Stormy Waters wrote:I really dislike this column. He chery picks everything that Joseph got "right." While ignoring everything he got wrong. Especially with the audience for this piece, most of them probably don't know the whole story.
He doesn't really care, the people who actually read D.N. are meant to be manipulated as he sees fit, just like those who attend FAIR conferences.
Hi Chap: one persons writing can be another person's scripture. But I agree that to hear certain thoughts may/will stimulate a part in a persons brain that they have a reference to a positive experience.
Nephi Goodmansen Orem, UT Scientific knowledge is constantly changing. Just because a person chooses to have faith in scientific theories does not disprove the gospel. The restored gospel is the place we can find unchanging truths.
The only problem with the Book of Abraham is that our scientific knowledge is incomplete and changing. Scientists claiming that they know what the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham really said does not mean that someday they will not change their understanding of Egyptian. We can be confident that if man-made theories appear to contradict the teachings of the Church, it is the world, not the Church, that needs to change.
This one seems to have been approved at the same time.
A professor at the BYU has argued that people with a degree in Egypt, and only such people, have the knowledge to discuss the translation of the Book of Abraham. I think he is right. People without the proper background should stop acting like they know something about the translation process when they really are just pontificating.
Pride and too much learning are great stumbling blocks preventing us from having the Spirit with us at all times.
I pray that we all will keep to the manuals and follow the Prophet, or now his counselors. Crocodiles are for the birds.
2:48 p.m. July 26, 2012
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
gramps wrote:This one seems to have been approved at the same time.
A professor at the BYU has argued that people with a degree in Egypt, and only such people, have the knowledge to discuss the translation of the Book of Abraham. I think he is right. People without the proper background should stop acting like they know something about the translation process when they really are just pontificating.
Pride and too much learning are great stumbling blocks preventing us from having the Spirit with us at all times.
I pray that we all will keep to the manuals and follow the Prophet, or now his counselors. Crocodiles are for the birds.
2:48 p.m. July 26, 2012
That was a very insightful comment. The person who posted it clearly put a great deal of thought and research into his observations.
Nephi Goodmansen Orem, UT Scientific knowledge is constantly changing. Just because a person chooses to have faith in scientific theories does not disprove the gospel. The restored gospel is the place we can find unchanging truths.
The only problem with the Book of Abraham is that our scientific knowledge is incomplete and changing. Scientists claiming that they know what the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham really said does not mean that someday they will not change their understanding of Egyptian. We can be confident that if man-made theories appear to contradict the teachings of the Church, it is the world, not the Church, that needs to change.
2:48 p.m. July 26, 2012
Ah yes, another of my favorite apologetic arguments: paradigm shifts. Apologists just love Thomas Kuhn.
If NASA scientists reported an astroid will hit southen mexico in 24 days 8 hours 36 minutes and 12 seconds then I'm sure those guys will say they are just scientist.
Nephi Goodmansen Orem, UT Scientific knowledge is constantly changing. Just because a person chooses to have faith in scientific theories does not disprove the gospel. The restored gospel is the place we can find unchanging truths.
The only problem with the Book of Abraham is that our scientific knowledge is incomplete and changing. Scientists claiming that they know what the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham really said does not mean that someday they will not change their understanding of Egyptian. We can be confident that if man-made theories appear to contradict the teachings of the Church, it is the world, not the Church, that needs to change.
2:48 p.m. July 26, 2012
Ah yes, another of my favorite apologetic arguments: paradigm shifts. Apologists just love Thomas Kuhn.
Nephi Goodmansen Orem, UT LValfre:
, in terms of the restored gospel, determining the truth is secondary to, and a means to, accomplishing the ultimate objective of becoming like Christ.
As such, the right exploratory questions are those designed to determine if the various scriptures, and the gospel of which they are a part, work as intended in best accomplishing the intended objective.
This involves not only correctly figuring out the right questions to ask, but also correctly figuring out to whom to rightly ask the questions.
For some excellent pointers on asking the right questions, please see Moroni 10 and Alma 32.
Also, your appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the restored gospel. For example, the priesthood ban was not based on "race." It was based on lineage. Thus no "racism" qua racism was involved.
, in terms of the restored gospel, determining the truth is secondary to, and a means to, accomplishing the ultimate objective of becoming like Christ.
As such, the right exploratory questions are those designed to determine if the various scriptures, and the gospel of which they are a part, work as intended in best accomplishing the intended objective.
This involves not only correctly figuring out the right questions to ask, but also correctly figuring out to whom to rightly ask the questions.
For some excellent pointers on asking the right questions, please see Moroni 10 and Alma 32.
Also, your appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the restored gospel. For example, the priesthood ban was not based on "race." It was based on lineage. Thus no "racism" qua racism was involved.
3:35 p.m. July 26, 2012
"Nephi Goodmansen" is either a troll or Mike Tannehill. He's always going on about lineage.
Darth J wrote:Also, your appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the restored gospel. For example, the priesthood ban was not based on "race." It was based on lineage. Thus no "racism" qua racism was involved.
And yet another favorite tactic: insult the questioner by insinuating she doesn't understand Mormonism. Bloviate, obfuscate, insult and excoriate, rinse and repeat . . .
Oh and thanks for the lineage clarification Nephi. It's nice to know that we were just "lineagists" rather than racists for nearly 150 years. That really makes me feel better.