This is Richard Dawkin's talk from yesterday's Reason Rally in Washington DC. He makes several good points, but the one that stuck out to me the most was when he told people that they should challenge someone when they say they're religious. The example he gave is when someone says they're Catholic, ask them if they really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer that it actually turns into the body of Christ, or that the wine actually turns into his blood. So, this post will be dedicated to me asking any of my reader base who are religious, do you really believe what your religions teach?
For those who are Christian (any denomination thereof),
- Do you really believe every word of the Bible to be the word of god? If so, read every word of the Bible and then come back and answer the question again.
- Do you really believe that a snake tricked Eve into eating fruit that made her suddenly unfit to live in the paradisiacal garden god had just made for her?
- Do you really believe that one man built a boat big enough to fit two of every single species of animal on the Earth?
- Do you really believe that an all-powerful, loving, compassionate, and forgiving god would kill his only son in the most horrific way imaginable just to allow himself to be able to forgive other people for doing bad things?
- Imagine two people who both live good lives--they help other people, sacrifice their time and money for the benefit of mankind, and treat everyone well. Do you really believe that one of them would be admitted into heaven and the other not admitted simply because he failed to be sprinkled or doused in water?
- Do you really believe that someone cannot be a truly good person without believing that Christ is the savior of the world?
- Do you really believe that you're making an impact on the world around you when you pray? That saying "bless the starving children in Africa" will make their bodies any less malnourished?
- Do you really believe that a god who loves all people would command one of his followers to kill his own son, just to test his loyalty? And do you really believe that the satisfactory answer to such a request is "Sure thing", rather than "Hell no!"?
I don't know too much about other religions, so I'll only go on to ask Mormon-specific questions now (and yes, Mormons are Christian, so the first 7 apply to you too--except #1, gladly Joseph Smith didn't try to say that the Bible was infallible). So, for those who are Mormon,
- Do you really believe that the Book of Mormon is a factual, historical document? That two entire civilizations existed here in the Americas without leaving a single archeological scrap of evidence behind?
- Do you really believe that the masonic rites that Joseph Smith took from the freemasons and introduced into Mormonism will help you in your path toward exaltation?
- Do you really believe that an all-knowing god will require you to give secret handshakes and passwords to prove that you're worthy to enter heaven?
- Do you really believe that your underwear will save you from the bad things of the world?
- Do you really believe that god cares about what kind of underwear you wear?
- Do you really believe that touching your own genitalia is bad but having your spouse touch your genitalia is okay?
- Do you really believe that an omnipotent being who created the universe is as obsessed with sex as Spencer W. Kimball was?
- Do you really believe that the burial records that Joseph Smith bought from a travelling merchant (which can also be found all over Egypt) contained information about Abraham?
- Do you really believe that a god who promotes and encourages love will be angry at a man loving another man? Or a woman loving another woman?
- Do you really believe that god has just enough mercy to let you get baptized on behalf of a deceased person but not enough mercy to simply not require baptism to get into heaven?
Think about it. Think about your beliefs. Tell me if you really do believe all of this ridiculous nonsense.
Update. At the request of my friend, I offer the following modified list of questions for Mormons, together with documentation to the official LDS website indicating that the belief in question is indeed official LDS doctrine. I have left the original list so that the discussion below makes sense to any who wish to read it.
Update. At the request of my friend, I offer the following modified list of questions for Mormons, together with documentation to the official LDS website indicating that the belief in question is indeed official LDS doctrine. I have left the original list so that the discussion below makes sense to any who wish to read it.
