/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>4545

Not a member, but look at it this way. I don't believe Genesis to be a literal historical account as per evolution and millions of years. Does that mean I can't see Genesis as containing truth or being divinely inspired? No. That's basically the Church's current official position on the Book of Abraham.

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

>>4550

That doesn't add up to me. There are huge differences from the actual translation and what Joseph Smith claimed it said. The papyrus doesn't even mention Abraham. If you can be "divinely inspired" by an ancient document and your revelation is completely separate from what it actually says then that really doesn't seem any different from just making shit up.

>>4553

I don't think that comparison works. Interpreting Genesis is a bit like interpreting a particularly complex and cryptic bit of poetry. The people who interpret it know how it was actually written.

A better example would be if for many years we couldn't read Genesis and yet Jesus claimed he knew what it said. Later on, we find out how to read ancient Hebrew and discover that Genesis had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus' claimed translation.

That would seem to be an open and shut case on whether or not jesus was a charlatan.

I remember reading that Joseph Smith translated about twenty seven words from a single word/Egyptian glyff.

>>4559

The thing is, if you've received a spiritual witness about Joseph Smith being a prophet of God, you'll understand. The Book of Abraham is an *inspired translation*, which means that the information derived from it are divine, as well as the means of translating it. Essentially, the mundane nature of the papyrus doesn't contradict or rule out its mystical part.

What hidden messages or means do prophets use to communicate with one another? That I do not know.

That said, I personally this is not church doctrine, this is my personal belief compare the Abraham papyrus to the seer stones or the staves of prophets: they are vehicles through which the power of God may manifest itself through believers and the elect few; they are simply devoid of any particular merit for the vast majority of mankind.

>>4570

What? I'm sorry but this comes across as pure denial. The facsimiles in the book of abraham match the papyrus scrolls found in his collection. It's clear as day that the scrolls are indeed what Joseph Smith claimed to be translating.

Also, where is this viewpoint held in mormon doctrine? If it were the official position of the church I'd be more inclined to accept that explanation but the position of the church is that it doesn't matter what the actual translation is. Not once do they deny that we don't have the actual scrolls.

>>4573

>don't deny that we don't have the scrolls

Fucked the wording there, I'm tired.

Of course I mean they don't deny that we do have them.

>>4545

>How do you deal with the fact that the Book of Abraham was a fraud?

>>4550

>Good question.

The better question is in fact how do you deal with the fact that mormonism is a fraud and Joey Smith made it all up?

>>4585

Ugh, we've been through this discipulus. You were at the LDS General.

Polite sage

>>4592

Have we? If we had you wouldn't wear this flag anymore :^)

>>4599

> I'm obviously not Catholic, but I've been baptized as one.

You are a Catholic then.

> What does that mean for me, should I never repent of my "mormonic heathenry" and die, according to Catholicism?

Nothing good. Essentially this is wore than being born a heathen, they don't gotta choose. But you are a part of the earthly body of Christ and rejected him willingly with open eyes.

This excludes you from salvation.

It is also worse when a Catholic committs a sin like apostasy because we are the people of God. We are held to another standard.

So you would be dead and face judgement and then….

Matthew 7,21

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Then you will be judged. Keep in mind that you are not an unknowing heathen, you are a disobedient son.

tl;dr

I would be concerned.

how many lds threads needs to be created.

theres like 3 generals already.

>>4606

We have the genral + this one.

Then there is the former general that's above the bump limit now.

But I'd also rather if we wouldn't have a new thread on all issues concerning mormonism.

>>4604

Ah ok that makes sense, its remarkably similar to the consequence of apostasy in the Church as well.

Haha I don't suppose there's any way to stay LDS and avoid this off-chance damnation, is there?

Well, thank you' you've answered my question thoroughly.

>But I'd also rather if we wouldn't have a new thread on all issues concerning mormonism.

Agreed. Let us end this now then.

>>4604

>This excludes you from salvation.

It's more like you excluded yourself though. You already rejected the earthly body and bride of Christ here after all.

>>4609

>Haha I don't suppose there's any way to stay LDS and avoid this off-chance damnation, is there?

No. Half-truths are vain. You either are or are not. There is no being lukewarm.

