Mormons... Seriously.... Why?

[MelanieAnne]

The history channel did an entire documentory on this called, “the Exodus Decoded.” And they found evidence of Hebrews living in Egypt which was documented in “the Search for the Red Sea Crossing.” They were builings familiar to traditional Hebrew housings.
We’re not asking for conclusive evidence, but the evidence we have contradicts what you claim; We’re not bothered by the fact that we can’t proove it, we’re bothered by the fact that it contadicts the evidence!

Hi Mr. Zetterlund,

Mormons have, just in my lifetime, abandoned many earlier tenets of their faith. Books on doctrine published even within the last couple of decades have subsequently been abandoned, at least in part.

To understand this, you need to understand the development of Mormonism. Initially, Mormonism was an abandonment of all other Christian faiths. Supposedly, their founder Joseph Smith received the message from God that he should not join any of the various Christian sects. Then Joseph Smith proceeded to introduce an entirely new faith.

So, at least in the beginning, Mormonism was a faith of REJECTION of other faiths. Their “scriptures” tell them that all other faiths are false and only Mormonism “restores” the correct faith.

Initially, in the process of introducing Mormonism, many very fantastic concepts were introduced. I don’t need to elaborate on these items as this forum is replete with discussions about them. Over time, many of these original concepts have been abandoned. And in more recent years the Mormons have sought to draw closer to other faiths, in direct opposition to their founding model of “rejection”, and have abandoned some of the more weird concepts in the process. Things that were previously taught as “doctrine” have been, at least, hidden, if not repudiated.

Today’s Mormons seek to join with other Christian faiths. There’s only one big HUGE theological problem and that is that their re-definition of God, which they have never entirely abandoned, is fundamentally different from other, mainstream Christian faiths. Unless and until they abandon their polytheistic (some would say henotheistic, but it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme) views, they cannot be accepted into the Christian community at large. This isn’t a social snub, it’s a matter of theology.

Myself? I have thought long and hard about a faith that would co-opt all the words and terms of faith, but give them new meanings. And often the differences are not explained to prospective members. I can only think of one source for that sort of thing.

 

[ParkerD]

The history channel did an entire documentory on this called, “the Exodus Decoded.” And they found evidence of Hebrews living in Egypt which was documented in “the Search for the Red Sea Crossing.” They were builings familiar to traditional Hebrew housings.
We’re not asking for conclusive evidence, but the evidence we have contradicts what you claim; We’re not bothered by the fact that we can’t proove it, we’re bothered by the fact that it contadicts the evidence!

Mr Zetterlund,
That is fine that the History Channel documented that Hebrews lived in Egypt. Did the History Channel also conclude that Joseph functioned as the Prime Minister for the Pharaoh, and was thus second in command? Did it also document that Abraham sojourned in Egypt, and was in close contact with the Pharaoh of the time?

My point was that I have seen writings of “Egyptian scholars” who say none of those events is documented in any history they have found.

Just because the Rosetta stone shows what a group of Egyptians in 200 BC believed about the meaning of the symbols on papyrus, does not show at all what those same symbols could have meant to other Egyptians 1,600 years earlier. Clearly, the Egyptians believed in life after death, and in needing to be prepared for that. There is no question that their beliefs evolved and changed as religious beliefs certainly do over the centuries, so why any supposed scholar thinks they have the precise meaning of a document that would have been written 1,600 years before the supposed translation source, shows pretty loose “scholarship”–but it works for them and keeps them in the camp of high regard by their peers.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Hi Mr. Zetterlund,

Mormons have, just in my lifetime, abandoned many earlier tenets of their faith. Books on doctrine published even within the last couple of decades have subsequently been abandoned, at least in part.

To understand this, you need to understand the development of Mormonism. Initially, Mormonism was an abandonment of all other Christian faiths. Supposedly, their founder Joseph Smith received the message from God that he should not join any of the various Christian sects. Then Joseph Smith proceeded to introduce an entirely new faith.

So, at least in the beginning, Mormonism was a faith of REJECTION of other faiths. Their “scriptures” tell them that all other faiths are false and only Mormonism “restores” the correct faith.

Initially, in the process of introducing Mormonism, many very fantastic concepts were introduced. I don’t need to elaborate on these items as this forum is replete with discussions about them. Over time, many of these original concepts have been abandoned. And in more recent years the Mormons have sought to draw closer to other faiths, in direct opposition to their founding model of “rejection”, and have abandoned some of the more weird concepts in the process. Things that were previously taught as “doctrine” have been, at least, hidden, if not repudiated.