- Do you really believe that your god holds you under condemnation (as a member of his church) because you do not have a sufficient level of emphasis on the Book of Mormon? (See "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" and more specifically D&C 84:54-58)
- Do you really believe that the Book of Mormon is "a gift of greater value to mankind than even the many wonderful advances we have seen in modern medicine."? (The Book of Mormon--Keystone of Our Religion)
- Do you really believe that "You are never lost when you can see the temple."? (Sacred Homes, Sacred Temples)
- Do you really believe that "how one wears the [temple] garment is the expression of how the individual feels about the Church and everything that relates to it."? (The Temple Garment)
- Do you really believe that the temple garment is a "protective covering for the body"? (also in The Temple Garment)
- Do you really believe that "Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality."? (President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality)
- Do you really believe that "Dating and especially steady dating in the early teens is most hazardous. It distorts the whole picture of life."? (same article as #6)
- Do you really believe that the Book of Abraham was actually written by the hand of Abraham while he was in Egypt? (Book of Abraham)
- Do you really believe that homosexuality is a "gross sin" (see the above article from President Kimball), that "homosexuality is not innate and unchangeable", and that factors that affect a person's sexual orientation "may include temperament, personality traits, sexual abuse, familial factors, and treatment by one’s peers"? (see When a Loved One Struggles with Same-Sex Attraction)
- Do you really believe that god requires all people to be baptized in order to be saved and yet he allows people to be baptized vicariously for others? (D&C 128)
Wow. I didn't realize
ReplyDeleteA.) Dawkins advocates complete intellectual dishonesty and
B.) You are so easily persuaded to engage in it.
Keith, can with 100% intellectual integrity maintain that your 1-10 list for Mormons in no way slanders or misrepresents what LDS people believe? If so, can you find links on lds.org or any publication with the church's official seal that show these are the Church's positions?
If not, can you be honest enough to put a disclaimer that you cannot? I love you Keith and don't try to make calling out intellectual dishonesty as being an attack on our friendship.
Dawkins advocates challenging false claims and so yes I am challenging you: for every one of you 1-10, show an official declaration that we believe the question as you posed it. If these questions are as common and offical as you suggest they are this should not be so hard.
But if you can't can you explain to your readers why you cannot? Thanks. And again, I hope keeping you intellectually honest does not mean I do not view you as a friend.
Anyways, to answer your question I can easily speak for nearly all LDS people and give an emphatic: NO! We do not believe those things.
ReplyDeleteThere is as much slander and intellectual dishonesty in that list as there would be if I went up to a Ron Paul supporter and asked:
1. Is it true that you think Anarchy is the only solution to our problems?
That question misrepresents the minimal government and freedom message Ron Paul actually espouses as much as your list misrepresents the views of the Church. If I am wrong, please provide some links and prove it!
Tell me, Joe, which of the 10 are you challenging? All of them? I'll go through them one by one and we'll see how inaccurate I'm being here.
ReplyDelete1. Are you telling me that the church does not claim that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and completely true? Are you saying that it actually admits that it's a fictional document, rather than a historical one? How about Article of Faith #8?
2. Obviously the church doesn't admit anywhere on its site that the temple ordinances are actually masonic rites. But that doesn't mean that they aren't, it just means that the church doesn't want to admit it. Go study freemasonry (even become a member if you like) and then tell me that there are no similarities. This may be a good starting point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry
3. Again, this isn't on the church's official website because they don't talk about temple ordinances outside of the temple. You know this. But, having been to the temple, you also know what the endowment session is. It is precisely the ordinance of teaching members what secret handshakes and passwords they need to get through the veil and into the celestial kingdom. Do you deny this? How about this very famous quote from Brigham Young? “Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.” Sounds like you need secret passwords and handshakes to me.
4. I believe the wording is something to the effect that it will "serve as a shield and a protection to you inasmuch as you do not defile it." Tell me, do you deny this?
5. How about the temple recommend interview questions. I believe it is question #12.
6. Really? You're telling me that you doubt that the church teaches that masturbation is bad? Take your pick of articles that discusses the matter. http://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=masturbation
7. President Kimball had very radical views about sex. Are you challenging that? He said that prior to marriage, making out was inappropriate. He also sent out a letter to all the bishops in the church telling them that they should discourage members from engaging in oral sex. Here's just a small example of what he's said on the matter. http://www.lds.org/search?query=sexual+purity&lang=eng&clang=eng&advanced-author=spencer+w+kimball&collection=global-search
8. Are you telling me that the church no longer purports that the Book of Abraham is canon? It's certainly still on the church's website as scripture, so I would assume that means they're still teaching that it's canon. The papyri have been translated by actual Egyptologists and are nothing more than what you might find in any other sarcophagus. Just rudimentary burial records. And they're about Egyptian gods, not Christian ones.
