DiscussMormonism.com

Many apologetic arguments claim that the BoAbr papyrus was just a prop, that elohim/jehovah just inspired the text of it into JSJr's mind.

Why did JSJr then need a prop, a papyrus with hieroglyphs and hieratics, to believe he was doing 'translating'? Did JSJr believe it was himself creating this English text that is 'scripture' rather than it being dictated to him by elohim/jehovah?

The scribes and other first hand witnesses to the process of the dictation of the Book of Mormon do not have JSJr referring to the characters on the gold plates, but rather by looking into the crown of his upside down hat, JSJr saw (and read aloud from) magic parchment with the English text, that appeared above a rock placed in the crown of that hat. Were the gold plates just a prop? Did JSJr not believe that elohim/jehovah could do this without JSJr being in close proximity to the gold plates, which were not being referenced in the 'translation'? Did JSJr not have sufficient belief in elohim/jehovah to accept the simple verbal methods that were used with Old Testament prophets?

JSJr had the Jupiter talisman on his person at the time he was murdered at Carthage Jail. Did JSJr believe that objects, like the talisman, the gold plates, the rock in the hat, the Egyptian papyrus, etc. had some intrinsic magical powers or properties? He kept up with his affinity to such objects right to the bitter end. Why? What does this tell us about JSJr's own faith and beliefs, both in things Mormon and in things that are physical objects?

The other side of this coin, why does the COB not continue to teach Mormons to do as JSJr did, placing faith and confidence in inanimate objects?

sock puppet wrote:The other side of this coin, why does the COB not continue to teach Mormons to do as JSJr did, placing faith and confidence in inanimate objects?

Well we still have garments, holy oil, sacred temples, and the sacrament. Give it another hundred years and maybe the garments will just be an iron on patch.

Fence Sitter wrote:

sock puppet wrote:The other side of this coin, why does the COB not continue to teach Mormons to do as JSJr did, placing faith and confidence in inanimate objects?

Well we still have garments, holy oil, sacred temples, and the sacrament. Give it another hundred years and maybe the garments will just be an iron on patch.

The garments have been relegated from the magic shields savings faithful wearers to constant reminders of covenants made.

Do TBMs think that the oil is magically imbued when consecrated?

The temples, well, places for those claiming to be full tithepayers to congregate--does anything supernatural take place in them?

The sacrament--without transubstantiation as the Catholic sacrament is believed--is a weekly Mormon ritual to renew one's covenants made.

Why no Jupiter talisman as standard issue? Or do the FP/12 keep such objects on their persons at all times, but do not publicize it?

Do TBMs think

No TBM's think any of that that I know of. It's the keeping of the relevant commandment or doing the rite in accordance with the Lord's instruction that provides the effect.

bcspace wrote:No TBM's think any of that that I know of. It's the keeping of the relevant commandment or doing the rite in accordance with the Lord's instruction that provides the effect.

So, if a priesthood holder gives a blessing and is unworthy, but the recipient doesn't know it, is the blessing efficacious?

So, if a priesthood holder gives a blessing and is unworthy, but the recipient doesn't know it, is the blessing efficacious

Can be according to the faith of the individual who the scriptures counsel to seek such a blessing in the first place (James 4 or 5 If I recall correctly). Same with an ordination under Church auspices. Does that mitigate the negative spiritual consequences for the unworthy holder? Not in the least.

bcspace wrote:Can be according to the faith of the individual who the scriptures counsel to seek such a blessing in the first place (James 4 or 5 If I recall correctly). Same with an ordination under Church auspices. Does that mitigate the negative spiritual consequences for the unworthy holder? Not in the least.

So you disagree with Vaughn Featherstone's belief that a man who looks at pornography or masturbates cannot give an efficacious blessing. Fair enough.

Runtu wrote:

bcspace wrote:Can be according to the faith of the individual who the scriptures counsel to seek such a blessing in the first place (James 4 or 5 If I recall correctly). Same with an ordination under Church auspices. Does that mitigate the negative spiritual consequences for the unworthy holder? Not in the least.

So you disagree with Vaughn Featherstone's belief that a man who looks at pornography or masturbates cannot give an efficacious blessing. Fair enough.

It's hilarious that a secret murderer/forger/jewel thief/whatever could perform a baptism and it's valid, but have one toe come out of the water and it's not valid.

Runtu wrote:

bcspace wrote:Can be according to the faith of the individual who the scriptures counsel to seek such a blessing in the first place (James 4 or 5 If I recall correctly). Same with an ordination under Church auspices. Does that mitigate the negative spiritual consequences for the unworthy holder? Not in the least.

So you disagree with Vaughn Featherstone's belief that a man who looks at pornography or masturbates cannot give an efficacious blessing. Fair enough.

Hmmm...Actually, it seems odd that Featherstone would say something like that. As long as I have been a member, I have been taught what BC sited in this case. If the person asking the blessing is faithful, and does not know that the priesthood holder was unworthy, the blessing itself is still valid. However, as BC stated there are still spiritual consequences for the unworthy holder.