Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
great post Tom. I agree to have seen God’s work in so much of our world. I’ve always thought it audacious for any church to claim to know the mind of God. I see so many philosophies and religions all claiming their path leads to the truth, always this truth at the end of the road. I sometimes wonder if the truth isn’t on or at the end of a certain path, but is the air all around us. There- that’s my Truth metaphor. I’m with Hawkgrrrl on the “golden pot” thing, definitely a stretch. What did you guys think of all the Bible content in the BoM? Its hard to pick up on when reading through the BoM, but when Palmer lines it up, I was really surprised to see all that. I know Christ would quote the scripture in the New Testament, but with the BoM, it’s quite different. I kind of feel like it makes the sermon on the mount a prepared campaign speech that Christ tours around with. I also found the story of the witnesses to be pretty strong as well. That Palmer was disfellowshipped was troubling to me, members are asked to bare their testimonies in public all the time. This book seemed to be the reasons behind his own. It’s unfortunate that the church has the power to judge which testimony is acceptable and which is not: kind-of destroys the whole purpose.
In general, Do you find yourself disputing the quotes and issues brought up in the book, or do you accept it and find a way to reconcile? I’m still new to a lot of this info so I’m still in ‘digestion mode’.
Really loved this book. Definitely gave me a much broader view and put all the foundational LDS beliefs in context with the time. I was really shocked at how massive a role polygamy played in the last years of Joesph’s life; it looked to be behind the excommunications and apostasies and even his arrest and murder. Also, the theology of becoming a god was really a keystone to so many of the church ordinances. My only criticism is that Bushman tends to be reticent about tackling certain tough subjects. In regards to the multiple versions of the first vision, he says Joseph merely left out certain parts in his initial account because he was afraid of what people would think of him. He doesn’t acknowledge that Smith’s official version could very easily have been a reaction to the apostasies of his witnesses and close brethren. And the official account of the first vision was told to solidify his stake as the divinely-elected leader of the church. But I suppose one can draw their own conclusions from the info alone. I certainly did, and learned quite a bit. Hey Lalalove, I take great wisdom from the words of Richard Bushman when he says he feels it would not be wise to leave anything that promotes goodness. If the Mormon church makes you a better soul, what’s wrong with that? God created mountains, fields and oceans. He did not create churches or temples. Don’t expect perfection, expect faults. Christ saved us because we need saving. That’s how I see it.
All churches have evolved. The Mormon church, more noticeably-so because it is so young. Unless the Second Coming occurs soon (a belief held by every single Christian church for the last 1800 years), there will be divisions in eras of theological evolution. We are imperfect and sometimes foolish and have good intentions that usually don’t lead us to the best of places. We must do our best with what we have. I seriously doubt God has revealed it
allto us. here’s the source for the dating of the papyri: Baer, Klaus (November 1968), “The Breathing Permit of Hor: A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham”, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3 (3),
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=1014&REC=11 I’ll find the source of the papyri dating and get back to you. I found it a while back. In general, I’m really not opposed to the ideas of the church, except for the polygamy commandment. I’m one of those ex-mormons that critiques the church when I’m not defending it from its aggressors. I still have a lot of love for it. I just can’t accept the “one true church” idea from such a sketchy origin. Actually, I don’t accept the idea in itself. But even if its validity is in question, it doesn’t change the fact that it guides people towards a very righteous path. Truth is tropes and tropes is lies.
The papyri was dated, it was found to be created 1,500 years after Abraham’s time. I take the whole PoGP as Smith’s thoughts on Abraham and Moses and his necessity to reinforce the new/restored form of priesthood along with all the other church ideas and policies outside of the actual Book of Mormon: temple ordinances, baptisms for dead, levels of heaven, eternal marriage and family, endowments, god-like powers, multiple worlds, word of wisdom, Adam is Michael, Noah is Gabriel, American locations of biblical stories, America as place of 2nd coming, plural marriages, exaltation ect… If one were to become Mormon by reading scripture alone, I think that person would be quite surprised to see what has been added to church doctrine.
I understand people’s acceptance of Smith using physical things as means for revelation, but the introduction to the Book of Abraham is, “A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. – The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” It does
notgo on to state, “…and what you are about to read has absolutely nothing to do with the content printed on these papyri”. Why claim that the papyri was the actual hand-written account of Abraham? They are claiming a historical discovery, not a miracle. Are we to believe the “translation” but not Smith’s account of its source?
Ya, I remember the National Geographic story pretty well. And I’m aware of Gnostic texts, the Book of Watchers(Enoch) is one, right? Interesting theory. Though the Muslim connection is new to me. There’s still the thought of the actual papyri; if Smith used it to translate cannon don’t mormons have a right to see the literal translation of the funeral text too, so as to compare? Its just weird that the one actual relic we find turns out to be a primer for translation whilst the actual plates, not found, were, of course, a literal translation. I think the church would benefit by taking a stance on all the translations as being symbolic. They would then be held to interpretive scrutiny rather than embarrassing moments of faltering historicity. By the way, thanks for the link to your blog, MormonHeretic
Wow, great replies. Really appreciate the insight. I actually just finished up “Rough Stone Rolling”, which has given birth to many more questions, and then i re-read the books of Moses and Abraham. I have to admit, pretty cool stuff. I don’t find the doctrine to be too conflicting. And yes, I see polytheism all over the Bible too, it’s not problematic for me since I tend to take all cannon as reprocessed through the imperfect mind of man. But this makes it hard for me to commit to the idea of a one true religion. An argument could be made that if the church were to ease off the literal interpretations, they could loose grip on the church as a large working organized entity. This is a bit off topic, but after bits of papyri were translated by egyptologists and found to be polytheistic funeral texts, the church had to alter its claims that the Book of Abraham wasn’t a direct translation. Include this with the fact that the golden plates were never actually used during translation, and that they were never literal seen by the witnesses, and you have to ask what importance do physical relics play in the church? Were they even necessary? Could Smith have received revelation without them around? How reliant are we on the facts of their physicality? Do we read the Book of Mormon, a physical written historical account, or are we reading a giant revelation to Smith? Did the restoration of the gospel come from the actual content in these physical sources, or by the sole fact that a miracle of revelation had occurred?
This is why the origins on the books of Moses and Abraham intrigue me. Why even mention papyri if its content isn’t applicable to the faith? I hope this makes sense to you guys. Thanks
Maybe you should just relax a bit. Religion is only as complicated as you make it. In my view the purpose of religion is to allow you to be a part of a greater purpose. Does it make you feel good, are you a better person for it? Can you accept any faults of the church as man-made error or is the church just wrong in it’s doctrine? Does is deter your faith? I personally don’t accept the church as completely true, and therefore don’t follow it, but I can tell you I’ve felt the spirit just as strongly outside of it. The more I’ve read and searched, the stranger my testimony has become. If I were you I’d get used to being unsure and frustrated, faith takes time.
Plenty of wisdom in these replies. I appreciate it. I guess this all stems from the notion of Jesus and the Apostasy being so close together, never really seemed right to me. Mormons, above most other Christian faiths, place more value on the words and actions of Jesus than on the atonement. Seems strange that man would loose his way so quickly after such a momentous event. How do we know that we haven’t done the same with the restored church and the moments of revelation from Smith?