>>4612

Indeed. Thanks again, discipulus. The one thing I miss about Catholicism is the rote prayers. I still say my Hail Mary's and Our Fathers, sometimes, but only alone

>>4618

>The one thing I miss about Catholicism is the rote prayers. I still say my Hail Mary's and Our Fathers, sometimes, but only alone

Does LDS not allow this? Your theology is alike to the baptist one, I mean in the Christian parts, isn't it?

What do you personally think about Mary?

What the LDS?

Don't you think it will be "bad" to say such "wrong" prayers? Why would the LDS forbid it otherwise? They are the one true Church after all…

>>4562

>I remember reading that Joseph Smith translated about twenty seven words from a single word/Egyptian glyff.

I guess he was massively inspired.

>>4634

Gypsies can read your whole life out of your palm after all, why shouldn't he be able to do that?

If you do not believe that one can translate a glyff to 27 english words this is the devil tempting you. The best way to counter the devil is to stop thinking and let the LDS think for you.

Hope I could help.

>>4585

>The better question is in fact how do you deal with the fact that mormonism is a fraud and Joey Smith made it all up?

Why do you act like not everyone is aware of what you think of LDS? I mean, I really don't understand. I've stated, some time ago, that I believed as you do about the LDS, but it wouldn't come to my mind to say it every time I get a chance to say it. And being insulting at that. "Joey".

Imagine if I did this to you. It'd look like this:

"How do you deal with the fact that Geezus, kike on a stick, never existed and was a Roman hoax to control the people?"

If I did this every time you mentioned your faith, you'd get annoyed, and you'd have every right to be so. I don't mind being attacked on my faith whenever I go to 4chan, /b/, and other non-Christian places, but I would expect something different from here. Admittedly, I joked about Joseph Smith myself in my previous post, but that was more tongue-in-cheek than anything. Maybe you're doing the same (but I don't think so).

I know you're absolutely convinced that your way is the way and that everyone else is wrong, but this is tiring. If everyone did the same, it'd be terrible. The Mormons don't spend their time telling us we're horrible heretics who betrayed Christ, for instance, so I'm sure we can return the courtesy.

Sorry if I overreacted, my tolerance threshold for Catholic selfrighteousness is well worn.

>>4604

> rejected him willingly with open eyes.

Being baptised as a baby doesn't equate with "open eyes".

>This excludes you from salvation.

Even the Church doesn't say that. Scare tactics is what made the Church lose steam in the 20th century and it's not going any better. You'll never make anyone love God by telling them that God will punish them brutally if they don't. Plus that's blasphemy.

>We are held to another standard.

I'm sure that standard should include bringing people to the faith instead of making a joke of our religion. If you and Cathmod had been chosen instead of Paul, Christianity would have died around 75 AD.

>“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

You quote this often and never once think it may be about you.

>Then you will be judged. Keep in mind that you are not an unknowing heathen, you are a disobedient son.

So are you from his point of view. It's always the same.

>I would be concerned.

Scare tactics. They don't grow faith, you know, just fear, and that's how you lose people. This is exactly what made me put some serious distance between myself and the Catholic mindset.

Being baptised doesn't give you a revelation, it doesn't make you understand anything better or see God more clearly.

And if you maintain that it does, who's to say that I don't see things better than you because of it? I was baptised as well, so, in theory, I got whatever everyone gets by it. Even pedophile priests were baptised.

>>4607

That's my mistake. I checked the catalog and only saw the one past the bump limit.

>>4606

We don't have a Catholic general or a Protestant general for all related questions, right? I don't see the need to force everything into a single thread. None of the Catholic-related threads were requested to be done in the Catholic General, which doesn't exist.

If we were a super fast board with hundreds of users, sure, but this sounds like simple LDS disappreciation.

No other faith or lack thereof are requested to be restricted to one thread.

>>4636

I think that Mormons need to be reminded that they are not Christians from time to time. They might otherwise get the wrong idea.

>Imagine if I did this to you.

You did. I worship Caesar obviously or something along those lines.

>>4637

>Even the Church doesn't say that.

The Church doesn't say that there are deeds excluding yourself from the community and that there is no salvation outside of the Church?

Pardon me then.

> Scare tactics is what made the Church lose steam in the 20th century and it's not going any better.

It is real in your mind. Vatican II made Catholicism too scary for the kids, sure.