9. You want evidence that the church teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful? Really? Come on, Joe. http://www.lds.org/search?query=homosexuality&lang=eng&clang=eng&collection=global-search
ReplyDelete10. You deny the principle of baptism for the dead? Or you deny that the church teaches that baptism is essential for salvation? I think both doctrines are pretty clear, and have never at any time been questioned by any leader of the church. But, if you want proof, here it is. Both statements in the same article. http://www.lds.org/study/topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng&query=baptism+essential
Now, is that sufficient Joe? Have I left anything out? What challenges do you still bring? I'll be happy to provide more evidence until you're satisfied. You're the one who's being dishonest here, by pretending that the church doesn't teach things which it clearly does teach.
If you tell me that you don't believe any of that rot (including the 1-8 on the first list that you seem to have skipped over), then I am extremely relieved. I hope no one believes any of that ridiculous garbage.
ReplyDeleteAlright Keith, if you are willing to put your public honor and integrity on the line, after having grown up LDS, and maintain with 100% conviction that in no way is your list being disingenuous and misrepresenting the official positions the Church has... then there is no point discussing the matter with you any further.
ReplyDeleteAgain, by analogy: Find me a die hard Ron Paul supporter who falls away and blogs that the official Ron Paul message is "the only solution all to the world's problems is complete and total anarchy" and defends it by duct taping various wikipedia and other links out of context and you would feel like there is nothing you can do for that person either.
You wanted answer's to the questions. The answer is an emphatic NO neither the church nor its members believe those things!!!
We don't believe any of those things as much as a serious Ron Paul supporter does not believe total anarchy is the solution to all the world's problems. Someone may duct tape together some quotes around the internet and spin them that way... but if for years they supported Ron Paul *they definitely know better*!!!
By the way Keith just so that I am not mistaken: I have known you for years and you are someone with the upmost honesty and integrity and let nobody think I am saying for sure otherwise. I am just so confused after for years hearing you state in my presence the positions with the church with sure clarity in the past how it is possible to do so so badly now.
ReplyDeleteAgain going back to Ron Paul. It is like campaigning with person X who so elegantly explains the benefits of freedom and minimal government to a few years later try to write off the entire Ron Paul platform as complete anarchy. It just doesn't make sense... It makes sense to hear "I don't believe in freedom and minimal government anymore like I used to" but it doesn't make sense to hear "I can't stand for complete anarchist principles" when nowhere was Ron Paul preaching anarchy. Somehow something has gone very wrong!
And I guess I am just trying to understand what has gone so wrong where one day you can explain the LDS positions so elegantly and the next day mix them up as much as saying Ron Paul wants complete anarchy is mixed up.
I find your comments entirely typical of those of the Mormon who would try to defend his own religion. You claim that everything I say is false and yet you offer not one shred of evidence to prove me false. You do not try in any way to offer corrections to any of the statements I have made. You assert that I have taken truth and spun it so that it is incorrect, and yet you have not indicated one single example of any truth to which I have done this. You are certainly welcome to edit any of the statements I have made, offering more correct renditions of them if you feel that any of them are false. You have not yet done so, but know that I welcome such criticism all the time. Know that I differ from the LDS church in one main way: I am interested not in preserving my own self-image, but in the actual truth. If I have said something wrong, I would like to know so that I may correct it. Therefore, if you would like to correct anything I have said, you should do so. You have not done so. You have merely attacked my character and my integrity. You have offered a false analogy, but nothing more. I don't mind people attacking my character. I know my own character, and I know that I am man of integrity regardless of what others might think of me. I don't find it to be a rather friendly move to attack someone's character, which is why I am surprised to see it coming from you (a man whom I consider to be a friend).
ReplyDeleteI have defended every one of my statements--many of them with, as you requested, official statements from the church's own website. You have not rebutted any one of them. Does this mean that you refute all of them universally? Is quotation from the church's own website insufficient for you? If so, why did you ask for such in the first place?
1.) " yet you offer not one shred of evidence to prove me false. "
ReplyDeleteWhen you claim Mormons believe X when Mormons tell you blatantly they don't *you* are under the burden of proof. Not us. When a scientist proposes a theory *he* is under the burden of proving the theory, not the one saying he is skeptical of the theory.
2.) "you have not indicated one single example of any truth to which I have done this."
Every single example is wrong in some way or another. Should I list the whole list?
For example, you claim you provided a link to the claim that we believe "god who promotes and encourages love will be angry at a man loving another man? Or a woman loving another woman?" Nowhere does your link say this! There are men in my life I feel love for and there are women in my wife's life she feels love for. Our Bishop tells us all the time he loves us.
Now you probably meant "The LDS church is against homosexual marriage". But that isn't what you wrote! For some reason you take principle X and rewrite as if we believe principle Y and then claim you have proved it with a link that backs Y not X.
This is classic straw man at it's best!
This is what you have done in *every* instance. This is the definition of misrepresenting the Church's positions. You take X which we believe, modify it to Y which we *do not* believe and claim we believe Y which is not true.
3.) "Does this mean that you refute all of them universally?"
This proves on a psychological level you know there are errors to your claims. You would only use the word "universally" if you know the only way you can win is if some hint of truth somewhere is at least partially correct.
How about this Keith because then we will both be happy. Put actual quotes from lds.org on you 1-10 list and ask if Mormons believe those quotes.
ReplyDeleteAgain if you have nothing but truth to uphold, and you think somehow we believe these bizar claims, why not do just this? Why not cut and paste exact quotes from lds.org and ask "Do you believe these?"
Then there is no problem with misrepresenting the Church's positions. You can find something on lds.org that you disagree with right? So what is the harm in doing this? Could you be scared that unless you reword positions people won't be as shocked and scared as if you quote the Church directly?
If I was going to attack Dawkins I would do this. I would attack his own exact words. I don't feel that I have to take his words and then rewrite them in my own words and then claim those rewritten positions come from Dawkins.
ReplyDeleteThat would be the intellectually honest thing to do. So why not find 10 exact quotes from lds.org, past them without rewriting them, and then ask if we believe these things?
Then you do indeed have a double standard, Joe. Because when you were attacking the words of Hitchens from when I posted his video on here, you certainly did not stick to quoting the exact words that he said. You paraphrased what he said when you were attacking it. But, to appease you, I will do as you ask. I will use direct quotes from LDS.org and I will ask questions based on those. Give me a bit of time to do this. Your doctrine is ridiculous enough without anyone trying to twist it or skew it. So, I will make it as close to the church's official page as you like.
ReplyDeleteBut, concerning the burden of proof argument you gave, I gave you evidence. I gave you quotes from LDS.org that you asked for, and you said nothing--absolutely nothing--concerning any of them. You are incapable of refuting any of the evidence I have provided, therefore it should be considered valid. Once I have offered evidence to support my cause (which I have done), it becomes your burden to refute the evidence with fact and logic. You have done neither. You haven't even addressed one of the 10 points of evidence I offered to support my original list.
And also one last time because I am really not trying to make this personal and I promise I really view you as a friend despite how badly I word things: Keith you have never ever ever been someone to be dishonest or not have integrity. I am sorry I carelessly add those words to my posts as I really don't think you are anything more then a highly upright solid person.
ReplyDeleteI am just confused as I have suggested in my post above. But my confusion does not mean you are a dishonest person so I just again want to put out in the open publicly so that nobody questions this. You are in fact one of the best people I have known and was one of my best friends at BYU and so I am struggling to say "I am confused and surprised you write X and Y when I know from experience you know better" while at the same time not dissing you.
I do error here and I am sorry.
"you said nothing--absolutely nothing--concerning any of them."
ReplyDeleteI didn't point out that your link to the idea men can't love other men doesn't say what you says it does as an example? Not sure where this "absolutely nothing--concerning any" talk is coming from.
And what is mildly hilarious, if anyone tried to look at the lds.org links you made, they will find they are just random searches! Not a single quote is pointed to. This is like trying to prove democrats hate the Iraq war by providing a link to a google search for "Democrats and war".
ReplyDeleteA google search proves nothing! Someone actually wanting to make the case democrats are against something like the Iraq War * usually* does better then provide a nebulous google search. They usually link an exact quote to an exact page to an exact written official document.
You know you have not provided *any* such links of this form. Just nebulous searches on LDS.org with not a single article in said searches backing your claim. So it is mildly entertaining to see what you consider proof. :)
For example, this is your proof on President Kimball being obsessed with sex: http://www.lds.org/search?query=sexual+purity&lang=eng&clang=eng&advanced-author=spencer+w+kimball&collection=global-search It is just a search for "sexual purity"!!!! Not a single quote or page or anything official is cited!
