deuteronomy and Mormon are pretty up front . . .

When I speak of magic I am referring to the same magic that Bushman links his 'magic' to in RSR - divining, playing with evil spirits, messing with Satan's power, or whatever you want to call that. 

That specific type of 'magic' is usually classified as 'magic tricks', not just 'magic'. And yes, it might not mean the exact same thing today it did in Joseph Smith's day, but I'm pretty sure Bushman isn't talking about card tricks.

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

" Just wanted to note, we have no proof that Joseph actually 'lived' with any of the other women he was married to - the only children he had were through Emma."

Would you condemn him if he had?

 

No, but it makes some more comfortable to realize that many of these sealings were for eternity, not for time (especially with women that had a living husband).

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You can't state that as a sure fact.  So far, there have been no other children proven, but that does not mean that his "only children were through Emma".

We know Joseph had physical relations with at least some of his wives (unless they were lying in their statements).  Even the church acknowledges this.

Do you have some quotes from the church? Or if from a wife, was the wife a church member in good standing? I don't say it's impossible, but current evidence (to my knowledge) does not support it.

[JLHPROF]

51 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

...works for those who believe. Those who are skeptical cannot find verifiable proof.

Isn't that called faith?
James 1:5-6 and all that.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

 

Do you have some quotes from the church? Or if from a wife, was the wife a church member in good standing? I don't say it's impossible, but current evidence (to my knowledge) does not support it.

Are you aware of the Church having some of Joseph's wives testifying to the facts of their relationship in court?

----

"When I speak of magic I am referring to the same magic that Bushman links his 'magic' to in RSR - divining, playing with evil spirits, messing with Satan's power, or whatever you want to call that."

Is all "divining" in your view Satanic?

Edited February 1, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Or if from a wife, was the wife a church member in good standing? I I don't say it's impossible, but current evidence (to my knowledge) does not support it.

Really?  Have you not done any research into true church history?

Look up the testimonies given under oath by faithful women.

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

it makes some more comfortable to realize that many of these sealings were for eternity, not for time (especially with women that had a living husband).

That's what we call PR.  Not historical fact.  Don't want people feeling uncomfortable so let's make up something easier to swallow. 

Quote

Quote

We know Joseph had physical relations with at least some of his wives (unless they were lying in their statements).  Even the church acknowledges this.

Do you have some quotes from the church? Or if from a wife, was the wife a church member in good standing? I don't say it's impossible, but current evidence (to my knowledge) does not support it.

Joseph F. Smith interviewed several of his Uncle Joseph's wives.  Many of them left affidavits, personal memoirs, autobiographies etc.
These were members in good standing.  And yes, some of them testified to having physical relations.

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Do you have some quotes from the church? Or if from a wife, was the wife a church member in good standing? I don't say it's impossible, but current evidence (to my knowledge) does not support it.

With all due respect, you are woefully ignorant of church history.  You're new here so I have been trying to help you out but you haven't responded to my last reply to you (end of p.17).

Because you don't seem to know a lot about church history, you might choose to do more "listening" here on the boards and less "telling".

[bcuzbcuz]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Isn't that called faith?
James 1:5-6 and all that.

Realy? You really want to pull out that scripture to support Dowsing? Or are you just firing off buckshot in any direction, hoping to hit something? If you can find a double blind testof dowsing that shows that it works, I'll gladly read it. Good luck with that. 

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

So now you appear to be challenging the truthfulness of scripture (again, not recommended) by trying to use an example of a time when scripture appears to be in opposition to the actions of the Prophet Joseph.

Is there modern scripture about this? Yes. "Give Brother Joseph a break". We have plenty of prophetic statements about Joseph's character and righteousness (several have already been shared). I believe that the Prophet Joseph had instruction and revelation from the Lord (and that he was a prophet and president of the church, which none of us are here) and I'm plenty willing to accept the Lord's analysis of him rather than resorting to half-pieced-together facts. If you're interested in whether or not the Prophet Joseph had revelation to institute plural marriage, you're welcome to check out this article: http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-prophet-joseph-smith-commanded-practice-plural-marriage/

Law of adoption? Interesting topic. Just wanted to note, we have no proof that Joseph actually 'lived' with any of the other women he was married to - the only children he had were through Emma.

You presume to know what is in my heart. You also presume it against what I have already said. I do not 'assassinate' Bushman, literally or figuratively. I give Bushman the benefit of the doubt as to motives and character. I simply disagree with some things he has written. To date, no one has shown me how any statements I have made were false, they have simply given heated responses full of their opinions.

Why do you insist I use semantics when I use not logic but scripture? And yes, you're right about God being in control. The point I made was not that God was not in control but that Satan's power is not God's power or God-given. It is God-allowed.