> You'll never make anyone love God by telling them that God will punish them brutally if they don't. Plus that's blasphemy.

How? There are real reasons to fear God and we should do that. People need to know this again.

> If you and Cathmod had been chosen instead of Paul, Christianity would have died around 75 AD.

So Paul ran around and told people that doctrine doesn't matter and that it's fine to hold on to their statues and demon worship because we are all saved anyways? Pardon me again.

>You quote this often and never once think it may be about you.

>So are you from his point of view. It's always the same.

One Church was founded by Jesus 2000 years ago and one made up by a freemasonic dreamer and liar 200 ago. Pretty clear.

>Scare tactics. They don't grow faith, you know, just fear, and that's how you lose people

So fear was never a tool of the Lord?

>Being baptised doesn't give you a revelation, it doesn't make you understand anything better or see God more clearly.

Being baptised bestowes the Holy Spirit.

>pedophile priests

nice non-argument there

>>4639

>If we were a super fast board with hundreds of users, sure, but this sounds like simple LDS disappreciation.

Which it should be. The former to are Christians which makes this their board. Mormons are on the other hand only guuests here.

>>4639

Also this: having LDS generals makes everyone think that we're in majority LDS. So just stop.

>>4640

>I think that Mormons need to be reminded that they are not Christians from time to time.

They know we don't consider them Christians, and we know they don't consider us true Christians either. I think you need to be reminded that you aren't the only one to be absolutely certain that they are correct and everyone else is wrong.

>You did. I worship Caesar obviously or something along those lines.

What I term "Romanism". I did, but not every single time you post anything and not in every single thread you open.

>The Church doesn't say that there are deeds excluding yourself from the community and that there is no salvation outside of the Church?

Indeed it doesn't. The Church says, very clearly, that God may do what He deems right and that includes saving people who aren't officially part of the Catholic Church, just like He gives sainthood to saints who haven't been recognised by the Catholic Church. Not having been selected by the Church to be saint does not exclude you from being one; correct me if I am wrong about this point, but I'm pretty sure I read this from official documents of the Church.

>It is real in your mind.

You're telling the Mormon and myself that because we were baptised as babies, we will be punished more harshly. I've never seen that in doctrine anywhere. There's a difference between being a Catholic adult who knows about his Catholic faith and being a baby who knows how to poop better than his theology.

>Vatican II made Catholicism too scary for the kids, sure.

Are you suggesting Catholicism is restricted to absolute badasses who don't piss their beds when they have nightmares? Fuck yeah, I too want to be a cool kid, let me in.

>How? There are real reasons to fear God and we should do that. People need to know this again.

There's a difference between awe and fear. You shouldn't fear God the way you fear a car crash. That's just my opinion though, but I find the latter disrespectful to God. And a lack of trust.

>People need to know this again.

By doing this, you just remove them from God even more than they were. There may not be a greater sin, so think about it too. Just because you're right doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, especially if the result is losing people who could have otherwise come to God.

Take my case, most people with my doubts and my opinions would not even try, and I can assure you that your way of presenting the case does nothing for anyone's faith unless they already believe the exact same things you believe.

I don't remember Christ going around Galilea telling people, "You're wrong, and you're going to Hell for all eternity because of how wrong you are, sucker."

>>4640

>So Paul ran around and told people that doctrine doesn't matter and that it's fine to hold on to their statues and demon worship because we are all saved anyways?

You'd be hard-pressed to find any comparable element of my faith. Where's my demon worship? What statues do I think is my God? How often did I say we were all saved? Probably not even once, at the very least much less than the Church from its inception.

>One Church was founded by Jesus 2000 years ago and one made up by a freemasonic dreamer and liar 200 ago. Pretty clear.

To you. Again, I'm not talking about who's actually in the right, I'm pointing out that everyone thinks they're right, regardless. Do you forget that there are people out there who think the whole Christianity thing is a hoax? It's pretty clear to them too.

I'm not asking you to "tolerate" LDS belief, I'm only asking you to stop feeling like you have to state what's what in your mind all the time. If it's relevant to the conversation, of course, but otherwise, why do it? It won't save any soul if that's your concern.

>So fear was never a tool of the Lord?

