Crap that hurts! Talking to an ex-LDS

by Qcmbr 36 Replies latest jw friends

  • melmac
    melmac

    Well, a religion that requires its followers to wear certain undergarments and which has such "inspired" books as the Book of Abraham is certainly up to par with the Witnesses, as far as weirdness goes...

    Oh! And also polygamy, of course...

    For those who want to have an idea of what the book of Abraham is:

    The Book of Abraham

    By Bill McKeever

    According to the Documentary History of the Church (DHC) 2:235, it was on July 3, 1835 when Michael Chandler "came to Kirtland (OH) to exhibit some Egyptian mummies." According to the record, "There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices." Chandler's display so intrigued the Mormons living in Kirtland that they told the traveling showman how their prophet, Joseph Smith, had the ability to translate the papyri.

    When Smith was shown the ancient writing, he claimed that he could translate them and proceeded to give Chandler a brief interpretation. Page 235 states that, for this service, Chandler gave Smith a "certificate" which said in part:

    This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I find that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters.

    How Chandler could make such a statement is a mystery since he was not an expert in this field. The fact is, there was nobody in the United States who at this time could claim to have expertise in the translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics. The Rosetta Stone, which was instrumental in allowing scholars to decipher the hieroglyphics, had only been recently found (1799) and whatever few "experts" there were in the Egyptian language resided in Europe.

    In a way, Smith's bravado demonstrates his gift as a confidence man. Without any Egyptian linguists, he knew how difficult it would be to prove any of his so-called translations untrue. Since he had gotten away with this ploy for five years by claiming that the Book of Mormon was written in "Reformed Egyptian," why shouldn't this ruse work again? Smith seemed to use the limited expertise of his time to full advantage.

    After obtaining the papyri, Smith "commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics." In doing so, Smith proclaimed "that one of the roles contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt" (Documentary History of the Church (DHC) 2:236). According to the preface to the Book of Abraham, Smith believed his document was actually written by Abraham's "own hand written upon papyrus."

    Imagine for a moment what a find this would be if, in fact, Smith had really discovered the writings of Abraham and Joseph. They would be priceless for they would be the oldest manuscripts available written by someone mentioned in the Bible. In fact, they would be the only autograph manuscripts available. To say the papyri obtained by Smith were written by both Abraham and Joseph would predate the Christian era by about 2,000 years!

    For a sum of $2400, Smith's followers were able to convince Chandler to part with his exhibit, thus enabling their beloved prophet to continue "translating" the text. Smith would continue with this project, but he would not be able to finish it. Eventually he would be killed in a gun battle at Carthage, Illinois, and the papyri would be lost. Many believed it was destroyed in the great Chicago fire, never to be recovered.

    In 1880 the Mormon Church canonized the Book of Abraham and it became part of the Pearl of Great Price. Standing side by side with the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, this was included as part of Mormonism's "Standard Works."

    In time more and more men would become familiar with the Egyptian language. In 1912 Smith's translation would be called into serious question by an Episcopalian Bishop named F.S. Spaulding. Spaulding published a 31-page booklet entitled "Joseph Smith, Jun., As a Translator." In it he included the findings of eight scholars who had examined the "facsimiles" or drawings which are found in the Book of Abraham. All concluded that Smith's translation was erroneous. The Mormons responded by soliciting the services of a man named J.C. Homans who wrote under the assumed name of "Dr. Robert C. Webb, Ph.D." Homans was neither an Egyptologist nor did he hold a doctorate degree. Although his arguments failed to convince the learned, they were enough to appease the faithful Latter-day Saint, so "testimony" once again reigned over fact.

    In 1967 interest in the Book of Abraham again surfaced when the papyri Smith used in 1835 were found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. They were eventually given back to the LDS Church. One would think that, if Joseph Smith were indeed a prophet who was inspired by God to translate the Book of Abraham, this would have been the perfect opportunity to have proved it. However, this was not to be the case. Experts once again proved Smith's translation was incorrect. Not only was Smith's translation bogus, but he completely missed the time period in which the papyri were written. Smith claimed his papyri were written by Abraham around 4,000 years ago; however, experts agree that the papyri go back only as far as the time of Christ.