Is this what is done in mathematics communities these days? A Google search on a random topic proves your claim QED? :)
I know this is a blog not a math journal... but if you are going to throw around the words "proof" you might want to do better then link a search engine!!!
Again by analogy:
ReplyDeleteEx-Ron Paul Supporter: Ron Paul thinks the solution to the world's problems is anarchy.
Current Ron Paul Supporter: No he does not!
Ex-Ron Paul Supporter: Yes he does: /link to Google search for "Ron Paul and Anarchy". There. I have proved my case so now you are under the burden of proof to show I am wrong.
Current Ron Paul Supporter: Seriously? No exact quote from an exact referenced page to an official Ron Paul document? Mildly amusing to state you have proved anything the least.
Keith. Okay, how about we call a truce. You don't have to modify any of your points if you don't want. I said what I think LDS people actually think about you list and this should be all that matters. You point was to ask LDS people if we believe such and such and you now know your answer: No, we do not!
ReplyDeleteSo now that you asked and obtained an answer to your 10 questions and we have both said whet we felt needed to be said lets just call it a day.
You always do good work with this blog and for better of worse I have a hard time not trying to correct things that I feel have been misrepresented. But we had our battle for today and so let's just leave it at that.
I do love you Keith despite your belief that we believe the "god who promotes and encourages love will be angry at a man loving another man" and therefore wish you a good day and good luck with school. Hopefully you will be graduating semi-soon?
Joe, the purpose of the searches was to show you that there are plenty of pages on the church's site that say exactly what I listed herein. I am perfectly aware of the fact that they are searches, not specific articles. The purpose in doing that is to indicate to you that there is not just one specific place where the doctrine is taught, but there are myriad places. You seem to be denying the doctrines of the LDS church--doctrines that I know and understand very well because I was a Mormon for 27 years. It was completely deliberate. And yet, you don't see me throwing around insults toward you about "that's how physicists think" or "I guess that's what they teach physics majors these days" to try to discredit you without actually addressing the issues being discussed. That may work with you, but that's not how I roll. I'm not going to just attack your character and say you don't have any clue what you're talking about, like you have done with me. I'll actually talk about the particular matters being discussed--the doctrines of the LDS church. Your academic background and your personal character are irrelevant and do not pertain to the discussion. I'm saddened to see that you seem to think that my character and my academic background are relevant. I would hope that you would be more objective than that.
ReplyDeletePart 1:
ReplyDeleteKeith,
Alright this is much better and it is a statement to your character that you were willing to put forward this update. I realize you won't like my answers but since your goal seems to be you want to know what LDS people feel about these questions then at some level you should be happy to find out.
1.) I understand the wording of D&C 84 uses the word condemnation, but I am going to still say not exactly. You are "condemned" in the sense that the Book of Mormon contains eternal truths that if you were to reject you are in a less-desirous state. In that sense you are "condemned".
For example, loving and caring for your fellow man as the Book of Mormon teaches usually enriches your life. To reject that doctrine is to bring condemnation on yourself in that if you choose the wrong side of an eternal principle it is going to come back to haunt you. In that way you are condemned by rejecting the principles taught in the Book of Mormon.
2.) Yes in context. The principles espoused in the Book or Mormon, like love, honesty, loyalty, sacrifice, integrity, benevolence, pursuit of knowledge, etc... have been the bedrock of civilizations. You can't say that about modern medicine. For example, if we had penicillin and yet no honesty we would crumble as a society. And the Book of Mormon more clearly then any book expands on how important these eternal principles are that create a Zion-like people.
3.) Again, in context yes. The statement is symbolical. As the source goes on to say: "The temple will provide direction for you and your family in a world filled with chaos. It is an eternal guidepost which will help you from getting lost in the “mist of darkness.”"
This is exactly true. Being worthy to hold a temple recommend and actively going to the temple causes immense blessings and helps guide you down a path of happiness. It does help you "keep your way" in this sense. There are studies galor we can discuss on this with interesting findings on how temple marriages last longer then all other in modern times and LDS temple goers have the highest scores on international indicators of well being but I won't discuss these now.
4.) Does wearing a wedding ring proudly reflect how you feel about your marriage? Of course it does so in the analogous sense yes.
