BoAbr: "You're Down to Your Ride, Pal"

[_sock puppet]

Either that, or the man was a published liar.

Oh my goodness; there he goes again.

No thinking Latter-day Saint would have rightfully thought Mormon Doctrine was definitive doctrine. My own sainted mother, when I was 12, handed me her first edition of Mormon Doctrine and explained to me the well-known issues with the first and later editions, the controversies involved and the fact that it was published by Bookcraft.

As much as I love and revere Elder McConkie and his book, there isn't any doubt it my mind or the mind of many others like me who have a library of more than 10 church books is that Elder McConkie went out on limbs, overstated things and was inaccurate. I have certainly read his doctrinal commentary on the New Testament and can see for myself the problems he had -- he was a scriptorian but not a theologian nor was he well read in what I would call collateral historical material about the scriptures.

And, returning to the Bookcraft issue -- a book published by Bookcraft was marginal. So it always was and so it always is. The fact that Bookcraft was acquired by Deseret Books is of little significance; the book came out originally under a Bookcraft title.

And, returning to the word "Doctrine" in the title, it was merely one man's commentary on doctrine; nothing more.

So, you have have folks such as yourself and Jason who howl to the moon like so many jackals that Bookcraft publications are like the Ten Commandments themselves. Well, they're not, never have been.

As far as the Book of Abraham is concerned, it is sublime midrash. Joseph Smith didn't really describe how it was translated, and the fact that the facsimiles don't follow the text or the fact that Joseph saw a man's head where a jackal should be, or the fact that the facsimile doesn't properly display a phallus, is all immaterial to believers. Translation is a unique and unusual process and it isn't by the numbers. Why quibble over the translation of the Book of Abraham when a literal resurrection is a more outrageous affront to human experience?

Bot,

You raise some interesting questions, that I would like to pose to you.

Would you agree that the reason that a sect claiming to have a living prophet of god might be attractive to theists is to learn the word of god?

If not, what then is the value of having a living prophet of god?

Are not each of the FP/12 ordained as a "prophet, seer and revelator"?

What does that mean if not that he is an oracle for god's messages to god's children here on earth?

Would you agree that if has no such messages, then the attraction to a sect based on its proclaiming to have a living prophet of god goes away?

Would you agree that god's messages are "doctrines" of his one and only true church on earth?

If these are messages god intended for all his children on earth, or at least all that belong to the one and only true church, would you agree that it is the responsibility of those running the church to get those messages conveyed and make them available and clearly identified as messages from god to all or that subset of god's children?

As an adherent to the LDS Church, what specific body of information, e.g., which specific books, contain these god-given messages? How has the Church clearly delineated what are and are not god-given messages so that the recipient children of god can clearly know what are god-given messages, since those from an apostle--a prophet, seer, and revelator in a tome entitled "Mormon Doctrine" contain statements made "out on limbs, overstated things and was inaccurate"?

Turning now to the BoAbr and its Facsimiles. Do you believe that the BoAbr is the word of god?

Why does the English text not translate, in a linquistic sense, from the characters on the papyrus found?

If you think that the papyrus found is not the source of the characters for which the BoAbr text was 'translated', how do you answer for the KEP tying that text to those characters?

Do you believe that the Facsimile explanations are the word of god?

If so, why do the explanations not comport with the Egyptian characters appearing in the Facsimiles?

Why did JSJr take hieratics from the found Sensen text and place them upside down in the lacunae of the hypocephalus that is Facsimile No. 2?

Why did JSJr 'restore' lacunae portions of that hypocephalus with hieratics when all portions of the original that remained bore no hieratic characters, by only pictographs and hieroglyphs?

Presuming god to be a logical god rather than a nonsensical one, what kind of a "translation", even a unique and unusual one would bear these nonsensical attributes?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Would you agree that the reason that a sect claiming to have a living prophet of god might be attractive to theists is to learn the word of god?

If not, what then is the value of having a living prophet of god?