Today’s Mormons seek to join with other Christian faiths. There’s only one big HUGE theological problem and that is that their re-definition of God, which they have never entirely abandoned, is fundamentally different from other, mainstream Christian faiths. Unless and until they abandon their polytheistic (some would say henotheistic, but it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme) views, they cannot be accepted into the Christian community at large. This isn’t a social snub, it’s a matter of theology.

Myself? I have thought long and hard about a faith that would co-opt all the words and terms of faith, but give them new meanings. And often the differences are not explained to prospective members. I can only think of one source for that sort of thing.

I actually know quite alot about Mormonism. However, I’ve found that Mormons aren’t so big on sharing too much with you. I know alot from talking with my Mormon friend.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Mr Zetterlund,
That is fine that the History Channel documented that Hebrews lived in Egypt. Did the History Channel also conclude that Joseph functioned as the Prime Minister for the Pharaoh, and was thus second in command? Did it also document that Abraham sojourned in Egypt, and was in close contact with the Pharaoh of the time?

My point was that I have seen writings of “Egyptian scholars” who say none of those events is documented in any history they have found.

Just because the Rosetta stone shows what a group of Egyptians in 200 BC believed about the meaning of the symbols on papyrus, does not show at all what those same symbols could have meant to other Egyptians 1,600 years earlier. Clearly, the Egyptians believed in life after death, and in needing to be prepared for that. There is no question that their beliefs evolved and changed as religious beliefs certainly do over the centuries, so why any supposed scholar thinks they have the precise meaning of a document that would have been written 1,600 years before the supposed translation source, shows pretty loose “scholarship”–but it works for them and keeps them in the camp of high regard by their peers.

You can’t honestly say that that’s rational thinking… If the symbols match, and the picture matches… then I think that’s it. I don’t think a ressurection story could so easily be double-translated as a story of an angry pharoh and Abraham…

REVISED EGYPTIAN!

 

[Bataar]

Regardless of how flawed the belief system of Latter Day Saints is, any Mormon who is sincerely and deliberately trying to live the covenants that they have made, is a person of honor and integrity.

Period.

In that sense they are good Christians.

By that logic, you can say Wiccans are good Christians.

 

[ParkerD]

You can’t honestly say that that’s rational thinking… If the symbols match, and the picture matches… then I think that’s it. I don’t think a ressurection story could so easily be double-translated as a story of an angry pharoh and Abraham…

REVISED EGYPTIAN!

Mr Zetterland,
First, the term “revised Egyptian” is your own set of words. The term used in the presentation was the term used by Joseph Smith, which was “reformed Egyptian” and was understood to mean a kind of “short-hand”. No surprise to find out that Egyptian “Hieratic” writing was a short-hand method of writing in the hieroglyphic style. So whatever one calls it, “reformed Egyptian” or Hieratic writing, one need not dismiss it as you have merely by mocking the term used to describe it. (But you could at least use the correct term even with your mocking.)

As to “rational thinking”, when one reads anything about the power struggles and power shifts within Egyptian history, and realizes that hieroglyphic writing was primarily a religious kind of writing, then it just doesn’t take a great deal of figuring to realize that one Pharaoh could decide to change the name of his “deity” and make everyone else comply with his wishes. The theory that a set of beliefs including the names of their deities would remain the same for 1,600 years is a stretch of imagination rather than compliant with strictly rational thinking, especially when the writing systems were changing during that time period.

If one begins with a premise that Abraham taught the Egyptians using hieroglyphics during his teaching, then moving from that premise through several iterations of meaning changes (i.e. changes from the original teachings as taught by Abraham), then one could end up anywhere with the resulting Rosetta stone meaning, and it would not need to match the original meaning at all. Especially is this so for pictographs such as many of the hieroglyphics.

 

[Xavierlives]

Mr Zetterland,
First, the term “revised Egyptian” is your own set of words. The term used in the presentation was the term used by Joseph Smith, which was “reformed Egyptian” and was understood to mean a kind of “short-hand”. No surprise to find out that Egyptian “Hieratic” writing was a short-hand method of writing in the hieroglyphic style. So whatever one calls it, “reformed Egyptian” or Hieratic writing, one need not dismiss it as you have merely by mocking the term used to describe it. (But you could at least use the correct term even with your mocking.)