    Whereas Smith claimed his papyri told the story of Abraham's adventures in Egypt, the experts concur that what Smith had in his possession was nothing more than a portion of a funerary text known as the Book of Breathings, a condensed version of the Book of Dead.

    Accompanying the written portion of the Book of Abraham were three illustrations or "facsimiles." Facsimile No. 1 shows one figure standing and the other lying on a lion-headed table. An examination of the Smith papyri shows that portions were torn and missing. Because of the torn condition of Smith's original, there is neither head nor hand on the standing figure, and the torso of the figure in the lying down position is missing as well (from just below the waist and up to the neck). This, however, did not prevent Smith from improvising. It is easy to notice that a human head has been pencilled in on the standing figure while a hand holding what appears to be a knife has also been inserted. Smith claimed this standing figure represents the "idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham [the figure lying down on what Smith claimed was an "altar"] as a sacrifice." Above the head of "Abraham" is the figure of a bird Smith calls "the angel of the Lord."

    Below the "altar" are figures which Smith said represented the idolatrous gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash. Below these figures is the drawing of a crocodile; Smith labels this "The idolatrous god of Pharaoh."

    As previously mentioned, this facsimile depicts nothing more than a portion of Egyptian mythology. Click here to see Smith's facsimile as well as an explanation from Dr. Richard Parker, Professor of Egyptology at Brown University.

    Despite the fact that Smith's "translation" has been found to be incorrect in every detail, the LDS Church stubbornly continues to include Smith's pretended "Book of Abraham" as part of its scripture. Because many Latter-day Saints are encouraged not to question the authority of their founder, few delve into the facts which expose him for the fraud he is.

    [For a more detailed study of The Book of Abraham, we suggest Charles Larson's book, "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus".

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    Appreciate all the comments! Even the ones who think my religion is wacky. Of course its wacky - isn't ALL religion wacky?:)

    One thing though I'm not afraid of is truth - I have read every anti-LDS site I can, I've been on fundamentalist sites (not LDS but splinter groups) and have puzzled over loads of things however, I still believe - in fact more so. I even watched the Temple of The God Makers. Why do I read them, because I decided long ago when I was 15 or so that if this LDS faith wasn't good and of worth there was no way I was going to spend 2 years when I got to 19 converting people to something that was false, nor was I spending the rest of my life chasing dreams and putting my kids and family through it. Its the same reason why I'm very interested in all faith systems - I believe in looking and reading about all churches / faiths / philosophies because knowledge gives the best opportunity to make good informed choices.

    I don't visit the ex-LDS because it still feels personal (I don't enjoy feeling that knot in my stomach) and I'd spend all my time preaching - here I can relax knowing no-one here wants to be LDS but that also no one here is exLDS (well no one I know about.)

    As for the Abraham papyrus that the Book of Abraham was translated from those aren't the same as the bits currently in the church's possession, the facsimiles aren't the Book of Abraham. I have studied all the arguements for and against and there are no killer arguements to destroy the books cred. I'll let you know if I find any.

    The greatest unanswered question I have at the moment is about people who are/claim to be gay. I find no scriptural insight into this (other than don't lie man to man) and the LDS church has strong guidleines but no explanations for why. Because I believe that we are eternal and go on for ever and what happens here moulds our characters I wonder what happens when ppl who are gay continue to the next life - do they have to deny who they are? Like I said no answers for this yet - though I do think its wrong - no offense intended.

  • under74
    under74

    Well...you question and most Witnesses don't so I'd say you're up on them there. Umm...I've known a few mormons in the past...a couple of converts I'm actually related to. I could be wrong but I kind of got the idea that the LDS was becoming a lot more mainstream and less rigid with it's rules...am I wrong here? Or I'm asking --Is the LDS (as it is now) as rigid as the WTS? Just curious about this comparison being made is all.

