Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[_nc47]

Can I point to any picture of a king upon a throne and say that it represents the king becoming a god after the ancient israeli traditions, or just this particular one?

You can if you want.

And Cfr on ancient Israelis believing their kings become gods.

Most this in Bokovoy's article, and since he is on here you should ping him if you want more information. But for this one, let me cite the reference.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-53d1i ... ng&f=false

Identification of Jesus with God has analogies and precedents in the deification of the Davidic king and the glorification of the high-priest.

Nicholas Wyatt, "Degrees of Divinity: Some Mythical and Ritual Aspects of West Semitic Kingship," Ugarit-Forschungen 31 (1999): 857.

the rituals which transform the status of the earthly king, removing him from "merely human" status to that of a sacral figure, to be couched in the form of a narrative about a god, carries with it the hint that the king himself is to be seen as transformed into a god. . . . The enthronement of the king is thus his apotheosis.

And here:

Cfr on this being Abraham in the image you provided.

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-3?lang=eng

[_SteelHead]

My child is in grade school. One exercise he engages in, is being handed a set of pictures and making up a story around the pictures.

Pointing to the Book of Abraham as evidence for the claims of the Book of Abraham is a "little" circular. Can you provide any evidence supporting the claims that the figure on the throne in the image you provided is Abraham?

[Guest]

Consider this picture. The man sitting is the god Osiris. Joseph Smith said that this is Abraham sitting on the Pharoah's throne. In ancient Israel, kings became gods, so we know that Abraham is becoming a god.

Actually, we don't know that.
What we know is that Joseph Smith said that was Abraham sitting on Pharaoh's throne, and that Joseph thought that is what the facsimile said.
We also know that Joseph Smith is the only person who interpreted the image that way based on what the facsimile says.

What you are saying is that you believe Joseph when he said this is Abraham sitting on Pharaohs throne, but that you don't believe Joseph when he said he was translating off of the actual papyri.

[_nc47]

My child is in grade school. One exercise he engages in, is being handed a set of pictures and making up a story around the pictures.

Pointing to the Book of Abraham as evidence for the claims of the Book of Abraham is a "little" circular. Can you provide any evidence supporting the claims that the figure on the throne in the image you provided is Abraham?

I already said it was Osiris, not Abraham.

[_SteelHead]

Also can you show where the deification of Israeli kings occur. I have seen D. Bokovoy arguing for the belief of deification of ugarit and mesopotamian kings, but where is the support of the belief in Israeli kings?

[_nc47]

Also can you show where the deification of Israeli kings occur. I have seen D. Bokovoy arguing for the belief of deification of ugarit and mesopotamian kings, but where is the support of the belief in Israeli kings?

Scroll up.

[_Themis]

The Friend is an official Church publication yet I hesitate to grant it doctrinal authority.

I wasn't aware you had any authority to grant doctrinal status. :)

Yes the Friend is an official publication just like the Ensign and other manuals, and as such represent the church and it's positions, teachings, etc. I am not sure why you would think because it's focus is on a younger group that it somehow cannot represent what the church teaches(doctrine).

The Church was birthed into a literalist environment and leaders were merely perpetuating the tradition.

That doesn't change the fact it is church doctrine. It just means they were, and continue to have it wrong. Don't confuse doctrine with truth. Doctrine is just the teachings and principles of a religion.

There have been no official statements on the matter. This is not large enough a matter to pester the Lord for revelation, I don't believe.

I think there have been more then enough official statements given to you, but I think you mean FP statements that address the issue specifically. I am not sure why they would in the past, since it was secondary and most had a global view anyways. If the leaders feel differently today I doubt they will bring it up, and just do as they usually do and just not bring it up for a long time, and then maybe put out a few vague statements. Hopefully that day will come soon.

by the way You would be hard pressed to find many who have a young earth view and would also interpret the story as a local flood. It just doesn't read that way in both the Bible and Book of Moses, and the story falls apart in a local setting. The Book of Mormon references it as well. A literalist has no reason to interpret it as global if it really is so vague, and only those who reject a young earth and accept most of the sciences will feel a need to reinterpret the story. I do think it is at least a good thing you do accept the sciences and reject the flood as a global event.

[_Themis]

Yes, I accept the some form of catalyst theory. I also believed that Joseph Smith exercised his prophetic authority in interpreting the facsimiles and adapting the symbols for this generation.

Interesting. Bob was going after me for suggesting some may believe in a catalyst theory, and that I thought the number was going up. He wanted to believe it was some anti creation and asked for who these many were. I gave him some, and it appears I can add two more, and one a well known scholar who is liked by just about everyone.

[_nc47]

by the way You would be hard pressed to find many who have a young earth view and would also interpret the story as a local flood. It just doesn't read that way in both the Bible and Book of Moses, and the story falls apart in a local setting. The Book of Mormon references it as well. A literalist has no reason to interpret it as global if it really is so vague, and only those who reject a young earth and accept most of the sciences will feel a need to reinterpret the story. I do think it is at least a good thing you do accept the sciences and reject the flood as a global event.

I've spoken with two Mormon economists, both with PhDs from top-five institutions, who have no idea what evolution has to do with their lives, let alone their salvation. They don't necessarily disbelieve it, but they don't know what the fuss is all about.

I'm a passionate evolutionist, but I don't blame Mormons for not caring.

[_Bazooka]

Interestingly, Joseph Smith received a revelation articulating that the earth is 'young'.
We now know it as section 77 of the Doctrine & Covenants

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, about March 1832. Joseph Smith’s history states, “In connection with the translation of the Scriptures, I received the following explanation of the Revelation of St. John.”
1–4, Beasts have spirits and will dwell in eternal felicity; 5–7, This earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years; 8–10, Various angels restore the gospel and minister on earth; 11, The sealing of the 144,000; 12–14, Christ will come in the beginning of the seventh thousand years; 15, Two prophets will be raised up to the Jewish nation.

(emphasis mine)
http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... 7?lang=eng

Now, answer me this.
If the Earth is to have a temporal existence of 7,000 years and Christ is to come at the beginning of the seventh thousand years, wouldn't that mean the earth had only existed temporally for six thousand years at that point?
Also, given that Christ came at the start of the seven thousandth year of earths seven thousand year temporal existence, doesn't that mean the earth ended its temporal existence about a thousand years ago?