Part 2:
ReplyDelete5.) Sure. Given the garment helps you remember to keep your convenants, and since your convenants keep you safe, yes. A->B, B-> C => A -> C. For example, remembering I have covenanted that all relations will stay between me and my spouse keeps me and my marriage safe and since that garment helps me remember that covenant yes... it also helps keep both me and my marriage safe as well.
6.) It's hard to say for sure. The wikipedia says research suggests excessive masturbation while young may be a symptom of a more serious problem. Then links to Hypersexuality. I guess President Kimball and I need to have a talk between the difference between causation and correlation but if someone as a youth exhibits excessive masturbation it could be linked to something more serous. Though I will admit I am not an expert.
I'm sure President Kimball saw a pattern and spoke out about it. But it is true patterns of correlation may not be patterns of causation.
7.) There are studies galor of people being overly intimate at too early stages in life have issues.
8.) Who else could it have been written by? I suggest you read "One Eternal Round" by Hugh Nibley and explain how it is possible for Joseph to have gotten so much right about ancient Egypt. There are things like word analysis patterns conducted by non-mormons and details about culture etc... that suggests these books could not have been authored by Joseph Smith. So if not Joseph or Abraham, who?
I will also suggest another book: "By the Hand of Mormon". This is a scholarly book published by the non-Mormon Oxford press. This book gives references to scholarly articles that have concluded that neither Joseph or Oliver or other contemporaries could have written the Book of Mormon using a variety of techniques used by the academic community to rule out authors of other ancient documents.
This doesn't prove the Books are true but my point is it is very interesting to surmise where these books came from if you don't believe that they came from where Joseph said they did. You have to build up any working hypothesis, like Joseph just wrote it himself, that fits with the conclusion of studies and yet no theory beyond Joseph's claims thus far does. It is true none of these studies conclude the book is what Joseph says it is but they all conclude the books resemble ancient texts and not Joseph's. This is interesting!
So again, *I* am willing to point to a scholarly book written by a reputable non-Mormon scholarly press pointing to peer-reviewed non-Mormon articles on the subject. If there is a critique of this point I hope it points me to other scholarly sources published by another scholarly press. Don't fight books published by the Oxford press under peer review with some Wikipedia quote!!!
9.) I think this one is internally debated by the Church more then your blog gives on. There is a reason you are quoting a President who died over 20 years ago, moden Presidents of the Church have not said what President Kimball has said and that needs to be admitted.
That said, the current President has said we stand against homosexual marriage and though there is some internal debate in the church, it is fair to say the official position of the Church is against homesexual marriage. That said, I think the official position of the Church is a little different then President Kimball said over 20 years ago.
10.) Well, Christ did say strait is the gate and narrow is the way. For better or for worse the path He laid down is not an "anything goes" doctrine. Fortunately it has been revealed that those who died without being able to partake of baptism can still do so. This is a more accommodating doctrine held by many Christian churches that they are just "lost" and that is the end of the story. The great news is there has been a way provided for everyone.
I wil just reiterate one last thing about #8. It is fine to say you don't believe Joseph Smith. But if the book didn't come about like Joseph said it did, it is helpful if you offer an alternative theory. The amazing thing is almost no alternative theory works. If you think Joseph's story is hard to swallow, so are the alternatives.
ReplyDeleteFor example, let's pretend you suggest Joseph just wrote the book like a charlatan as a teenager. Fine, buy how can Joseph write a book where the word patterns do not match his personal writings? Even Shakespeare couldn't pull this off and using these techniques scholars rule out what sections of which plays were not written by Shakespeare. If such techniques rule out Shakespeare, why should not such techniques rule out Joseph or Oliver and the others?
And internally, the Book could not have one author. The writings of Nephi for example are inconsistant as having the same author as Alma who is different then Moroni etc...
And then there are hebraisms. For example, certain english letters and syllables don't show up in Semitic names and somehow Joseph derived scores of names that all such semitic rules for letters and syllables are followed with precision. And other things which I recommend you read in the "By the Hand Of Mormon" book I suggested.
So I am not saying this proves the book true. But what I am saying is if Joseph didn't tell the truth about it's origins then it is hard to explain how else. Various forms of analysis rule out Joseph as the author. In fact, the idea the book has a single author is ruled out. Moreover, it contains to many "coincidences" of the ancient world that anyone in the early 1800s could have possibly known about in upstate New York.