    PS- I re-read your original post last night trying to figure out what word that started with "c" was considered a swear word over here...lol. Just figured it out. That's not a bad word. You're way too polite!

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    hiya, I can't say if the LDS church is more controlling than JWs but the church is maturing as an organisation - the doctrine isn't softening but people are. Often that's the problem with religion I guess - over zealous ppl interpreting and enforcing.

  • new light
    new light

    Qcmbr--- It's good that you have questioned/researched, but those things are only as effective as your level of open-mindedness. The fact that you read piece after piece exposing the dishonesty of the Church, yet emerge with even stronger belief shows that you are afraid to objectively consider the facts. Any literate person can read an article, but someone with a strong predisposition such as your own will not have truly considered the evidence without first suspending his belief system.

    You say you are an elder trying to find what makes people leave their religion behind, so you can better help those in your care. Wouldn't that be better accomplished where the abandoned religion is the same as the one you are trying to defend? You say you would spend your time there preaching. Isn't that your God-given responsiblity? That knot in your stomach should be a red flag that something is causing you to be afraid. You are either afraid to help these "lost sheep", or you are afraid that they will crack your precious belief shell.

    Your question regarding the fate of homosexuals will be answered when you stop living by someone else's pre-packaged belief system and start thinking for real.

  • JustTickledPink
    JustTickledPink

    It might have nothing to do with religion and more to do with sociology. When you are part of a "flock" or a pack, and humans are pack animals, and one person breaks away it makes you feel something, you have to figure out what and why.

    You have to question, why would they leave our pack? What else is out there? I'm still in the pack, I'm right, that must mean they left and they're wrong. If I'm still in and they left, then what does that say about me as a person? There are a lot of questions that might have more to do with you as a PERSON and less to do with religion.

    If everyone stayed in their "comfort zone" and accepted everything, we wouldnt' have gotten very far. Some people had the courage to question, to change, to break away, to explore, to start new things. Some people are more happy in a routine. It's really just about choosing something different. We don't all have to eat vanilla ice cream, some like peanut butter or mint chocolate chip.

    Be happy that there is variety and choices. Be happy for your friend's happiness and courage to start something new. It's harder to go against the current, it's much easier to drift along with everyone else.

  • melmac
    melmac
    As for the Abraham papyrus that the Book of Abraham was translated from those aren't the same as the bits currently in the church's possession,

    Doesn't help much in believing the honesty of such church, does it?

    How about the "milk before meat" thing? Is it right to lie to possible converts and only tell them the truth AFTER they are baptized? As an elder, you know what I mean...

  • bebu
    bebu
    As for the Abraham papyrus that the Book of Abraham was translated from those aren't the same as the bits currently in the church's possession, the facsimiles aren't the Book of Abraham.

    These are not facsimiles (that is, copies of an original). The documents that the Smithsonian discovered in their basement (or wherever) were the actual original documents that Joseph Smith handled, and translated from directly. Until these originals were discovered, it could have been argued that the documents Smith used were NOT funeral documents, but similar to them.

    You said that you researched this fully... and found answers that were satisfying to you? Please let me know where you have found some info that defends this more fully, because I have been researching for answers too, and have not found any yet (that were plausible to a cautious non-LDS). The 'strongest' defense, from the Egyptologist named Nibley (I believe), was that though it was in truth an Egyptian funeral burial document, Smith was able to spiritually translate what was meant for him to understand by God...!

    With such an explanation, Smith is taken immediately above and beyond all the examination that the Bible commands us, for Smith now has a carte blanche (of 'seeing' what we cannot), and we must trust him without question. Rather like we must trust the emperor to be wearing clothes. If we test, we find his claim to translate an utter fraud... (but an LDS must ignore this, it seems...)

    Not trying to rag on ya, Q, or make you feel unwelcome. But if you know of an argument that can hold up to fair scrutiny, I would honestly like to hear it!

    bebu

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    OK I'll take the challenge and try and keep this as short as possible - this is not official LDS thinking - there isn't any official pronouncements on this.

