No Crosses on Mormon Temples...

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

Champollian deciphered the Rosseta stone in 1822, way before 1836.

Since the manuscript is lost, we don’t know it was a funerary text now do we?.

You smoke screen some more:

*"The papyri were thought to have been completely destroyed in a fire in Chicago in 1871. However, eleven fragments of the scroll Joseph Smith was handling were rediscovered in 1967 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City (The Deseret News, Salt Lake City, November 27, 1967). Dr. Aziz S. Atiya, a professor of Arabic Studies from the University of Utah, made the identification, which was quite secure, since the back of the papyrus fragments were pasted down to paper with “drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area.” There was an affidavit from Emma Smith that these papyri had been in the possession of Joseph Smith. With the rediscovery of the papyri, not only were fragments of the original Egyptian text recovered, from which Joseph Smith was translating to create the Book of Abraham, but the original illustrations of the three facsimilies were now available to professional Egyptologists.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art de-accessioned the papyri, which were fragmentary, late (Ptolemaic period) and of very familiar Egyptian texts, thus of little value to a museum, and presented them to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."*

They were found, and deciphered, and they didn’t come close to meaning what Joseph Smith said they did.

 

[Lapsed]

mormon fool:

Champollian deciphered the Rosseta stone in 1822, way before 1836.

Which was simply the gateway to deciphering the heiroglyphics, not the whole enchilada.
mormon fool:

Since the manuscript is lost, we don’t know it was a funerary text now do we?

We do know because old Joe made the mistake of including those pesky facimilies, which have been translated by folk who can actually read heiroglyphics, and they simply do not agree with anything Joe claimed they say.
mormon fool:

Well if one considers 5 chapters to be “an entire book”. The Book of Abraham has been objectively demonstrated to recover previously lost but recently re-discovered ancient traditions about Abraham.

It is the Book of Abraham, so yes, it does constitute a book of Mormon scripture, just as does the Book of Jacob, or the Book of Helaman.
mormon fool:

Oops, I guess he was guided by God after all.

No, he wasn’t.

This is interesting. I’ve discussed the BoA with many LDS since I left their church, and I have yet to have one try to defend it as an authentic translation of the text. It has been thoroughly discredited on that front.

Most rationalize it as an inspired writing of Joseph’s which he mistakenly thought he was writing as a translation when he was receiving revelation. I still fail to see how a true prophet cold make that kind of mistake.

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

So instead of defending 2 Nephi as your “metaphor” idea. You attack me personally. Great job in proving me correct.

I wasn’t attacking you, I was warning you about an activity you were unwittingly engaging in. One that moderators do not take kindly too.

You haven’t advanced any arguments on why the passage you selected can’t be read metaphorically. How can I respond to a non-argument?

And what is with your ad-hominem attacks? Have you even engaged a single argument I have made today. All you do is jump from topic to topic, and then complain about me patronizing, gettin exposed, and double speaking, and telling half-truths, yet you have never demonstrated any of it.

I’ll keep posting it until you admit that it obviously meant skin color, and isn’t metaphorical:

Please substantiate why you think the text can not be read metaphorically.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

You smoke screen some more:

They were found, and deciphered, and they didn’t come close to meaning what Joseph Smith said they did.

There is no question that papyra from Joseph Smith’s collection were found. However they did not contain the Book of Abraham. John Gee estimated about 90% of the papyra is still missing.

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

Please substantiate why you think the text can not be read metaphorically.

–fool

“For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly white and delightsome•, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin• of blackness• to come upon them.”

I think only someone who truly NEEDS to believe something could read that metaphorically rather than literally. Lord knows your early church leaders, didn’t read it metaphorically. (as evidenced from quotes I posted, there’s literally thousands out there that show early Church leaders took that statement and the ‘curse of cain’ quite literally.

As far as your insults and threats, I will ignore them.

How are direct quotes from 2 Nephi that prove my argument, a “non-argument”. You seem only capable of arguing things that back you up. If I was simply so “amussing” and had no points I highly doubt you spend an entire day debating with me.