Are not each of the FP/12 ordained as a "prophet, seer and revelator"?

Ratzinger (the Pope) points out in his new book about Jesus that the office of an Old Testament prophet was to warn; not so much to reveal new things. And to that I would agree. Many of the Old Testament prophets were in the "warning" variety rather than the reveletory. As Exodus points out, there are prophets and there are Prophets. So, if you want to learn of God, a prophet is a good source.

Each of the Q12 is a prophet seer and revelator but, individually, they can reveal or do nothing. An individual one cannot even call, on his own, a stake president or authorize a new chapel, much less authorize a temple.

Would you agree that if has no such messages, then the attraction to a sect based on its proclaiming to have a living prophet of god goes away?

I go back to Ratzinger's formulation. A prophet is usually akin to a watchman on the watchtower.

Would you agree that god's messages are "doctrines" of his one and only true church on earth?

If these are messages god intended for all his children on earth, or at least all that belong to the one and only true church, would you agree that it is the responsibility of those running the church to get those messages conveyed and make them available and clearly identified as messages from god to all or that subset of god's children?

The Church is not a corporation with a public relations department.

As John teaches, you shall know the doctrine if you do his will. Further, as I Thess 1:5, teaches, knowledge of the gospel comes from four concurrent sources: (1) the priesthood, (2) the Holy Ghost, (3) preaching, and (4) the scriptures.

As an adherent to the LDS Church, what specific body of information, e.g., which specific books, contain these god-given messages? How has the Church clearly delineated what are and are not god-given messages so that the recipient children of god can clearly know what are god-given messages, since those from an apostle--a prophet, seer, and revelator in a tome entitled "Mormon Doctrine" contain statements made "out on limbs, overstated things and was inaccurate"?

Each of the apostles has a ministry to preach and they are generally free to publish. But, as we learn from the New Testament, the apostles came into conflict with each other over doctrine; Paul calling Peter a "false brother." That raises the point that they have their weaknesses, they have their own views, and they don't always act in concert. Orson Pratt has strange views of God. Orson Pratt thinks the sealing ceremony can be published in a newspaper. Anthony Ivins thinks plural marriage can be practiced in Mexico. But, as Matt 18:19 teaches, when they get together the act for God.

Turning now to the BoAbr and its Facsimiles. Do you believe that the BoAbr is the word of god?

Why does the English text not translate, in a linquistic sense, from the characters on the papyrus found?

If you think that the papyrus found is not the source of the characters for which the BoAbr text was 'translated', how do you answer for the KEP tying that text to those characters?

Do you believe that the Facsimile explanations are the word of god?

The Book of Abraham is sublime midrash. The Church teaches that it is the word of God. Joseph Smith does not explain how it was translated. Joseph Smith was entitled to alter or change things before the facsimiles were published -- it isn't artistic license, it is God's license. He did it to the New Testament. But, the final product is the Word of God. Elder Oaks once taught, referring to the Old Testament, that the final product itself is God's word, and it may not be fruitful to engage in exegesis with Greek and Hebrew and a look at the various Mss that support the final accepted text. (Otherwise, who but scholars could understand the Word?)

During the Kirtland era, the Brethren were yanked/yoked together in a contest of speculative theology. Joseph Smith would have Hebrew instructors for the Brethren; Orson Pratt studied Greek; all to engage in speculation. The KEP was a contest, a game, an activity, a pursuit to entertain and enlighten. But it had nothing to do with the generation of the Book of Abraham.

If so, why do the explanations not comport with the Egyptian characters appearing in the Facsimiles?

Why did JSJr take hieratics from the found Sensen text and place them upside down in the lacunae of the hypocephalus that is Facsimile No. 2?

Why did JSJr 'restore' lacunae portions of that hypocephalus with hieratics when all portions of the original that remained bore no hieratic characters, by only pictographs and hieroglyphs?

Midrash. God's license. Speculative theology. But the final product is in the text of the book itself.

Plus, we weren't around when the church in the late 19th century decided to add the facsimiles to the canon.