    1 "On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices." (History of the Church 2:235)

    2 "The last of June four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the 'rolls of papyrus', contained the sacred record kept by Joseph in Pharaoh's Court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham." (W.W. Phelps; Improvement Era 45, August 1942)

    3."Soon after this some of the Saints in Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphs, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, and another the writings of Joseph of Egypt" (Joseph Smith; History of the Church 2:236)

    4. "The papyrus, covered with black or red ink, or paint, in excellent preservation" (Times and Seasons 3; May 2nd, 1842; 774)

    This is the woodcut left and a recovered original.

    OK how did Joseph Smith translate these - not a clue!! Joseph Smith was in possession of the Urim and Thummim - the seer stones by which the past present and future could be seen but of more present application they could be used to translate (that's how he did the BOM.) These fragments above are not originals (IE not literally written by Abraham) but are are copies many hundreds of years later (remember what happened to the Bible) so a translation of these characters above would produce a result that had been heavily Egyptisised (I made up that word hehe ) and would contain very little of the original - in fact these are very very similar to Book of Breathings texts which are well translated. Joseph also produced a grammar and alphabet that are nothing like the current scholarly grammars and alphabets.

    So options :

    • The fragments aren't the story of Abraham. The fragments don't match the beautifully preserved papyrus JS described. (personally - not too sure) There is another missing roll. Definately some of the papyrus is missing.
    • What Jospeh Smith translated was not what was on the papyrus - let me clarify; when he read the papyrus as a Seer he saw the original uncorrupted (possibly different language?) and this is what that grammar and alphabet referred to? (I like this a lot for some reasons I'll give below)
    • He made the whole lot up (inc. BOM) and was martyred pointlessly.
    • Current Egyptology is all wrong (yeah - not really an option)
    • Speculation!!!!! Egypt historically gained its desire for the Priesthood of God as a corrupted form of the Ancient order after the flood and the denial of Ham the Priesthood ( They may have descended from Ham). Their whole religion contains many christian / hebrew ideas (you could argue vica versa!) but they understood the idea of judgment, becoming a god (OK thats LDS), the afterlife, the heavens and the underworld, the idea of sacrifice, the wearing of priestly robes and a priesthood, Abraham and other ancient Prophets taught them many true things that became corrupted. The funeral texts etc are their scriptures and incorporated into their religion are many correct doctrines mixed up with myths. We are unable to understand the true meaning of Egyptian religion because we are many cultures and years apart from them and so our understanding of the past is wrong.

    OK why plump for the second option (which to a sceptic gives JS carte blanche to make up anything he wants up)

    • JS translated many things without an original - the Urim and Thummim regularly translated from corrupt nth generation copies back to original meaning - the Pearl Of Great Price contains the JS translation of the bible - he wasn't working from originals. There is a whole section in the DC that contains a letter written by Paul ( I think ) which doesn't even have a source.
    • Daniel in the bible got a whole set of words and sentences out of one word written by God on the wall. The papyrus doesn't contain enough words for the Book of Abraham - either JS was yanking our chain or he was following the prophetic model.
    • If anyone reads the history of JS they will find someone who is uneducated but almost incredibally talented - to make up the Book of Abraham would have been abject folly - no-one joined the church because of it, it was not used as a book to preach the gospel (the BOM and Bible were used for that) it has little or no purpose for a fraudster, in fact it was only published in magazine format as an interesting point and was only later added into the canon once its doctrinal importance was found.

    End of the day, I believe JS is/was a prophet - end of the day I don't believe because of proofs - same way I don't believe the bible because they dig up an ancient city etc..Book of Abraham would be way down my list of things to disprove JS if that was my thinking.

  • GetBusyLiving
    GetBusyLiving

    WOW.

    Anyways just a quick question Qcmbr - what type religions do ex-LDS turn to when they leave the church? For example with dubs its sometimes like a born again type religious system for a while. Any trends or do they usually just drop religion altogether?

    GBL

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit