Conversation with a Mormon

[RebeccaJ]

(shrug)

Well, the wholesale murder of innocents by the Catholic hierarchy, the selling of indulgences and the wealth-building of the church and the rampant nepotism that sometimes reigned in the church (nice trick, I thought, given that priests were supposed to be celibate…) hasn’t destroyed your faith in that. Why are you imposing a different standard upon us?

We claim that God is guiding us, through the priesthood and our leaders. If you don’t claim the same thing for your own belief system, then it begs the question of exactly who IS guiding it.

Double standards, there. Mote and beam. You know the drill…

re:celibacy

The Latin Rite Church did not practice it, as Canon Law, until after the Reformation (Council of Trent). Before then, a vow of celibacy for the clergy was encouraged. In all times, it has been a voluntary vow.

 

[mormonpro]

MormonPro,
The fairlds.org website has several good articles on the latest scholarly findings about the papyrus and the Book of Abraham. I realize you won’t trust those articles, but I think they are accurate. A conclusion of one is as follows:

If we were to give the complete KEPE, the Joseph Smith Papyri, and the sequence of hieratic symbols in the left margins of the KEPA to someone and then ask that person to recreate the Book of Abraham from those materials, he could not do it. The KEPE reflect a half-dozen phrases from the Book of Abraham, isolated and without context. But the Book of Abraham is a coherent and readily understood English text, while the KEPE is a mishmash of linguistic gobbledygook. It is completely unclear how one could possibly get the one from the other.

So what is the source of the English Book of Abraham? It would appear that the English text is a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, whatever he thought he was doing in the KEP project. There is ample precedent for the Prophet receiving such coherent revelations before that did not require him to wrestle with deciphering the ancient language of the source text. For example, Joseph translated the Book of Mormon almost entirely without reference to the gold plates themselves, and Doctrine and Covenants 7 is a revealed translation of ancient parchment that was never physically given to Joseph.

The coherent words of the Book of Abraham did not really come from an analysis of the Egyptian materials before Joseph or his scribes; rather, they were uttered by the Prophet and recorded by his scribes in much the same way that all of his revelatory translation projects were done. To the critic, this simply means that Joseph made up the coherent text and dictated it; to the believer, it means that Joseph received the text by revelation and dictated it. The difference between these two points of view is a matter of faith, and not something that any amount of wrangling with the KEP can resolve definitively one way or the other.

But, again, if it gives you the out you want (along with all the others), then you have what you want. That is totally fine with me. Enjoy the Catholic church or whatever your heart leads you to.

Sorry no honest person truly seeking the truth would buy this new and totally contrived Mormon argument. Joseph Smith Claimed the Papyrus scrolls he bought were the actual hand writing of Abraham himself. The foreword to the PofGP used to state that the book was translated from papyrus written on by the hand of Abraham himself. However as you mention above the LDS church now admits the original papyrus contains nothing about Abraham, some Mormon apologists have suggested that Joseph Smith may have obtained the Book of Abraham by way of direct revelation and not from the papyrus. Those who try to use this escape will find themselves trapped by the words of Joseph Smith himself. At the beginning of the handwritten manuscript, Joseph Smith asserted that it was a “Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs of Egypt.” The introduction to the Book of Abraham still maintains that it was “Translated From The Papyrus, By Joseph Smith” (Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Abraham, Introduction). If the Book of Abraham is not an actual translation of the papyrus, then it is obvious that the introduction to it that appears in the Pearl of Great Price is a complete misrepresentation. Joseph Smith not only claimed that he translated it from the papyrus, but according to the History of the Church, vol.2, p. 351, he affirmed that it was “a correct translation.”
The contents of the Book of Breathings are certainly foreign to the teachings concerning Ahraham found in the Bible. The Bible says he rejected paganism, whereas the Book of Breathings is filled with pagan gods and practices. The names of at least fifteen Egyptian gods or goddesses are mentioned on the “Sensen” papyri which Joseph Smith had in his possession, but there is not one word about Abraham.
The Mormon leaders face a serious dilemma. They cannot repudiate the Book of Abraham without raising the question of Joseph Smith’s ability to “translate” the Book of Mormon.
There are three references in the LDS History of the Church (cited hereafter as DHC) for the year 1835 which mentions the Grammar and Alphabet. They are as follows:

1. “The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in TRANSLATING an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.” (DHC Vol. 2:238 for July 1835; written in the year 1843)
2. “This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with bro. O. Cowdery and W. W. Phelps: the System of astronomy was unfolded.” (Diary of Joseph Smith, October 1, 1835, p.3; also in DHC Vol. 2:286)
   In 1843 the diary notation was expanded adding: “and during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter.” (“Manuscript History of the Church,” Book B-1, p. 622; also DHC Vol. 2:286)
3. “exhibited the alphabet of the ancient records to Mr Holmes and some others” (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 17, 1835, p. 45; DHC Vol. 2:316)
   Please Parker at least admit your earlier posting was completely erroneous wherein you claimed the Papyrus wasn’t even the one Joseph Smith translated from. Also please be honest enough to admit Joseph Smith wrote a book, (Joseph Smiths Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar) which the LDS church has in it’s possession wherein Joseph Smith muddled around and tried to decipher the Egyptian into english. Smith actually put a symbol in the left column of the page and wrote out his translation to the right. Some times he claimed that one symbol equaled dozens of words in English.
   Your claims and the claims made by the LDS church now that Joseph didn’t translate at all but rather he received a revelation would make you all far smarter, having more understanding than Joseph for he never claimed any such thing…

 

[mormonpro]

(shrug)

Well, the wholesale murder of innocents by the Catholic hierarchy, the selling of indulgences and the wealth-building of the church and the rampant nepotism that sometimes reigned in the church (nice trick, I thought, given that priests were supposed to be celibate…) hasn’t destroyed your faith in that. Why are you imposing a different standard upon us?