 

[mormon_fool]

Lapsed:

We do know because old Joe made the mistake of including those pesky facimilies, which have been translated by folk who can actually read heiroglyphics, and they simply do not agree with anything Jo[seph] claimed they say.

I agree that the facsimiles were translated a non strictly literal fashion by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith translated how Abraham interpretted the passages, not how Egyptians did. Abraham and Joseph Smith recovered the symbolic meanings behind the corrupted Egyptian iconography.

It is the Book of Abraham, so yes, it does constitute a book of Mormon scripture, just as does the Book of Jacob, or the Book of Helaman.

Techniquely you are right, but your former phrasing about an “entire book” isn’t correct because not all of the Book of Abraham got translated.

No, he wasn’t.

Was too. What is this kindergarten?

This is interesting. I’ve discussed the BoA with many LDS since I left their church, and I have yet to have one try to defend it as an authentic translation of the text. It has been thoroughly discredited on that front.

I don’t know what you are saying here about “the text”. I do know that most hold that “the text” is still missing. There are plenty of defenders who look at, say the facsimiles, and defend the translation as “authentic” but not literal. Kerry Shirts, Michael Rhodes, David Bovokoy, etc. Perhaps you are thinking more of catalyst theory people like Paul Osbourne or Terryl Givens. Nice try about being it thoroughly discredited.

Most rationalize it as an inspired writing of Joseph’s which he mistakenly thought he was writing as a translation when he was receiving revelation. I still fail to see how a true prophet cold make that kind of mistake.

I would only say some do this. I pretty well connected to know this.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

“For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly white and delightsome•, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin• of blackness• to come upon them.”

I see absolutely no substantiated reasoning that this should be read literally. The curse of Cain is an entirely different scripture (the Bible) that LDS interpreted like Southern Christians did, who tarred and feathered some LDS in Missouri when it looked like the LDS church was siding with abolitionists. How people have historically interpretted this passage doesn’t matter except Joseph Smith who may have special insight as a translator, and he obviously didn’t take it literal.
The skin of blackness was a metaphor for sin and apostasy. The curse was being “cut off” which is another term for excommunicated. Apostates are obviously unattractive to true believers. For more Hebraic use of the metaphor see Job 30:30. See also the story where Nephites pass themselves off as Lamanites during a spy operation. So obviously there was no discernable skin color differential.

As far as your insults and threats, I will ignore them.

Good because none were intended.

How are direct quotes from 2 Nephi that prove my argument, a “non-argument”

Because you need to show how the text forces us to read it metaphorically.

If I was simply so “amussing” [sic] and had no points I highly doubt you spend an entire day debating with me.

Yes it is pathetic of me , to do so.

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

Yes it is pathetic of me , to do so.

I will be bigger than you and skip the obvious easy cheap shot.

Of course I can’t FORCE you to take that passage literally. But anyone with half a brain can see quite easily that that passage is supposed to be taken literally.

So enough of your nonsense, your cheap shots, and insults, and your patronizing.

I’ve shown all the smoke screens TBM’s will use to back up obvious lies within your doctrine.

THAT’S why you’re arguing with me, and obviously angry, or else you would refrain from the personal attacks. It has nothing to do with “amusing you”. And everything to do with exposing your doctrine for what it is, and using your own religious book to do it.

 

[gryskull]

amgid:

The LDS Church has been restored by the living Christ, and it a witness to the reality of His life, that He yet lives, and has once more intervened in the affairs of men to restore His covenants and His gospel to mankind after the long night of the Apostasy. It testifies that Jesus is a living God, and is a God of miracles, and still reveals Himself to man and communicates with them now as He did in ancient times. The symbol of the cross, which signifies His death, is no longer an appropriate symbol to convey the reality of that glorious message of the Restoration to mankind in our time.

amgid

But that is what i was trying to point out. Because of His glory and power we were saved and that’s why we see the cross as our salvation and not as his death as your church sees it.

 

[amgid]

Mike_D30:

And here is what your book of mormon says:

"2 Nephi:

"Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will anot• hearken unto thy words they shall be bcut• off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were ccut• off from his presence.

