It may be a bit of a guilty pleasure, but occasionally I like to turn up misleading statements from the church's many websites that fall just a milimeter short of being outright, baldface, and utterly transparent lies. Fortunately, this never takes more than a few moments.

The church seldom lies online, but it apparently loves to dissemble. Here's a nugget from the current institute and seminary manual at http://institute.lds.org/manuals/pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/pgp-3-a.asp :

"The book of Abraham is an evidence of the inspired calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It came forth at a time when the study of the ancient Egyptian language and culture was just beginning. The scholars of the 1800s had scarcely begun to explore the field of Egyptology, and yet, with no formal training in ancient languages and no knowledge of ancient Egypt (except his work with the Book of Mormon), Joseph Smith began his translation of the ancient manuscripts. His knowledge and ability came through the power and gift of God, together with his own determination and faith."

ROFL!

In this case, it is appropriate to say "We believe in being honest, true and chased by an elephant"

Sure, we believes in it.
We just don't wanna DO it.

The church doesn't hide it's history...

freeman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The church doesn't hide it's history...


they've been NAILED on that one!

saying that is an OUTRIGHT, BOLD=FACED LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE

Let's break this down.

"The book of Abraham is an evidence of the inspired calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It came forth at a time when the study of the ancient Egyptian language and culture was just beginning."

Rosetta Stone discovered and translated long before Joseph Smith was even born. Computer Science studies are just beginning too, but look how far we have already come.

"The scholars of the 1800s had scarcely begun to explore the field of Egyptology," They were just starting to translate a mountain of Egyptian documents,

"and yet, with no formal training in ancient languages and no knowledge of ancient Egypt (except his work with the Book of Mormon), Joseph Smith began his translation of the ancient manuscripts." My toddler has no formal education in driving a car. He does however like to sit in the driver seat and pretend he is driving. I hardly find this remarkable.

"His knowledge and ability came through the power and gift of God, together with his own determination and faith." By knowledge and ability, they mean he completely made up a long story that bore absolutely no resemblance with what was actually written on the parchment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2012 05:04PM by forbiddencokedrinker.

forbiddencokedrinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's break this down.
>
> "The book of Abraham is an evidence of the
> inspired calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It
> came forth at a time when the study of the ancient
> Egyptian language and culture was just
> beginning."
>
> Rosetta Stone discovered and translated long
> before Joseph Smith was even born. Computer
> Science studies are just beginning too, but look
> how far we have already come.

Rosetta stone was DISCOVERED before JS was born but it was not translated until 1822 when Champollion published his "Lettre a M. Dacier," 44 pages setting forth the basis of the Egyptian script and its phonetic values. Two years later he published his "Precis du systeme hieroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens" which was the first "grammar" published. His dictionary was published posthumously in 1841. However this was all among a few scholars in France and England. Not the kind of thing that even Classical scholars in the USA would have access to.

> "The scholars of the 1800s had scarcely begun to
> explore the field of Egyptology," They were just
> starting to translate a mountain of Egyptian
> documents,

See the above. The translation of "mountains of material" came later. Many people had tried to translate Egyptian, many of them crackpots (like Joseph Smith). It was a popular pastime back then. Only Champollion was able to crack the code (with a bit of help from Thomas Young).

> "and yet, with no formal training in ancient
> languages and no knowledge of ancient Egypt
> (except his work with the Book of Mormon), Joseph
> Smith began his translation of the ancient
> manuscripts." My toddler has no formal education
> in driving a car. He does however like to sit in
> the driver seat and pretend he is driving. I
> hardly find this remarkable.

Exactly. Joseph Smith PRETENDED to translate Egyptian but in reality he translated no Egyptian.

> "His knowledge and ability came through the power
> and gift of God, together with his own
> determination and faith." By knowledge and
> ability, they mean he completely made up a long
> story that bore absolutely no resemblance with
> what was actually written on the parchment.

Papyrus, not parchment, :)

By the way, Jean-Francois Champollion was born on Dec. 23, 1890, exactly 15 years to the day before Joseph Smith.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2012 07:21PM by baura.

This is a gem:

How Did the Prophet Translate the Ancient Writings?

The Prophet Joseph Smith never communicated his method of translating these records. As with all other scriptures, a testimony of the truthfulness of these writings is primarily a matter of faith. The GREATEST evidence of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is not found in an analysis of physical evidence nor historical background, but in prayerful consideration of its content and power.

Translation: When in doubt turn off your brain and pray.

Other than lying for the Lord (Abraham commanded to lie) and the Pre-Mortal life, which parts of the Book of Abraham have NOT been discontinued/disavowed by the church?

Just like the BoM, the church likes to hold these books up as proof of Josephs prophetic authority, but don't follow the teachings they contain.

Mormons believe in being honest? That claim is demonstrably in many cases false or at least with the organization as beautifully noted above if I may add.

“We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous and in doing good to all men--except when convenience requires that we not be. Indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of our PR department: We believe all things, we change all things, we have denied we have changed many things, and hope, as the need arises, to be able to change and/or deny everything.. If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, we will first conduct some internally-commissioned studies on what non-Mormon society thinks and seek to change the unpopular or backward Mormon things.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2012 01:43PM by steve benson.

We believe in being honest as far as truth is useful; we also believe that some things that are true are not very useful.

We believe in being honest, true, except when it's not convenient or going to get our politicians elected. Then, it doesn't apply because we must ensure that we save the government.