We claim that God is guiding us, through the priesthood and our leaders. If you don’t claim the same thing for your own belief system, then it begs the question of exactly who IS guiding it.

Double standards, there. Mote and beam. You know the drill…

While it is true some broke the laws of the church and Christ it was never dogma or official doctrine to do so. However the Mormon church today officially is responsible for the killing of millions of innocents President Gordon
B. Hinckley for the first time publicly announced the current position of the LDS Church on Abortion; “While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But such instances are rare, and there is only a negligible probability of their occurring. In these circumstances those who face the question are asked to consult with their local ecclesiastical leaders and to pray in great earnestness, receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding.” (Exact quote from The Ensign Nov.1998 pg.71 see also The First Presidencies General Handbook of Instructions pages 10-4 & 11-4)
In review of this statement we see that first, Mr. Hinckley denounces abortions and in the same breath makes allowances for what he denounces. Next he lists 5 cases (i.e. 1.rape 2.incest 3.Jeopardy to the life of the Mother 4. Jeopardy to the health of the mother. 5.Severe deformity.)
Remembering that only God can place a child in the womb for whatever purpose is known to him and that the purpose of an abortion is to bring forth a dead child, we ask, would Jesus tell a woman he allows them to kill a totally innocent child because someone injured them by rape or incest? Many Mormons argue devoutly for abortions where the mothers life is at risk, (while at the same time ignoring the other four cases their church allows) is it loving the child as she loves herself for a mother to ensure that her child dies because her life is at risk? Wouldn’t the council of other Christian Churches that if you are determined that the child must come forth do not kill it first, but rather bring it forth alive and give it every chance to live, uphold loving as we love ourselves? HEALTH is a term used by the abortion industry to uphold an abortion for virtually any medical or psychological reason. Roughly 95 percent of all abortions in Utah and nationwide are done using Therapeutic (Health) as a reason, In 1997 Utah had 3,054 of 3,140 total. (source; Utah Dept. Of Health, Bureau of Vital Records ph. 801–538–6301 free technical report). To those in the know, it is incredible that Mr. Hinckley would include health as a case for abortions his church allows. Would Jesus tell a mother he allows her to kill her innocent child because her health may be at risk?
Mr. Hinckley next makes allowances for a mother to kill her child if it is known to have serious defects, and he claims that the doctors know the child will not survive beyond birth? We ask, would Jesus tell a woman he allows her to kill her child now, because it may not survive 9 months? Is it loving The Child as our self? Is this how Jesus would have you treat the least of these? This is not a new concept, euthanasia (The concept that only the Healthy have a right to live as long as they will live) was also taught by Hitler and others who for their own purposes ignore the teachings of Christ in preference to their own. Amazingly, Mr. Hinckley suggests that people pray to God and receive a 'confirmation before proceeding. Would God give the confirmation that a parent should kill their own innocent child? Knowing that this has never happened and is strictly forbidden by the Holy Bible, isnt it obvious where Mormons are getting their instructions to kill their children from?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Stephen and Zaffiro,
Here is a good opportunity given your good mood and all, to ask a question I wondered the other day as I read about the pope’s Easter message and noted his age:
What are your predictions about who will be the next pope when he passes away (not that I think that will be any time soon. I assume he is in quite good health and all.)? Do you ever think about that? I notice the newspapers are quick to come up with “projections” after the passing of a pope. Do they have some basis in reality?

Well I have no predictions. I guess because I don’t think about it. After all most of my life we had the same pope And I suppose I trust it will be who it should be.

 

[TLara]

Let me get this straight: you admit to your history and claim to have learned from your errors, and this learning from those errors makes everything just peachy now.

Even though those errors resulted, quite literally, in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people; deaths that were quite often intentionally horrific.

But it’s OK now, because you admit that you did it, and have learned from it.

But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though it has done nothing to any where near the level that the Catholics have, are (insert any one of the very insulting and derogatory names you have used) because of the things that we used to do (like polygamy) but that we no longer do.

I think that’s a fairly accurate description of your position, is it not?

Wanna think about that a little bit?

Please show me any evidence were the Church was responsible for all these deaths!

 

[NewSeeker]

Even though those errors resulted, quite literally, in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people; deaths that were quite often intentionally horrific.

Which was it - was it hundreds of thousands or millions? Where and when did these hundreds of thousand, if not millions, of often intentionally horrific deaths occur? I’d like to see some documentation for your claims, including a list of events, timeline for the deed, and number of deaths per deed. Do you have that info or are you just repeating tired old Protestant canards about the inquisition? (the same way that Mormon leaders until the 1980s parroted Protestant justifications for slavery to justify the Mormon priesthood ban on males of African descent - they are children of Cain and Ham and therefore cursed).

NS

 

[StevieD]

(shrug)

Well, the wholesale murder of innocents by the Catholic hierarchy, the selling of indulgences and the wealth-building of the church and the rampant nepotism that sometimes reigned in the church (nice trick, I thought, given that priests were supposed to be celibate…) hasn’t destroyed your faith in that. Why are you imposing a different standard upon us?

We claim that God is guiding us, through the priesthood and our leaders. If you don’t claim the same thing for your own belief system, then it begs the question of exactly who IS guiding it.

Double standards, there. Mote and beam. You know the drill…

Thanks for acknowledging the strength of my argument - motes and beams and all!

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for acknowledging the strength of my argument - motes and beams and all!

uhmnn…huh?