No. You can use the OT, it won't matter to me given my view of it. You can use Christ's words about "hell" and I will respond that Christ simply states a fact, rather than a scare tactic. The difference is that Christ can simply state the truth since He knows, but you don't. You don't know for sure, you're just a human like myself and you trust Christ, but you cannot speak with His authority. He can, you can't. So in His mouth, it's simply stating a fact; in yours, it's scare tactics because you don't know for sure and you want to get an effect on people rather than simply telling a truth you can't be sure of.

And I won't argue about "hell" in this thread.

>>4640

>Being baptised bestowes the Holy Spirit.

>non-argument

Pedophile priests have the Holy Spirit in them because they were baptised. That's not an non-argument, that's a very problematic fact you have to deal with.

According to the Apostles, when given the Holy Spirit, you become able to heal the sick by hands and other comparable divine gifts. I doubt you have received any of these through baptism. I doubt most priests have these divine gifts either.

And yes, there are people who have those gifts, and not one of them that I know is a priest. These are people who literally heal the sick, by hands, find out cancer and such, by nothing but God's gift, and they can only do this freely because trying to sell their services would make them lose their gift, says one of them. I'm more likely to believe those who actually do what Christ did than those who just call themselves something special and can't do any of it.

>>4573

>What? I'm sorry but this comes across as pure denial.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I couldn't believe something different from your incredibly biased conclusion.

>The facsimiles in the book of abraham match the papyrus scrolls found in his collection

To my knowledge only some of the pictures are included and there is debate over what they mean anyways. Joseph Smith had much more papyrus that contained the book of Abraham.

>It's clear as day that the scrolls are indeed what Joseph Smith claimed to be translating.

That's not true at all. Like I said before, finding some random fragments that aren't in the book of Abraham means nothing. Sort through all the dead sea scrolls and you'll find all kinds of wacky stuff. These fragments are just miscellaneous non canonical writings.

>Also, where is this viewpoint held in mormon doctrine? If it were the official position of the church I'd be more inclined to accept that explanation

Only small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls once in Joseph Smith’s possession exist today. The relationship between those fragments and the text we have today is largely a matter of conjecture.

After the Latter-day Saints left Nauvoo, the Egyptian artifacts remained behind. Joseph Smith’s family sold the papyri and the mummies in 1856. The papyri were divided up and sold to various parties; historians believe that most were destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871.

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

So there you go, the actual text was destroyed and all we have left are non canonical fragments.

>Not once do they deny that we don't have the actual scrolls.

See above, it's pure conjecture that these fragments are in any way related to the book of Abraham other than the pictures (which Joseph Smith accurately translated). It doesn't disprove anything any more than the fragments contained in the dead sea scrolls that are not part of the Hebrew Canon.

>>4640

>Mormons are on the other hand only guuests here.

Everyone is a guest here or everyone is not. There's no list of who's really a member and who's not. Even the atheist is welcome here and not just a guest.

There's no need for some sort of selection beyond that of being here. You really want to antagonise as many people as possible, eh? Whatever happened to "Suffer the little Mormons come unto me"?

Moreover, if anyone was to choose who's a "guest" and who's not, it wouldn't be, or me, or anyone. This is needless and your intentions behind it belong on /christian/, not here. We're a Christian board, not a Catholic board.

>>4645

When speaking of the scroll of breathings which Joseph Smith mentions and describes explicitly there are only a few pieces burned in the fire. Eyewitnesses describe only 2 scrolls, 1 we have in near completion (the book of the dead) and the other which has some pieces missing (the book of breathings). There's no mention of additional scrolls except a few manuscripts which describe rather mundane Egyptian topics and Joseph Smith didn't claim to translate these.

So there is no 3rd or unknown scroll. Or at least there's zero evidence to support one.

The argument that there was significant portions of the scroll damaged in the fire doesn't hold up either. The length of the scroll missing can be derived from joseph smith's own documentation which includes a facsimile of the last page. From that we can conclude that the missing portion is about 50cm in length. The idea that in that portion the scroll deviates wildly from a standard Egyptian book of breathings is unlikely to say the least. The evidence simply does not support it.

The only defense I've seen that vaguely holds up is that joseph smith was merely inspired by the scrolls and wasn't making a word for word translation. That doesn't really add up with joseph smith's own writings that claim it's a translation but I'll let Mormons grapple with that.