21 And he had caused the acursing• to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and bdelightsome•, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a dskin• of eblackness• to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be aloathsome• unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And because of their acursing which was upon them they did become an bidle• people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."

Whether you want to talk about it or not, it is prevalent, you are trying to spin it by saying pure and delightsome, when given the mounds of info I provided is laughable…

OK, the Book of Mormon says that. What is your point? Are you suggesting that God would be a racist to say that, or that it would be inconsistent with God’s past pattern of behavior to act in this way? What is criticism you are trying to make?

amgid

 

[Mike_D30]

amgid:

OK, the Book of Mormon says that. What is your point? Are you suggesting that God would be a racist to say that, or that it would be inconsistent with God’s past pattern of behavior to act in this way? What is criticism you are trying to make?

amgid

My point was, you were setting a smoke screen that it meant ‘spiritual purity’. But when you look at your scripture in context it’s obvious it isn’t in a spiritual sense. But that the Lamanites were cursed with black skin because of their actions, so they wouldn’t entice the Nephites (i.e. find them atractive and mix their seeds), that is what prompted Brigham Young to claim anyone who mixes their seed with someone of color deserves death on the spot.

As far as if God would work in this way, that isn’t up to me to decide (I happen to think it was clearly put in because of prevailing racial ideas at the time, and that’s why it made its way into the book of mormon, but that’s my opinion yours is different which is fine). But I don’t want falsehoods about what the book of mormon says, passed along to people at this site, it’s dishonest.

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

OK, the Book of Mormon says that. What is your point? Are you suggesting that God would be a racist to say that, or that it would be inconsistent with God’s past pattern of behavior to act in this way? What is criticism you are trying to make?

amgid

amgid,

Please stop pretending that the Book of Mormon does not equate skin color with God’s favor, or lack thereof. It’s in there, plain as day. Lately, every attempt has been made to soften the doctrine taught in the book, but it’s still there to see for those who can be objective. I realize that the LDS Church is in no way overtly racist today. But can we please stop pretending that it was never so? It certainly was, right up until about 25 years ago. That said, I’m certainly glad they changed the doctrine that kept all the benefits and blessings of the church from those of african descent.

 

[FCEGM]

Tmaque:

amgid,

Please stop pretending that the Book of Mormon does not equate skin color with God’s favor, or lack thereof. It’s in there, plain as day. Lately, every attempt has been made to soften the doctrine taught in the book, but it’s still there to see for those who can be objective. I realize that the LDS Church is in no way overtly racist today. But can we please stop pretending that it was never so? It certainly was, right up until about 25 years ago. That said, I’m certainly glad they changed the doctrine that kept all the benefits and blessings of the church from those of african descent.

Apparently Spencer W. Kimball took the BoM at face value, too:

The day of the Lamanites in nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as white as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl- sixteen- sitting between the darker father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents- on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated." (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Day of the Lamanites,” The Improvemant, Era, Dec. 1960, p. 923)

 

[Mike_D30]

I was re-reading this topic, I can say I don’t like the tone in which I made a lot of replies. I apologize if I offended anyone Mormon or otherwise. However I do stand by the content of what I posted, just not the way I put it forth, again I apologize.

 

[dragonfly]

yes, the meaning of symbols can and do change, however, the perception of the “original” meanings seldom do!!

The Cross has ALWAYS identified w/ our salvation!! Through the blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, through his CRUCIFICTION(resulting in his death) and then his resurection!!
So then why use symbols they claim have changed and now mean this"""" and NEVER use the ONE AND ONLY SYMBOL that has NEVER AND WILL NEVER CHANGE!!

I find it similar that the pentagram displayed on one of their temples (in salt lake); that Joseph Smith was heavily involved in the Occult when he Founded Mormonism!! (which would expain the pentagram) But what do they say the meaning of it is today?? But if it meant ANYTHING other than CHRISTIANITY, EVER, then why the heck display it??

And the Sun Stone and the Moon Stones; similar in that Joseph Smith taught that there were inhabitants of the MOON and Brigham Young taught the same but of the SUN!!! Which would explain the Sun and Moon Stones!!