So it is a very interesting intellectual exercise to give an explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon that actually fits the evidence concluded in academic journals. (Even non-Mormon.)
2. Your argument in support of the Book of Mormon would only work if it were the only source where one could find the principles you've discussed. But, this is not the case. In fact, by the church's own doctrine, all people are born with the "light of Christ", which essentially tells them how to be good (it's a conscience). Being kind and loving toward other people is a common teaching among all religions, and among nearly all secular people. I am atheist, and I certainly believe in the principles of compassion, kindness, and service. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is completely unnecessary for that. There may be some other reason for which the Book of Mormon is necessary (and remember, the point is that it is the single most valuable thing), but you have not mentioned any.
ReplyDelete3. Certainly, the context you provided for this quote shines more light on how it was intended. This is true. However, what you have not explained is the logical fallacy presented here. What this is saying is that if you understand the teachings in the temple then you cannot be lost in life. However, this is far from the truth. Every single person who has been to the temple has had moments where they've been lost in life--hard trials to go through, and the like. They know very well what the temple stands for, what it means, and all of that. However, they still are capable of feeling confusion in different areas in their life. It is not a panacea.
4. Again, you're avoiding the logical implications of what is being stated. This quote declares that someone who wears the garment as instructed is necessarily a faithful latter-day saint. Clearly that is not true. I could wear the garment myself (I still have all of mine), and yet it would not make me a faithful Mormon--I am not nor do I ever in the future intend to be a faithful Mormon. Also, you must concede that a person could very well live all of the practical teachings of the church--being kind to others and the like--without wearing the temple garment 24/7. (I know that's the converse of what he's saying here, but when people speak in everyday English they often don't distinguish between conditionals and biconditionals.)
5. All you have shown is that a constant reminder to be faithful is beneficial. This can be accomplished without wearing any special clothing at all.
7. That has nothing to do with the quote at hand. This is about dating, not about intimacy. Furthermore, you failed to address the part about it distorting one's whole perception of life. Doesn't that seem a bit extreme to you?
8. Those papyri are common burial records found in any sarcophagus in Egypt. I hardly doubt that every single pharaoh was buried with stories about how Abraham's father tried to kill him.
10. It's still nonsense "You have to be baptized. Unless someone else gets baptized for you." If vicarious baptism is sufficient, why doesn't god just baptize himself on behalf of everyone and have done with it? Or why not simply avoid the ordinance altogether and just judge people based on how they lived their lives?
No, Joe. You're talking about the Book of Mormon. I didn't ask who wrote the Book of Mormon. That's an entirely different matter. I'm talking about the Book of Abraham. That's the book that was allegedly translated from papyri that Joseph Smith bought from a travelling merchant. It has nothing to do with the gold plates or Nephi or the Book of Mormon.
ReplyDeleteWell if Joseph was telling the truth about the Book of Mormon what can you say about the Book of Abraham....?
ReplyDeleteWell, there are two logical errors there. First, the fact that a person tells the truth about one thing does not mean that they must therefore be telling the truth about everything else they ever say (in fact, con-men work by telling part-truth, part-lie). Secondly, I haven't conceded that the Book of Mormon is true. All I have said is that it is a separate topic. If you want to discuss it here, I'll be happy to.
ReplyDeleteYou asked for an explanation that is more logical than the official story that the church purports. I can't say that I have seen a single logical explanation for the origin of the book. I am skeptical that he wrote it himself. However, I am equally skeptical that he translated it from a set of gold plates while the plates were hidden in the wood and he sat inside a house, with his head in a hat, seeing spiritual paper appear with words written on it that he dictated to his scribe. I have heard no single explanation that I find to be satisfactory. But, that's the healthy viewpoint of a scientist who is seeking to learn the truth--to simply admit "I don't know". I have no idea how life started on this Earth, but that doesn't mean that I believe the nonsensical idea that 6,000 years ago it poofed into existence because some magical sky creature said so. I simply don't know how life started. I haven't heard any explanation that I find satisfactorily logical.