This isn't an extremely biased conclusion. This is the best conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. The only biased conclusion would be that these scrolls are anything other than standard Egyptian funerary texts. Which your church compels you to do and you have to believe based solely on faith.

>>4620

>Does LDS not allow this? Your theology is alike to the baptist one, I mean in the Christian parts, isn't it?

No, it discourages rote prayer. I'm not sure how similar we are to Baptists honestly.

>What do you personally think about Mary?

What the LDS?

My position is that of the LDS church. She was a mortal woman, blessed by God, and she was the physical mother of Jesus Christ. She's incredibly important but she's not a Goddess or anything.

>Don't you think it will be "bad" to say such "wrong" prayers? Why would the LDS forbid it otherwise?

I think the reason behind the discouragement is logical, but its more practical than theological. We know who we're supposed to pray to exclusively, and how, but the "vain repetitions" stuff I think is really more about distinguishing ourselves from Catholicism and Orthodoxy than anything else.

Since I don't do Hail Mary's in lieu of my normal prayers, but rather as an addition or as a way to get comfort sometimes, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Or, rather, if its a sin its a "venial one". I've been working on an LDS-centric rote prayer for myself (I just love rote prayers ok?), and if that turns out well then I may stop saying the Hail Mary's.

>>4670

>41 feet

Never heard that from an egyptologist. I've heard mention of a scroll 100 feet long buts that's an unsubstantiated legend that neither Joseph nor the people who helped him purchase the scrolls reports.

There's plenty of evidence to support that the breathings scroll was in fact what Joseph Smith claimed to be translating. His descriptions of the papyrus drawings in the book and the recreated facsimiles are exactly what is found in the scroll, minus a few errors on joseph's part. He specifically referred to the scroll as the book of abraham that he was translating from. The book of Joseph was to be translated from what we now know as the book of the dead and as I'm sure you're aware it was never completed. There were no other scrolls or manuscripts.

The scroll is as I've mentioned an Egyptian book of breathings. Nothing to indicate the missing portion is anything other than that. The 50cm figure is in fact the median. I've heard as low as 40cm to high as 60cm but nothing approaching 41 feet. That's ludicrous.

There's also the fact that Joseph Smith left notes on his interpretation of the hieroglyphics which demonstrate that he didn't have a fucking clue on how to read them. Very few people had the faintest idea in 1835. Even if we entertain that there was an incredibly vast piece of the scroll that we're now missing and was never reported it doesn't seem to matter since Joseph Smith couldn't read it anyway.

Again, how is this a biased conclusion when the evidence overwhelmingly points to it being a false translation? That's not a biased conclusion. That's a reasonable one.

>>4704

Here's a neutral, cited article on the subject. Check out those sources if you'd like.

http://mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

Joseph Smith clearly describes what he interprets in the facsimiles and the hieroglyphics on the scroll. All of his translation work on those scrolls is grossly incorrect. Again even if we entertain this notion of a missing scroll his work on the surviving papyrus is utterly false. Which should at least cast doubt on his ability to translate this hypothetical missing scroll.

The evidence doesn't support there being an additional scroll or papyrus. Historical records indicate, including letters by Joseph Smith and his friends that helped him procure those scrolls, only 2 scrolls and some miscellaneous manuscripts that joseph smith didn't bother to translate were purchased. If there was additional papyrus it was not once mentioned.

This repeated claim that there's a huge missing piece of papyrus containing the actual translated text is the baseless assumption. Joseph smith's description of the translated text and his notes on the translation match the book of breathings exactly. Where are you getting this idea of another papyrus?

As far as his notes on Egyptian hieroglyphics I'll have to look more into when it was written.

>>4709

>Joseph Smith clearly describes what he interprets in the facsimiles and the hieroglyphics on the scroll. All of his translation work on those scrolls is grossly incorrect. Again even if we entertain this notion of a missing scroll his work on the surviving papyrus is utterly false. Which should at least cast doubt on his ability to translate this hypothetical missing scroll.

Already answered that one.

>The evidence doesn't support there being an additional scroll or papyrus. Historical records indicate, including letters by Joseph Smith and his friends that helped him procure those scrolls, only 2 scrolls and some miscellaneous manuscripts that joseph smith didn't bother to translate were purchased. If there was additional papyrus it was not once mentioned.