[_bcspace]

[ ] yes [ ] No
Is the person in the Facsimile clip above a king of Egypt?

Why couldn't both (Isis and Pharaoh be true in context? After all, the orginal intepretation is not very friendly to the Egyptian religion, putting Pharaoh in a secondary position.

[_Willy Law]

it isn't artistic license, it is God's license. He did it to the New Testament. But, the final product is the Word of God. Elder Oaks once taught, referring to the Old Testament, that the final product itself is God's word, and it may not be fruitful to engage in exegesis with Greek and Hebrew and a look at the various Mss that support the final accepted text. (Otherwise, who but scholars could understand the Word?) .

I am just delving into how the Bible, as we have it, came to be, so please do not try and paint me as ignoramus. I will fully admit that I am just learning and trying to understand how what we know as the Bible was created.

Are you saying that the forgeries contained in both the New and Old Testament are God's word merely because some people in the middle ages said so?

[_sock puppet]

Would you agree that the reason that a sect claiming to have a living prophet of god might be attractive to theists is to learn the word of god?

If not, what then is the value of having a living prophet of god?

Are not each of the FP/12 ordained as a "prophet, seer and revelator"?

Ratzinger (the Pope) points out in his new book about Jesus that the office of an Old Testament prophet was to warn; not so much to reveal new things. And to that I would agree. Many of the Old Testament prophets were in the "warning" variety rather than the reveletory. As Exodus points out, there are prophets and there are Prophets. So, if you want to learn of God, a prophet is a good source.

Each of the Q12 is a prophet seer and revelator but, individually, they can reveal or do nothing. An individual one cannot even call, on his own, a stake president or authorize a new chapel, much less authorize a temple.

Would you agree that if has no such messages, then the attraction to a sect based on its proclaiming to have a living prophet of god goes away?

I go back to Ratzinger's formulation. A prophet is usually akin to a watchman on the watchtower.

Would you agree that god's messages are "doctrines" of his one and only true church on earth?

If these are messages god intended for all his children on earth, or at least all that belong to the one and only true church, would you agree that it is the responsibility of those running the church to get those messages conveyed and make them available and clearly identified as messages from god to all or that subset of god's children?

The Church is not a corporation with a public relations department.

As John teaches, you shall know the doctrine if you do his will. Further, as I Thess 1:5, teaches, knowledge of the gospel comes from four concurrent sources: (1) the priesthood, (2) the Holy Ghost, (3) preaching, and (4) the scriptures.

As an adherent to the LDS Church, what specific body of information, e.g., which specific books, contain these god-given messages? How has the Church clearly delineated what are and are not god-given messages so that the recipient children of god can clearly know what are god-given messages, since those from an apostle--a prophet, seer, and revelator in a tome entitled "Mormon Doctrine" contain statements made "out on limbs, overstated things and was inaccurate"?

Each of the apostles has a ministry to preach and they are generally free to publish. But, as we learn from the New Testament, the apostles came into conflict with each other over doctrine; Paul calling Peter a "false brother." That raises the point that they have their weaknesses, they have their own views, and they don't always act in concert. Orson Pratt has strange views of God. Orson Pratt thinks the sealing ceremony can be published in a newspaper. Anthony Ivins thinks plural marriage can be practiced in Mexico. But, as Matt 18:19 teaches, when they get together the act for God.

Turning now to the BoAbr and its Facsimiles. Do you believe that the BoAbr is the word of god?

Why does the English text not translate, in a linquistic sense, from the characters on the papyrus found?

If you think that the papyrus found is not the source of the characters for which the BoAbr text was 'translated', how do you answer for the KEP tying that text to those characters?

Do you believe that the Facsimile explanations are the word of god?