As to “rational thinking”, when one reads anything about the power struggles and power shifts within Egyptian history, and realizes that hieroglyphic writing was primarily a religious kind of writing, then it just doesn’t take a great deal of figuring to realize that one Pharaoh could decide to change the name of his “deity” and make everyone else comply with his wishes. The theory that a set of beliefs including the names of their deities would remain the same for 1,600 years is a stretch of imagination rather than compliant with strictly rational thinking, especially when the writing systems were changing during that time period.

If one begins with a premise that Abraham taught the Egyptians using hieroglyphics during his teaching, then moving from that premise through several iterations of meaning changes (i.e. changes from the original teachings as taught by Abraham), then one could end up anywhere with the resulting Rosetta stone meaning, and it would not need to match the original meaning at all. Especially is this so for pictographs such as many of the hieroglyphics.

I too just finished watching the Book of Abraham video and I am just saddened. My heart goes out for this group of people because they so desperately want to keep it all together. On one hand, if they hide or discard the text, they will be under scrutiny. If they keep it they have to explain it. So, explain they try. The Mormons develop the Book of Abraham Project. The Mormon scholars develop a variety of theories to continue the fraud.

Theory 1 – the scroll fragments are no longer complete. The portion that Joseph Smith Translated is missing.

Theory 2 – The images in the Book of Abraham (drawn by Joseph Smith) have completely different meaning than other images which look nearly identical.

Theory 3 - Joseph Smith was not translating these scrolls but in fact was receiving inspiration for the Book of Abraham (even though months of journal writing by Smith say he was translating it).

Theory 4 – Mrs. Smith forged the documents. (or the documents are not authentic).

I guess I will always think like a jurist. I think in lines of things like “what would a reasonable person believe?” The problem is, looking at the evidence presented, it hard to believe there are so many faithful.

 

[ParkerD]

I too just finished watching the Book of Abraham video and I am just saddened. My heart goes out for this group of people because they so desperately want to keep it all together. On one hand, if they hide or discard the text, they will be under scrutiny. If they keep it they have to explain it. So, explain they try. The Mormons develop the Book of Abraham Project. The Mormon scholars develop a variety of theories to continue the fraud.

Theory 1 – the scroll fragments are no longer complete. The portion that Joseph Smith Translated is missing.

Theory 2 – The images in the Book of Abraham (drawn by Joseph Smith) have completely different meaning than other images which look nearly identical.

Theory 3 - Joseph Smith was not translating these scrolls but in fact was receiving inspiration for the Book of Abraham (even though months of journal writing by Smith say he was translating it).

Theory 4 – Mrs. Smith forged the documents. (or the documents are not authentic).

I guess I will always think like a jurist. I think in lines of things like “what would a reasonable person believe?” The problem is, looking at the evidence presented, it hard to believe there are so many faithful.

Xavierlives,
You didn’t list Theory 5 - Abraham had a certain meaning in mind and wrote on papyrus depicting his meaning, and there were other meanings developed over generations and centuries of time (1,600 years) for the same symbols, by people whose religious beliefs changed during that period of time and whose religious beliefs never matched Abraham’s beliefs.

I personally am glad for the Book of Abraham stumbling block, to act as another means of separating those who want to rely on “external evidence” and the world’s standards for “believability” from those who really, truly understand the divine witness of the Holy Spirit and the communication that absolutely, positively and precisely comes from God on high.

It becomes initially a test of motives and intent similar to what Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 3, and at the end of the day a test of whether the person has really come to receive the spiritual guidance and sure witness that accompanies revealed religion. It is another case of the applicability of Daniel 12:10. Only the “wise” (those with the wisdom of God and not relying on the wisdom of man) “will understand.”

 

[catholic-rcia]

Xavierlives,
You didn’t list Theory 5 - Abraham had a certain meaning in mind and wrote on papyrus depicting his meaning, and there were other meanings developed over generations and centuries of time (1,600 years) for the same symbols, by people whose religious beliefs changed during that period of time and whose religious beliefs never matched Abraham’s beliefs.

I personally am glad for the Book of Abraham stumbling block, to act as another means of separating those who want to rely on “external evidence” and the world’s standards for “believability” from those who really, truly understand the divine witness of the Holy Spirit and the communication that absolutely, positively and precisely comes from God on high.

It becomes initially a test of motives and intent similar to what Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 3, and at the end of the day a test of whether the person has really come to receive the spiritual guidance and sure witness that accompanies revealed religion. It is another case of the applicability of Daniel 12:10. Only the “wise” (those with the wisdom of God and not relying on the wisdom of man) “will understand.”

Parker, God does not play games with us. What he offers is clear. Heaven is clarity in its fullness.