I might say the same thing for you, friend, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

No. Knowledge and wisdom is all about going to the right sources and having them firmly in your grasp. I work for that and try to bring that view to others.

Again, why no scripture and evidence? You and others continue to state your opinion that I am saying things that are "blatantly false", yet you do not back up your opinion.

You accuse LDS Answers of being propaganda without giving an iota of evidence against their article. I haven't gone that far with Bushman, and I've given many more reasons why he's wrong than you have given of LDS Answers. Did you read the article? No wait, I said that wrong. Did you seek for truth and doctrine in their article? Or did you just skim read without even paying attention to their message.

Why should I go to BYU Education Week to learn about Joseph Smith when I can learn it straight from Joseph Smith and the Lord? Scripture is scripture and academics is academics - scripture always comes first. I'm sure I could pick up some facts and academic learning about Joseph Smith from BYU Education Week, but I would be very surprised if they could teach me an important truth or doctrine about Joseph Smith that I don't already know. I'd be even more surprised if any academic knowledge shared could change my belief in Joseph Smith - what the Lord thinks and feels about the Prophet Joseph is obvious, and I'm planning to stick with Him. Sometimes when we already have the facts and the doctrine, it is time to stand up for the truth.

Why do you insist that I am not humble or open? I could say the same for you, but I will

give the benefit of the doubt. Back to my 'hierarchy', I do not simply accept opinions, but I will listen to facts and I will give heed to scripture.

There is a lot to be said about what is scripture.  David Bokovoy does a pretty good job in addressing that issue in his book http://gregkofford.com/products/authoring-the-old-testament-1

I recommend the book.  Hopefully, soon, he comes out with more pieces to this puzzle. 

Peace to you and welcome tot he board.  It seems like you run the ldsanswers site that was mentioned earlier?  Well, great, your site has received some attention here.  Thanks for showing up and giving us a different perspective. 

[ttribe]

17 hours ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

What is it that you disagree with my interpretation? Deuteronomy and Mormon are pretty up front . . .

When I speak of magic I am referring to the same magic that Bushman links his 'magic' to in RSR - divining, playing with evil spirits, messing with Satan's power, or whatever you want to call that. 

That specific type of 'magic' is usually classified as 'magic tricks', not just 'magic'. And yes, it might not mean the exact same thing today it did in Joseph Smith's day, but I'm pretty sure Bushman isn't talking about card tricks.

No, but it makes some more comfortable to realize that many of these sealings were for eternity, not for time (especially with women that had a living husband).

Do you have some quotes from the church? Or if from a wife, was the wife a church member in good standing? I don't say it's impossible, but current evidence (to my knowledge) does not support it.

Questions - Do you believe the U.S. actually landed on the moon?  Also, what do you think about vapor trails?

Edited February 2, 2017 by ttribe

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Realy? You really want to pull out that scripture to support Dowsing? Or are you just firing off buckshot in any direction, hoping to hit something? If you can find a double blind testof dowsing that shows that it works, I'll gladly read it. Good luck with that.

Not in support of dousing.  In response to the idea that some things "work for those who believe. Those who are skeptical cannot find verifiable proof. "
I mean, I don't know of any double blind test of resurrection but I fully believe it will happen.
Not everything is verifable through current scientific methods, nor should it be.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JLHPROF

[CA Steve]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not in support of dousing.  In response to the idea that some things "work for those who believe. Those who are skeptical cannot find verifiable proof. "
I mean, I don't know of any double blind test of resurrection but I fully believe it will happen.
Not everything is verifable through current scientific methods, nor should it be.

I am not sure of the university, but a while back some grad students were trying to do such a study but, for some reason, they were unable to find any volunteers.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/1/2017 at 1:13 PM, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

..................................................

................................Again, why no scripture and evidence? You and others continue to state your opinion that I am saying things that are "blatantly false", yet you do not back up your opinion.

You accuse LDS Answers of being propaganda without giving an iota of evidence against their article. I haven't gone that far with Bushman, and I've given many more reasons why he's wrong than you have given of LDS Answers. Did you read the article? No wait, I said that wrong. Did you seek for truth and doctrine in their article? Or did you just skim read without even paying attention to their message.

When a person on this thread confronted you with a blatant falsehood by ldsanswers, you simply blew it off as though it did not matter.  Yet it was an exemplar of what pervades ldsanswers.  As I have already suggested, you put much stock in Scripture, but feel perfectly free to engage in backbiting, rumormongering, and character assassination -- as though no Scripture has ever condemned that.