So why not use a symbol that explains their Salvation thru Jesus Christ?? Because they do not believe that his death is what saved us!! Which would mean, THEY ARE NOT SAVED!! But then they clearly tell us that yes, Jesus is their Savior.

 

[amgid]

gryskull:

But that is what i was trying to point out. Because of His glory and power we were saved and that’s why we see the cross as our salvation and not as his death as your church sees it.

I agree that through the suffering and death of Christ we have eternal life. That is not disputed. But the fact that He now lives, and has restored His Church on earth in the last days is of greater point of focus to us at the present time than the fact that He once died. Paul once wrote to the Corinthian saints that he was determined to “not to know any thing among {them}, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1Cor. 22). I know “Jesus, and Him resurrected”!

amgid

 

[amgid]

Mike_D30:

My point was, you were setting a smoke screen that it meant ‘spiritual purity’.

I was doing no such thing. In some contexts, it does mean literal skin color. In other contexts, it has both connotations. There is no doubt that in the Bible, it associates whiteness with inner or spiritual purity (see 2 Chronicles 5:12; Ecclesiastes 9:8; Song of Solomon 5:10; Isaiah 1:18; Daniel 7:9; 11:35; 12:10; Matthew 17:2; 28:3; Mark 9:3; Luke 9:29; Acts 1:10; Revelation 2:17; 3:4, 5, 18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:13, 14; 15:6; 19:8, 14; 20:11).

But when you look at your scripture in context it’s obvious it isn’t in a spiritual sense.

That depends on which text and which context you are looking at. In some contexts, it is clear that spiritual purity is understood, as in Jacob 3:8. In others it means more literally. In 2 Nephi 30:6, which is the verse which you hade specifically disputed, Joseph Smith obviously felt that the spiritual connotation was stronger than the literal one, therefore he changed it from “white” to “pure”. Well, so what? What is the argument you are making here?

But that the Lamanites were cursed with black skin because of their actions, so they wouldn’t entice the Nephites (i.e. find them atractive and mix their seeds), . . .

OK, it says that, so what? What conclusion do you intend to draw from that? Do you think that would make God a racist? Do you think that is inconsistent with God’s pattern of behavior in the Bible? What is your argument?

. . . that is what prompted Brigham Young to claim anyone who mixes their seed with someone of color deserves death on the spot.

Not at all. I don’t recall having read anything by Brigham Young that would lead me to that conclusion.

As far as if God would work in this way, that isn’t up to me to decide . . .

Yes, very wise! I shouldn’t if I were you!

(I happen to think it was clearly put in because of prevailing racial ideas at the time, and that’s why it made its way into the book of mormon, but that’s my opinion yours is different which is fine).

And you happen to be very wrong! The Book of Mormon is an inspired translation of an ancient record, and is a revelation and a book of scripture, translated by the gift and power of God, and is not influenced by the “prevailing racial ideas at the time”.

But I don’t want falsehoods about what the book of mormon says, passed along to people at this site, it’s dishonest.

What falsehood? You are the one who started spreading falsehood around like wildfire, not me.

amgid

 

[Mike_D30]

amgid:

I was doing no such thing. In some contexts, it does mean literal skin color. In other contexts, it has both connotations. There is no doubt that in the Bible, it associates whiteness with inner or spiritual purity (see 2 Chronicles 5:12; Ecclesiastes 9:8; Song of Solomon 5:10; Isaiah 1:18; Daniel 7:9; 11:35; 12:10; Matthew 17:2; 28:3; Mark 9:3; Luke 9:29; Acts 1:10; Revelation 2:17; 3:4, 5, 18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:13, 14; 15:6; 19:8, 14; 20:11).

You clearly were, and I wasn’t the only one to point it out, it wasn’t until I quoted and bolded the book of mormon you admitted it meant literal skin color.

OK, it says that, so what? What conclusion do you intend to draw from that? Do you think that would make God a racist? Do you think that is inconsistent with God’s pattern of behavior in the Bible? What is your argument?