Hell is a place of confusion. You live in eternity with nothing ever being quit right, where all the lines are blurred. As soon as you think you have a grasp on one thing it changes. Lies do this and they never ever come from God. There are simple truths the Christians have access to through the Holy Spirit. You have to be witnessing this here, more from the outside in for you, than the inside out. It hits your heart at Baptism. .

It’s not about winning an argument, where will that get anyone of us. Its all about Jesus winning another sinners soul. And it is not about any one of us as we are all sinners, Its all about Jesus! Everything is made for Him. It’s His body, It’s his Church, It’s his Sacraments, its His people, its His love, Its His truth ….Its are Hope.

Truth is always sweeter than what is not true. One side is dark the other is all lit up. The Cross…… one side is darkness the other side is all lit up. One side we have a Crucified Savior, the other side is empty. One side is sin defeated, the other side is heaven.

What keeps us from picking up the Cross in the end is pride and ego. Good people have this as well as the bad. Catholics have this as well as the LDS.

Put Jesus first and follow His truth and you will find the Treasure buried in a field, in the last place you thought you would find it. Doors will open and you will be changed forever. Authentic, hard core Christianity, confession and all. If you have the courage in humility take a few moments in a Blessed Sacarment Chapel. Wear Levis and a t-shirt and no one will pay you any mind.

God Bless
Truly your friend Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[MrZetterlund]

sigh Parker, I give up. I don’t mean to offend you, I didn’t say “revised egyptian” to mock Joseph Smith, I said it to display the lack of reson it would take to believe Joseph Smith. Honestley, why do you believe in him so much? He contradicts the Bible, history, reason, I think your mind is completely cultivated. I don’t think my faith in CHIST is even that strong. YOU MAKE ME QUESTION MY OWN FAITH. Am I THAT cultivated that I would believe so blindly?
(I’m scared of my own brain, now.)

 

[MrZetterlund]

Parker, God does not play games with us. What he offers is clear. Heaven is clarity in its fullness.

Hell is a place of confusion. You live in eternity with nothing ever being quit right, where all the lines are blurred. As soon as you think you have a grasp on one thing it changes. Lies do this and they never ever come from God. There are simple truths the Christians have access to through the Holy Spirit. You have to be witnessing this here, more from the outside in for you, than the inside out. It hits your heart at Baptism. .

It’s not about winning an argument, where will that get anyone of us. Its all about Jesus winning another sinners soul. And it is not about any one of us as we are all sinners, Its all about Jesus! Everything is made for Him. It’s His body, It’s his Church, It’s his Sacraments, its His people, its His love, Its His truth ….Its are Hope.

Truth is always sweeter than what is not true. One side is dark the other is all lit up. The Cross…… one side is darkness the other side is all lit up. One side we have a Crucified Savior, the other side is empty. One side is sin defeated, the other side is heaven.

What keeps us from picking up the Cross in the end is pride and ego. Good people have this as well as the bad. Catholics have this as well as the LDS.

Put Jesus first and follow His truth and you will find the Treasure buried in a field, in the last place you thought you would find it. Doors will open and you will be changed forever. Authentic, hard core Christianity, confession and all. If you have the courage in humility take a few moments in a Blessed Sacarment Chapel. Wear Levis and a t-shirt and no one will pay you any mind.

God Bless
Truly your friend Rich
www.utahmission.com

I would listen to her. I just read her post and am no longer afraid of my own thoughts. T.T Thank you for this.

 

[ParkerD]

sigh Parker, I give up. I don’t mean to offend you, I didn’t say “revised egyptian” to mock Joseph Smith, I said it to display the lack of reason it would take to believe Joseph Smith. Honestly, why do you believe in him so much? He contradicts the Bible, history, reason, I think your mind is completely cultivated. I don’t think my faith in CHRIST is even that strong. YOU MAKE ME QUESTION MY OWN FAITH. Am I THAT cultivated that I would believe so blindly?
(I’m scared of my own brain, now.)