However, I know that the papyri from which Joseph Smith allegedly translated the Book of Abraham have indeed been translated by Egyptologists and have nothing to do with Abraham or Judaism or Christianity in any way. One of the characters that Joseph Smith asserted was a black slave is in fact an Egyptian god. That seems like a mistake that wouldn't be made by someone who was getting the revelation from god on how to translate the papyri. And, at this point, if I were to use your logic, I would say that since the Book of Abraham is false, what can you say about the Book of Mormon?
Yeah... I would be careful here because most of the Book of Abraham text was burned therefore it is hard to know if what was translated by Egyptologists is what Joseph was using or not. And of those things that were preserved, like the Hypocephalus or Facsimile 2, what Joseph said was shockingly accurate. In fact, read what how the Wikipedia compares what Egyptologists think to what Joseph Smith said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Hypocephalus
ReplyDeleteFig. 1. One according to Egyptologists represents the first creator God and the primordial waters of creation. Joseph says it means "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God".
Fig. 2. According to Egyptologists this is another God involved in the creation and had a secret name that gave him power who spoke and the cosmos obeyed... Joseph says "Stands next to Kolob... holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets..."
etc... And once again at this point I would suggest reading Nibley's "One Eternal Round" which is on this very subject. On one hand you can critique because Joseph doesn't necessarily give an exact verbatim translation but yet on the other hand, the story that emerges from what he says and what later became the endowment which He confesses he learned from the book of Abraham has incredible accuracy.
For example, we have complete sections of text related to what didn't get burned as these were common funerary documents. And in those documents they describe that in order for the dead to make it to heaven they have to be washed and anointed with oil, every body part from head to feat to bowels... then they have to pass through various chambers and ultimealty pass through a veil giving the correct signs and tokens under the name of a certain God whom you represent and when it is said and done you take your place among the Gods... Etc...
Again, this is well documented. And this is somehow, despite Joseph having no Egyptian training, the narrative that Joseph took from this papyri is strikingly accurate compared to what we know from Egyptology. So yes: the more you study these documents that harder it becomes to think the Book of Abraham is anything other then inspiration.
Sure Joseph may have gotten some specifics wrong, but the overall narrative lives up to the Hype and getting the overall narrative right is all God would care about I'm sure.
What are you talking about that was burned? The church currently owns all of the papyri that Joseph Smith purchased and allegedly translated. And in Facsimile 3, Joseph Smith said that the black figure was a slave. It is actually the Egyptian god Anubis. And he said figure #4 was prince of Pharaoh, when in fact it was actually a woman. That doesn't seem to be "shockingly accurate" to me. It seems like a man who's just making stuff up.
ReplyDeleteWow, I'm surprised you didn't know about this as I thought it was common knowledge. It turns out Joseph owned many pieces of text, at least 5 separate scrolls of papyri, and entire mummies but many of the texts and mummies burned in the great Chicago fire of 1871. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=105&chapid=1173
ReplyDelete"Abel Combs split up the papyri. Some he sold to the St. Louis Museum, including at least two of the rolls and at least two of the mummies; some of the mounted fragments he kept. The St. Louis Museum sold the rolls and mummies to the Wood Museum in Chicago. The Wood Museum burned down in the Chicago Fire of 1871, and presumably the papyri and mummies were destroyed with it... To the disappointment of many, while these remaining fragments contained the original drawing for Facsimile 1, they were not the portion of the papyri that contained the text of the Book of Abraham"
So yes, I maintain what I said. There were many texts and even mummies and the whole nine yards. Much of it was burned to the ground in Chicago in 1871. Other then Facsimile 1 surviving, it is not clear anything else survived that Joseph was using so it is unfair to take the little that survived the fire and assume the book of Abraham came from only that portion of the many papyri Joseph had in his possession.
Well, that's convenient, isn't it. Gold plates that are taken into heaven after the translation is completed. Scrolls of ancient text that are burned after they've been translated. And yet you still believe that the most logical conclusion is to trust the word of a convicted con-man instead of believe the scientific evidence that has been produced, which exposes all of the anachronisms of the Book of Mormon and the blatantly false misinterpretation of the characters in the papyri that the church does own, and that are printed in every copy of LDS scripture? You don't need me to point out that these views are ridiculous. You're doing an excellent job of it yourself.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, people should read "By the Hand of Mormon" and "One Eternal Round" and try to see if they can argue against that so easily. :)
ReplyDelete