Well I do believe the teaching to be based on race, seeing the book of mormon considers dark skin a curse. I don’t believe God to be a racist, so draw your own conclusion.

Not at all. I don’t recall having read anything by Brigham Young that would lead me to that conclusion.

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the AFRICAN RACE? If the WHITE man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the PENALTY, under the LAW OF GOD, IS DEATH ON THE SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110)
-Brigham Young "

Well now you have read something from Brigham Young stating that.

And you happen to be very wrong! The Book of Mormon is an inspired translation of an ancient record, and is a revelation and a book of scripture, translated by the gift and power of God, and is not influenced by the “prevailing racial ideas at the time”.

That’s your opinion, over a billion Christians do not agree with you.

What falsehood? You are the one who started spreading falsehood around like wildfire, not me.

Please post one falsehood I spread like “wildfire”, I know for certain I find several you posted:

Do Mormon’s have any American Indian converts? Did they turn “White and Delightsome” after converting?

You mean “pure and delightsome”. I am sure they have!

amgid

That’s one, as someone already Spencer Kinball sure thought it meant skin color.

You know just as well as I do that “pure” used to read “White” it was changed, one of many changes to the book of mormon. The so called most perfect book ever, (yet it was edited more than 4,000 times since the 1830 version).

I apologize if I offended you, but like I said I stand by what I wrote.

 

[dragonfly]

Mike_D30:

You clearly were, and I wasn’t the only one to point it out, it wasn’t until I quoted and bolded the book of mormon you admitted it meant literal skin color.

Well I do believe the teaching to be based on race, seeing the book of mormon considers dark skin a curse. I don’t believe God to be a racist, so draw your own conclusion.

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the AFRICAN RACE? If the WHITE man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the PENALTY, under the LAW OF GOD, IS DEATH ON THE SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110)
-Brigham Young "

Well now you have read something from Brigham Young stating that.

That’s your opinion, over a billion Christians do not agree with you.

Please post one falsehood I spread like “wildfire”, I know for certain I find several you posted:

That’s one, as someone already Spencer Kinball sure thought it meant skin color.

You know just as well as I do that “pure” used to read “White” it was changed, one of many changes to the book of mormon. The so called most perfect book ever, (yet it was edited more than 4,000 times since the 1830 version).

I apologize if I offended you, but like I said I stand by what I wrote.

In contrast to the racist stuff and what Brigham Young wrote:
In vol.7,pg290 he wrote: Negros have dark skin because they are cursed by God and are an inferior race. Also see Mormon Doctrine, 10th printing, pgs, 526-527, in which the general inferiority of the Negro is explained. This basic doctrine has not been changed!! The only difference between the Negro situation in Mormonism now and prior to 1978 is that he is entitled to certain privledges which were formerly with-held!!

This sounds very Racist to me!! I acknowledge that most Mormons today are not racist and place a heavy amount of happiness, sharing, and helping others and family values be kept high as their core morals. Which makes me question:

if the prophets from the book of mormon and their other Doctrines were said to have gotten their information thru “revelation” and they were men of God and they hold their prophesies to be true and correct, then why does the church say, yes, we do believe Brigham Young and his teachings, but not all his teachings! ???

So what, do they believe Jesus and his teachings but not all his teachings then?? Yes, because Jesus clearly said that he is God, (John 1:3,10).

So, if these so called “prophets” got their teachings from God himself thru modern day revelation, then why are they so evil??

 

[majick275]

So many topics… Let’s for the sake of our collective sanity organize these topics into separate threads. For this thread let’s focus on the LDS practice of not displaying crosses. THey like to believe that the restoration is as important as the crucifixion and that the payment for sins was done in gethsemane. They would also have you believe that the “atonement” has a lot of qualifiers on it so that some folks get a pass and others don’t even get forgiven when they repent. (of course there is th at blood atonement…) Christians venerate the cross because it is by that (the actual blood sacrifice of Jesus) we are saved. Mormons like to bring in a bunch of other stuff so that they can continue to tempt folks with becoming Gods.