Mr Zetterlund,
Peace to you. Joseph Smith was, in terms you may be able to understand, a teacher/prophet/leader. He taught how to connect with and have a relationship with God on a personal basis–not by merely relying on the Bible or historical evidence or what remote teachers have taught–but by having a direct and completely personal relationship with Him through the Holy Spirit and through coming to know Christ by following Him. That is what Abraham did. It is what Joseph, the great-grandson of Abraham, did. Read Hebrews 11, and you find a description of people who sought a relationship with God through faith and through revealed knowledge. Having that kind of knowledge, the history books that discount the story of Joseph in Egypt and the famine the brought his father and brothers there only to find that his life had been preserved miraculously, go by the wayside and one knows without a doubt that that experience was a true account from the Bible. Revealed knowledge becomes personal knowledge. Joseph Smith is then out of the picture, as far as needing to rely on the kinds of proofs you seem to wish for.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Mr Zetterlund,
Peace to you. Joseph Smith was, in terms you may be able to understand, a teacher/prophet/leader. He taught how to connect with and have a relationship with God on a personal basis–not by merely relying on the Bible or historical evidence or what remote teachers have taught–but by having a direct and completely personal relationship with Him through the Holy Spirit and through coming to know Christ by following Him. That is what Abraham did. It is what Joseph, the great-grandson of Abraham, did. Read Hebrews 11, and you find a description of people who sought a relationship with God through faith and through revealed knowledge. Having that kind of knowledge, the history books that discount the story of Joseph in Egypt and the famine the brought his father and brothers there only to find that his life had been preserved miraculously, go by the wayside and one knows without a doubt that that experience was a true account from the Bible. Revealed knowledge becomes personal knowledge. Joseph Smith is then out of the picture, as far as needing to rely on the kinds of proofs you seem to wish for.

Only if you read the first two verses of Hebrews chapter one.

 

[Texan77]

You wrote: “I’m going to try and be as charitable as I can”

This starts out with a lie does it not? It can be seen as you get into the first sentence.

Personally that’s as far as I read. I see no reason to continue reading. In this I know I will find common ground with the LDS here.

I hope you killed your own post here…

My suggestion would be to look deep into your heart and pray often
In Christ

www.utahmission.com

Thats a shame Catholic Rita - because if you actually read the opening statement in full it was quite good - I now look forward to reading the replies of any mormon which did so…

 

[Texan77]

For me, it’s a case of “so what?” I would never expect them to find conclusive evidence, as God does not work that way, nor do I wish that He would.

Parker I disagree - I believe we have plenty of conclusive evidence that supports my faith…

 

[Zundrah]

I was watching a Mormon documentory about “the Lost Book of Abraham” that Joseph Smith “interprited.” I give it two words:

EPIC. FAIL.

I couldn’t even finish the documentory, it was sooo sad. Mormons, I’m going to try and be as charitable as I can possibly be about this. Here’s how the story goes:

Once upon a time, Joseph Smith was traveling along and he met a merchant who sold him an ancient piece of Egyptian papyrus that was ten feet long, and he presented to his town as “the Lost Book of Abraham.” whoah… He claimed it was written in a language called “REVISED EGYPTIAN!” facepalm Now, after I heard this part I looked like this guy > But seriously, revised egyptian. I’m STILL stuck on that. Alright, now then, continuing on:
His congregation asked if he could interprit it, and he said he would. So he recorded the hyraglyphs in his journal, along with the picture which was of a man lying on a table, with another man standing over him with a knife extended over the man on the table. Which Joseph Smith interprited to be an angry Pharroh going after Abraham. Recently, in more advanced society, we happen to have had Joseph Smith’s “Book of Abraham” sitting in a museum. However, this papyre had the head of Pharroh ripped off, along with his hand that was holding the knife. The LDS church took it to Egyptologists to be translated. They replyed saying that it was difficult taking Joseph Smith’s claims seriously, since the picture was actually of the god Horus ressurecting Pharroh. The picture is a popular one in egyptology. They said it was hard to take him seriously because he turned a ressurection into an entirely different story, that being the story of Abraham and the angry Pharroh.
So after the LDS church find out Joseph Smith was completely wrong, they take it back to the museum and say, “It can’t be his, because the one Joseph Smith used was ten feet long.”
I was like… REALLY? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
The hyroglyphs on the papyre matched the ones recorded in his journal, and if Joseph Smith had no problems ripping the head and hand off of Horus then I’m sure he’d have no problem ripping a few feet off of the scroll! (Not to meantion it’s been through a fire.)
This is one of the points that Mormons complain that the “anti-Mormon” documentory didn’t touch on; whether or not the papyre in the museum was the same one Joseph Smith used. Mormons obcuse the video of being “anti-Mormon,” but the video doesn’t display any bias, and even shows the LDS church the benefit of the doubt throughout the documentory. The video is made to allow the viewer to decide for themselves. Here’s the film if you’re interested:

youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE

MrZetterlund,

Thank you for posting this. I found it fantastic. I already knew much of mromonism regarding its teachings, doctrine and err… heresies. But anyway, I liked your post. I want to thank you for getting something difficult and explaning it simply.

Hey, you are a Baptist!

I use to be a Methodist, not United Methodist, but just Methodist.

 

[Zundrah]

ParkerD:
Parker, how do you feel about this? I bet it doesn’t bother you at all? After all, faith is beyond reason as I’m sure we can all agree.

 

[Texan77]

Did the History Channel also conclude that Joseph functioned as the Prime Minister for the Pharaoh, and was thus second in command?

I am curious to understand the story behind this - that JS was a PM for the Pharaoh?

Did it also document that Abraham sojourned in Egypt, and was in close contact with the Pharaoh of the time?

What years did this take place?

My point was that I have seen writings of “Egyptian scholars” who say none of those events is documented in any history they have found.

Okay

Just because the Rosetta stone shows what a group of Egyptians in 200 BC believed about the meaning of the symbols on papyrus, does not show at all what those same symbols could have meant to other Egyptians 1,600 years earlier.

I am no language expert but I would think someone would have an intelligent answer to this question above…

Clearly, the Egyptians believed in life after death, and in needing to be prepared for that. There is no question that their beliefs evolved and changed as religious beliefs certainly do over the centuries, so why any supposed scholar thinks they have the precise meaning of a document that would have been written 1,600 years before the supposed translation source, shows pretty loose “scholarship”–but it works for them and keeps them in the camp of high regard by their peers.

The issue I and others have with LDS theology and history is that it contradicts so many things - but what great faith you have indeed…

 

[Texan77]

Xavierlives,
I personally am glad for the Book of Abraham stumbling block, to act as another means of separating those who want to rely on “external evidence” and the world’s standards for “believability” from those who really, truly understand the divine witness of the Holy Spirit and the communication that absolutely, positively and precisely comes from God on high.

Yet when the “external evidence” shows without any doubt that the LDS theology and history as recorded is false - we must admit those problems and issues

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
You didn’t list Theory 5 - Abraham had a certain meaning in mind and wrote on papyrus depicting his meaning, and there were other meanings developed over generations and centuries of time (1,600 years) for the same symbols, by people whose religious beliefs changed during that period of time and whose religious beliefs never matched Abraham’s beliefs.

I personally am glad for the Book of Abraham stumbling block, to act as another means of separating those who want to rely on “external evidence” and the world’s standards for “believability” from those who really, truly understand the divine witness of the Holy Spirit and the communication that absolutely, positively and precisely comes from God on high.

It becomes initially a test of motives and intent similar to what Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 3, and at the end of the day a test of whether the person has really come to receive the spiritual guidance and sure witness that accompanies revealed religion. It is another case of the applicability of Daniel 12:10. Only the “wise” (those with the wisdom of God and not relying on the wisdom of man) “will understand.”

Does it take wisdom of God to ferret out the foolishness of man?

I did not need this latest piece of the Mormon puzzle to convince me the whole doctrine of Mormonism is a house of Cards. The video exposes yet another problem, but it isn’t the first problem.

I started with something simple (the linchpin to Mormonism):

1. No man has seen God:
   a. God said it.(Exodus 33:20)
   b. Jesus said (John 6:46)
   c. John said it (John 1:18)
   d. Paul said it (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 5:16)
2. Joseph Smith said he saw God. History 1:17
   It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
   Now using wisdom God has given me, I see consistency in #1 and inconsistency in #2.
   If any man now has to explain the exception to God’s rule, there might be a problem. That man needs to show witness. According to Jewish law, he cannot testify for himself. Jesus offers a human witness, His Father as a witness, and the scriptures as a linear witness. This is all exceptionally important since

at LDS.org we read: “[The First Vision is] the most significant singular event in the world since the resurrection of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The First Vision is the very foundation of this Church, and it is my conviction that each member of this Church performs his duty in direct ratio to his personal testimony and faith in the First Vision” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1973, 102; or Ensign, Jan. 1974, 87).

But, if we are going to talk about the Book of Abraham, if I understand your argument, you are saying the symbols, which are consistent with an Egyptian Book of Death, is really the Book of Life? That although the Rosetta Stone can be used to decipher it today, that the Egyptians changed every meaning and purpose of those words so they mean something completely different. The preposterous nature of that thought is equivalent to the idea that someone reading my post from here, 1600 years from now will understand everything I say to be a recipe to make a chocolate cake.

And you believe there is wisdom in that?