Will back to using his Nomad alt at MAD

[_Runtu]

Do you have a testimony that the Church is true?
Do you agree that it is your duty to actively support the mission of the Church?

Why is it that some people think it's OK for believers to have strong convictions but it's not OK for unbelievers to have similarly strong convictions? It's as if it's somehow arrogant to have reached a conclusion contrary to the faithful one.

Do I have a testimony that the church isn't what it claims to be. No, unless you consider an answer to prayer that told me "you don't have to believe in things that aren't true" to be a testimony.

Could I be wrong about the LDS church? Sure. Do I think I'm wrong? No. After years of trying to make things work, I came to the reluctant conclusion that Mormonism is not what it claims to be. Does that mean I think other people who believe differently are somehow less intelligent or less honest than I am? No, not at all. Could I change my mind? Nothing is impossible.

I respect the beliefs of others, and I hope that they will extend the same respect to me.

[_stemelbow]

The reason apologists are fed up is because:
1. The papyrus isn't old enough to have been written on by Abraham himself.

I don't think that's an issue at all for most critics--wait...I mean the reasonable ones.

2. Egyptologists can now accurately decipher the characters on the papyrus etc and unfortunately Joseph translated it all incorrectly.

Not really a good representation of the issue. The decyphering began back in the 60s. And there has been ideas of why its not the Book of Abraham ever since.

3. The Church recovered the actual papyrus in the 60's so the apologists best defence, that of "we don't have the papyrus", was rendered nonsense.

They are fed up of defending the indefensible.

not really a good picture of it again. I believe in the critics maintain there is a portion of the papyrus that is not extant. The critics would argue, it seems, that the mission portion could not be large enough to contain the Book of Abraham, and that its unlikely that something like the Book of Abraham would have been included on the papyrus, or any portion of it at all.

Don't listen to Drifting. Runtu, Fence Sitter, and others here will give a better representation of it, from a critical perspective.

[_stemelbow]

Why is it that some people think it's OK for believers to have strong convictions but it's not OK for unbelievers to have similarly strong convictions? It's as if it's somehow arrogant to have reached a conclusion contrary to the faithful one.

I think it can be confusing on two counts:

1. LDS are usually demonized because they repeat testimony, strongly, without having much more than faith to fall back on. So its weird to see critics do about the same thing.

2. Testifying of the wrongness of a church seems kind of weird too.

Do I have a testimony that the church isn't what it claims to be. No, unless you consider an answer to prayer that told me "you don't have to believe in things that aren't true" to be a testimony.

Could I be wrong about the LDS church? Sure. Do I think I'm wrong? No. After years of trying to make things work, I came to the reluctant conclusion that Mormonism is not what it claims to be. Does that mean I think other people who believe differently are somehow less intelligent or less honest than I am? No, not at all. Could I change my mind? Nothing is impossible.

I respect the beliefs of others, and I hope that they will extend the same respect to me.

Sure. What more is to be expected? Of course we're on MD so this type of thinking isn't vey common.

[Guest]

Fine. There are other names left out too.

Perhaps, but there are very, very few that I would put in Kevin's league. (That's why I offered the post)

If you feel Kevin should be mentioned then your mention of him in your post will serve that purpose.

I know! (It was delivered with intent) :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Drifting]

The reason apologists are fed up is because:
1. The papyrus isn't old enough to have been written on by Abraham himself.

I don't think that's an issue at all for most critics--wait...I mean the reasonable ones.

2. Egyptologists can now accurately decipher the characters on the papyrus etc and unfortunately Joseph translated it all incorrectly.

Not really a good representation of the issue. The decyphering began back in the 60s. And there has been ideas of why its not the Book of Abraham ever since.

3. The Church recovered the actual papyrus in the 60's so the apologists best defence, that of "we don't have the papyrus", was rendered nonsense.

They are fed up of defending the indefensible.

not really a good picture of it again. I believe in the critics maintain there is a portion of the papyrus that is not extant. The critics would argue, it seems, that the mission portion could not be large enough to contain the Book of Abraham, and that its unlikely that something like the Book of Abraham would have been included on the papyrus, or any portion of it at all.

Don't listen to Drifting. Runtu, Fence Sitter, and others here will give a better representation of it, from a critical perspective.

Hi stemelbow, please can you share with mattie your belief as to why Joseph Smiths translation of facsimile 3 is completely wrong? (remember its not missing, the Church owns it)

[_Runtu]

I think it can be confusing on two counts:

1. LDS are usually demonized because they repeat testimony, strongly, without having much more than faith to fall back on. So its weird to see critics do about the same thing.

I have never done this. I do not question people's testimonies. Never have. It would be pretty presumptuous of me to judge someone else's private spiritual experiences. And I have never once testified that I know the church isn't true. I don't see a lot of critics doing this, either.

2. Testifying of the wrongness of a church seems kind of weird too.

Who is doing this?

Sure. What more is to be expected? Of course we're on MD so this type of thinking isn't vey common.

I disagree. Expressing disagreement, even strongly, is not a sign of disrespect.

[_stemelbow]

I agree with what you've said in your latest post, Runtu. take care.

[_stemelbow]

Hi stemelbow, please can you share with mattie your belief as to why Joseph Smiths translation of facsimile 3 is completely wrong? (remember its not missing, the Church owns it)

huh? What are you even talking about, Drifting? do you know my views at all? Oh brother....what's the point in this?

[_Fence Sitter]

Perhaps, but there are very, very few that I would put in Kevin's league. (That's why I offered the post)



I know! (It was delivered with intent) :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

I would add Mortal Man and George Miller into the mix, they both seem to be doing some very interesting work in this area.

[_Buffalo]

Hi stemelbow, please can you share with mattie your belief as to why Joseph Smiths translation of facsimile 3 is completely wrong? (remember its not missing, the Church owns it)

huh? What are you even talking about, Drifting? do you know my views at all? Oh brother....what's the point in this?

Do you believe it was translated correctly?