The Book of Abraham is sublime midrash. The Church teaches that it is the word of God. Joseph Smith does not explain how it was translated. Joseph Smith was entitled to alter or change things before the facsimiles were published -- it isn't artistic license, it is God's license. He did it to the New Testament. But, the final product is the Word of God. Elder Oaks once taught, referring to the Old Testament, that the final product itself is God's word, and it may not be fruitful to engage in exegesis with Greek and Hebrew and a look at the various Mss that support the final accepted text. (Otherwise, who but scholars could understand the Word?)

During the Kirtland era, the Brethren were yanked/yoked together in a contest of speculative theology. Joseph Smith would have Hebrew instructors for the Brethren; Orson Pratt studied Greek; all to engage in speculation. The KEP was a contest, a game, an activity, a pursuit to entertain and enlighten. But it had nothing to do with the generation of the Book of Abraham.

If so, why do the explanations not comport with the Egyptian characters appearing in the Facsimiles?

Why did JSJr take hieratics from the found Sensen text and place them upside down in the lacunae of the hypocephalus that is Facsimile No. 2?

Why did JSJr 'restore' lacunae portions of that hypocephalus with hieratics when all portions of the original that remained bore no hieratic characters, by only pictographs and hieroglyphs?

Midrash. God's license. Speculative theology. But the final product is in the text of the book itself.

Plus, we weren't around when the church in the late 19th century decided to add the facsimiles to the canon.

Which new points from the last GC was agreed to by all FP/12?

Did god have nothing new to tell his children? at least not that all 15 could agree upon?

Why does god need 15 men to all agree upon what it is god is saying to any of his 15 prophets? Sounds more like a corporate board room decision than the individual oracles of the Old Testament.

[_bcspace]

Why does god need 15 men to all agree upon what it is god is saying to any of his 15 prophets? Sounds more like a corporate board room decision than the individual oracles of the Old Testament.

Your "oracle" brought forth D&C 107. So there you have it.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Which new points from the last GC was agreed to by all FP/12?

Did god have nothing new to tell his children? at least not that all 15 could agree upon?

Why does god need 15 men to all agree upon what it is god is saying to any of his 15 prophets? Sounds more like a corporate board room decision than the individual oracles of the Old Testament.

The selection of the downtown Provo Temple, for one thing. Similar to David selecting the temple site from a threshing floor. That was significant enough to warrant an entire chapter in the Old Testament.

But, I was out and haven't listened to conference yet, so I can't say specifically.

Why does God need more than one? I don't know but that is what Jesus required to bind God to human will, as I point out above.

[Guest]

Why does god need 15 men to all agree upon what it is god is saying to any of his 15 prophets? Sounds more like a corporate board room decision than the individual oracles of the Old Testament.

Your "oracle" brought forth D&C 107. So there you have it.

So in matters of administration of the church, this sets out quite the bureaucracy. As for decisions to be that of a quorum, all in that quorum must agree.

Where does it say that god's word must be agreed to by them all, and that to be god's word, all 15 of the FP/12 must agree that such is god's word?

You see, bcspace, there is a distinction between a church and god, if such a being exists. Or do you not see the fallacy in testimony comments that "I know the church is true"?

[_Yahoo Bot]

I am just delving into how the Bible, as we have it, came to be, so please do not try and paint me as ignoramus. I will fully admit that I am just learning and trying to understand how what we know as the Bible was created.

Are you saying that the forgeries contained in both the New and Old Testament are God's word merely because some people in the middle ages said so?

I paint you as an ignoramus for thinking you'll get an answer from the question as framed.

[_Willy Law]

I am just delving into how the Bible, as we have it, came to be, so please do not try and paint me as ignoramus. I will fully admit that I am just learning and trying to understand how what we know as the Bible was created.

Are you saying that the forgeries contained in both the New and Old Testament are God's word merely because some people in the middle ages said so?

I paint you as an ignoramus for thinking you'll get an answer from the question as framed.

Just trying to figure out what you are trying to say. When you say " it isn't artistic license, it is God's license. He did it to the New Testament. But, the final product is the Word of God." it appears you are saying that the Bible is the word of God simply because it is the "final product".
Not sure how you could take my question as hostile?