Well there is obviously additional papyrus considering neither scroll is complete and there's still debate on just how much is missing. In regards to the additional scrolls, simply not being mentioned in writing does not mean that no other scrolls or manuscripts existed at the time.

>This repeated claim that there's a huge missing piece of papyrus containing the actual translated text is the baseless assumption.

Certainly no more baseless than the claim that no additional papyrus could have even existed. The most baseless assumption of all is that the funerary texts are in fact the book of Abraham.

>Where are you getting this idea of another papyrus?

Some have reasoned that since the preserved papyri account for no more than 13 percent of all the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed, the Book of Abraham does not match the translation of the preserved papyri because it was most likely translated from a portion of the papyri that is now missing.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/a-guide-to-the-joseph-smith-papyri/

Joseph Smith had a ton of this stuff.

>>4713

You mentioned that the vignettes might not necessarily be part of the translated text but I don't think you explained why his inability to translate those wouldn't also apply to this hypothetical missing text.

Among egyptologists there is in fact very little debate on how much is missing. The missing portion of the book of breathings is very simply the rest of the book of breathings. There are over 20 examples of the book of breathings found in Egyptian tombs and Joseph Smith's doesn't differ at all. What there's no evidence to suggest is that this portion of the book of breathings has any relation to Abraham.

In regards to a potential missing papyrus. There isn't any record of that either. It doesn't eliminate the possibility that he could have possibly have had more but how on earth would we know that? If he never recorded having any additional papyrus fragments then where do you come to the conclusion that he did?

What I'm saying here is not some anti-mormon fringe belief. Just what the evidence suggests. Joseph Smith was in possession of two scrolls. This is according to his own records and those that were eyewitnesses to his collection. No other scrolls are mentioned. No one at the time had very advanced understanding of hieroglyphics so Joseph Smith was just as clueless as anyone else on translating them. The first scroll we now know is the book of the dead which Smith claimed to be "The Book of Joseph". The latter, the book of breathings, was to be the source for the Book of Abraham. You have to tell me where this hypothetical missing scroll or additional papyrus fits into the equation.

Returning to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, they were indeed completed before the official publication of the Book of Abraham but these papers seemed to be the basis of his translation. I don't recall Smith ever mentioning that his work in deciphering hieroglyphics turned out to be completely off-base after he received divine revelation.

>>4642

> Not having been selected by the Church to be saint does not exclude you from being one;

This is true. You are part of the Church then however, because there is no N O salvation outside of the Church.

> that God may do what He deems right and that includes saving people who aren't officially part of the Catholic Church

We also know that God is righteous which gives us an idea what he will do with the guilty.

>You're telling the Mormon and myself that because we were baptised as babies, we will be punished more harshly. I've never seen that in doctrine anywhere. There's a difference between being a Catholic adult who knows about his Catholic faith and being a baby who knows how to poop better than his theology.

Both of you are Catholics. You are a part of the Church. Do you think this does not matter?

>"You're wrong, and you're going to Hell for all eternity because of how wrong you are, sucker."

Essentially he did exactly that and was therefore murdered :^)

> Where's my demon worship? What statues do I think is my God?

Modern idolatry revolves about: worshipping humans instead of God, money, women, might and influence, looks, environmentalism, progress, ideology, etcpp

>I'm not asking you to "tolerate" LDS belief, I'm only asking you to stop feeling like you have to state what's what in your mind all the time. If it's relevant to the conversation, of course, but otherwise, why do it? It won't save any soul if that's your concern.

If there is a new Mormon thread and I post in it I have to, anything else is irresponsible.

>No.

hm

>You can use the OT, it won't matter to me given my view of it.

Ah

>You can use Christ's words about "hell" and I will respond that Christ simply states a fact, rather than a scare tactic

Oh

>The difference is that Christ can simply state the truth since He knows, but you don't

Christ was not all knowing?

How would I argue with this amount of reason?

>>4644

> that's a very problematic fact you have to deal with.

>

Sure Miss Sarkeesian.

No really, you understand that none of the things I said implies that a Catholic cannot sin and that I even put emphasis on the severe consequences on Catholics sinning?

>And yes, there are people who have those gifts, and not one of them that I know is a priest. These are people who literally heal the sick, by hands, find out cancer and such, by nothing but God's gift, and they can only do this freely because trying to sell their services would make them lose their gift, says one of them. I'm more likely to believe those who actually do what Christ did than those who just call themselves something special and can't do any of it.

Magic now? How do you know it is of God?

>>4646

Yes, /christ/ is a Christian board. This means it is for Christians and Christianity. If we tolerate others here it is exactly that, tolerance.

>>4662

>Since I don't do Hail Mary's in lieu of my normal prayers, but rather as an addition or as a way to get comfort sometimes, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Or, rather, if its a sin its a "venial one". I've been working on an LDS-centric rote prayer for myself (I just love rote prayers ok?), and if that turns out well then I may stop saying the Hail Mary's.

But why keep it a secret then? You could reason with the others.

>>4736

>But why keep it a secret then? You could reason with the others.

Don't see any good that would come out of it. They know I used to be a Catholic, long ago, it would just be seen as heretical syncretism coming from me. Once I finish the LDS rote, I could maybe do something about it.

I blame the Protestantism for the anti-rote attitude, honestly. I feel much better with them than I do fumbling over my own words and asking for stupid things

>>4721

>You mentioned that the vignettes might not necessarily be part of the translated text but I don't think you explained why his inability to translate those wouldn't also apply to this hypothetical missing text.

Sorry If it got lost in the discussion, but what I was trying to explain is that Joseph Smith attempted to translate the text by learning Egyptian on his own and failing.

That's why he needed divine revelation to translate the papyrus because he could not personally do it. It was not Joseph Smith's efforts that translated it, God gave him the ability to do so.

>Among egyptologists there is in fact very little debate on how much is missing. The missing portion of the book of breathings is very simply the rest of the book of breathings. There are over 20 examples of the book of breathings found in Egyptian tombs and Joseph Smith's doesn't differ at all. What there's no evidence to suggest is that this portion of the book of breathings has any relation to Abraham.

Well either this means that there are unique sections contained within the scrolls that contained the book of Abraham, or that these are simply not the correct scrolls. Joseph Smith reportedly had so many other scrolls that the remaining papyrus accounts for about 13% of his total collection.

To bring this back to the dead sea scrolls, there are tons of fragments and manuscripts that make up a minority of the texts that have absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrew Canon. They are treated as oddities, nothing more. I suspect this is a similar case in which minority texts are being represented as though they were the authentic, majority texts.

Non canonical inclusions in Joseph Smith's library simply do not invalidate the idea that the remaining 87% of lost texts do not contain the real book of Abraham.

>In regards to a potential missing papyrus. There isn't any record of that either. It doesn't eliminate the possibility that he could have possibly have had more but how on earth would we know that? If he never recorded having any additional papyrus fragments then where do you come to the conclusion that he did?

Egyptologist John Gee and his writing on the matter claims that Joseph Smith's collection was so vast that the fragments we have cannot even scratch the surface. http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/a-guide-to-the-joseph-smith-papyri/

>What I'm saying here is not some anti-mormon fringe belief. Just what the evidence suggests. Joseph Smith was in possession of two scrolls. This is according to his own records and those that were eyewitnesses to his collection. No other scrolls are mentioned

The Prophet described the papyrus he used in translation in these words: “The record … found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation.” (History of the Church, 2:348.) The Book of Breathings papyrus has no writing in red ink and is in an extremely poor state of preservation. It must have been in much the same condition in Joseph Smith’s day when fragments of it were glued haphazardly to other totally unrelated papyri.

Again, you've simply got the wrong papyrus.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/07/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

>No one at the time had very advanced understanding of hieroglyphics so Joseph Smith was just as clueless as anyone else on translating them.

Hence why his early attempts to translate it without divine intervention failed.

>You have to tell me where this hypothetical missing scroll or additional papyrus fits into the equation.

Upon Joseph Smith's death, his wife donated his collection to a museum that later burned down. What we have left is a tiny fraction of the papyrus scrolls and manuscripts that Joseph Smith had access to. Some people speculate that Joseph may have had dozens of scrolls hidden inside a sarcophagus that was donated.

But my point remains, we simply do not have access to all the information that Joseph Smith had even if you are operating under the assumption that there were only ever two scrolls and that these are in fact the two in question. They are still incomplete.

>Returning to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, they were indeed completed before the official publication of the Book of Abraham but these papers seemed to be the basis of his translation.

Mormon scholars have argued that many of the papers may have been produced by Joseph Smith's scribes without his involvement, and that they may have been intended as a speculative or naturalistic effort rather than a product of revelation.

So like I mentioned, it was a human attempt to translate the work. His revelation came later that allowed him to translate the authentic book of Abraham papyrus.

>>4785

Alright so just to clear things up you accept that the current facsimiles in the book of abraham were incorrectly translated but that the rest of the book of abraham was translated accurately from a lost scroll?

>>4787

I need to read more about the facsimiles (if you are referring to the vignettes) before I can give an informed opinion on that. I suspect that they were accurately translated (the most common answer I have heard was that the vignettes have dual meanings and thus both interpretations are correct) but I'll have to get back to you.

But yes I do believe that there is or was papyrus from which Joseph Smith literally translated the book. Not all Mormons believe this but I do.

>>4789

I'm just not sure how you can hold that when there's no evidence to support it. In the link you gave me the author didn't cite his claim about us only having 13% of joseph's collection.

For example:

>"On opening the coffins he discovered that in connection with two of the bodies, were something rolled up with the same kind of linen, saturated with the same bitumen, which, when examined proved to be the two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned. I may add that two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c. were found with others of the mummies." (Cowdery, Messenger and Advocate, as cited in Charles Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, pp. 132-3)

I can find nothing to support any additional papyrus.

>>4736

>We also know that God is righteous which gives us an idea what he will do with the guilty.

Does it? I wouldn't think so. There is no crime you can commit that would deserve eternity being tortured. You'd have to have committed bad acts for an eternity to deserve an eternity in punishment. You subscribe to an unjust God, and I can't do that, because I believe God to be just. Unless you can justify infinite punishment for finite deeds. All ears.

>Both of you are Catholics.

Arguable. There's more to being Catholic than being baptised.

>Do you think this does not matter?

I don't. Baptism is not necessary to go to Heaven if I am to believe Scripture, but feel free to tell me Christ didn't promise it to the unbaptised.

>Essentially he did exactly that and was therefore murdered :^)

He was murdered for being a threat to the Jewish authorities, not because He was talking about hell (in fact, He wasn't talking about "hell", but known concepts in the Jewish world, and none of them was new).

Your reading of the gospel must suffer from tunnel vision if you think it's mostly about Christ talking about hell.

>Modern idolatry

The accusation was about me, I asked what my idolatry was, don't dodge the question.

>worshipping humans instead of God, money, women, might and influence, looks, environmentalism, progress, ideology, etcpp

Which of these are mine, then?

>>4789

>Not all Mormons believe this but I do.

They'd be heretical then. That's not the official church position nor do I know of any reason why they would deny that the papyrus played a significant role in how the Book of Abraham came to us.

>>4736

>If there is a new Mormon thread and I post in it I have to, anything else is irresponsible.

You have a name. We aren't hundreds. Everybody knows that you think LDS are heterics, you've said so ad nauseam by now. It's overkill now.

>Christ was not all knowing?

Irrelevant. I don't think He was, because He wasn't, according to the gospel, but that doesn't mean He didn't know about "hell".

>How would I argue with this amount of reason?

Nothing to argue there, you're using scare tactits, no question about it, and they don't produce faith in anybody. That's all.

>Sure Miss Sarkeesian.

Uh… OK. I'm sure it makes sense in your mind.

>No really, you understand that none of the things I said implies that a Catholic cannot sin and that I even put emphasis on the severe consequences on Catholics sinning?

Of course, but that's just having it both ways: being baptised means you have the Holy Spirit, which means you're somehow more enlightened than those who aren't baptised, and yet it's not enough to enlighten pedos. It's more likely than being baptised simply makes no difference.

>Magic now? How do you know it is of God?

How do you know it's magic? It's not magic when Christ does it, and it's exactly the stuff He said He'd give the Apostles. The better question is why can't all Catholics do the same.

>Yes, /christ/ is a Christian board. This means it is for Christians and Christianity. If we tolerate others here it is exactly that, tolerance.

LDS consider themselves Christian. "Tolerance" is for those who don't.