On 2/1/2017 at 1:13 PM, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Why should I go to BYU Education Week to learn about Joseph Smith when I can learn it straight from Joseph Smith and the Lord? Scripture is scripture and academics is academics - scripture always comes first. I'm sure I could pick up some facts and academic learning about Joseph Smith from BYU Education Week, but I would be very surprised if they could teach me an important truth or doctrine about Joseph Smith that I don't already know. I'd be even more surprised if any academic knowledge shared could change my belief in Joseph Smith - what the Lord thinks and feels about the Prophet Joseph is obvious, and I'm planning to stick with Him. Sometimes when we already have the facts and the doctrine, it is time to stand up for the truth.\

So, not only do you not want to be confused by the facts, but you already know it all -- despite all the false statements you have made about Joseph Smith on this thread.  Indeed, you suggest that those BYU professors holding forth on Joseph would probably be wrong and heretical.  Interesting.

On 2/1/2017 at 1:13 PM, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Why do you insist that I am not humble or open? I could say the same for you, but I will

give the benefit of the doubt. Back to my 'hierarchy', I do not simply accept opinions, but I will listen to facts and I will give heed to scripture.

You have shown no interest in facts on this thread.  You seem to prefer attacking your fellow Saints with reckless abandon.  Is that what the Gospel has taught you?

[mfbukowski]

Somehow I don't think Rorty would help here.

 

[hope_for_things]

I just had a joyous time reading through the last few pages of this thread with Faith, Family, and Freedom jumping into the fray and getting pummeled.  In some ways I feel bad for him/her as he/she is just taking very strong convictions about the Sunday School Mormonism he/she has learned and is defending that paradigm despite any historical evidence to the contrary.  Its very understandable on one hand, and on the other its very sad.  Its part of the legacy of Mormonism, this clash between a highly crafted and correlated narrative and the discovery and uncovering of information that contradicts it.  

[bcuzbcuz]

On 2017-02-02 at 8:59 AM, JLHPROF said:

Not in support of dousing.  In response to the idea that some things "work for those who believe. Those who are skeptical cannot find verifiable proof. "
I mean, I don't know of any double blind test of resurrection but I fully believe it will happen.
Not everything is verifable through current scientific methods, nor should it be.

Once again, from the top.

My reference was regarding a study on dowsing. Double blind tests can and have been performed on dowsing, water-witching, the magic art of finding water underground by holding a Y shaped branch or two copper wires, etc., or whatever you wish to call it. I also referenced to dowsing using a pendulum over a map to find water, missing persons or treasure.

Dowsing is witchcraft, it is not the same as resurrection or scripture. I don't know why you insist on using my reference to it only working for believers of dowsing as something to do with religion. Dowsing isn't associated with religion, although I've listened to the Dowser give a long, sermon like prayer asking for the God(s), plural, to aid him in finding water. It has the shape and form of a religious procedure but not the blessing of organized religion.

I've seen dowsing fail, miserably. The believers in dowsing felt that the spirits were disturbed by the presence of some disbelievers (Me?). But they didn't find water, at all, even after drilling 60 feet. But my observations are not a study. I've seen dowing succeed, but the dowser said the water would be between 20 and 30 feet (quite a margin of error) It was found at 15. 

I do know that dowsing is not used by any of the public services in Sweden to find water, pipes, electrical lines. The workers all carry small calculators that give clear readings of depth and location. Some Swedes have stated a belief in dowsing. It is cheaper to cut a branch than to buy the specific calculator.

But dowsing is not a religion. It is a belief in magical powers to find water or treasure, etc,.

 

 

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I just had a joyous time reading through the last few pages of this thread with Faith, Family, and Freedom jumping into the fray and getting pummeled.  In some ways I feel bad for him/her as he/she is just taking very strong convictions about the Sunday School Mormonism he/she has learned and is defending that paradigm despite any historical evidence to the contrary.  Its very understandable on one hand, and on the other its very sad.  Its part of the legacy of Mormonism, this clash between a highly crafted and correlated narrative and the discovery and uncovering of information that contradicts it.  

I agree with your assessment of FFF's paradigm and the "legacy of Mormonism".  I hope that FFF didn't feel pummeled, certainly wasn't my intent.

[T-Shirt]

58 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

But dowsing is not a religion. It is a belief in magical powers to find water or treasure, etc,.

For what it's worth, I have a good friend, who is a very faithful Latter-day Saint, who worked for the Public Works Dept. in the  City where I live.  He is now retired.  I asked him once what he did for the City and he explained that his job was to locate waterlines that were so old the City did not have maps indicating where to find them.  I asked him how he did this.  He explained that he used two brass rods that, when used correctly, would tell him where the water was.  I laughed at him, thinking he was kidding around, but he was completely serious.  I pressed him on this and he explained that he, too, was very skeptical when the City first told him how he was to do his job,  The City trained him on how to do it properly and, to make a long story short, he spent a career successfully finding unmarked waterlines. I can't pretend to explain how it works, but I can assure you, there was no witchcraft involved.  As Ripley used to say, "Believe it, or not!" 

Edited February 3, 2017 by T-Shirt