The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,248 Articles Spanning 204 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
NPR's Talk of the Nation a recently had an interesting interview with Wendy Berry Mendes, an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard(go here to listen: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...). She and her colleagues just published their research (in the journal "Emotion") about self-serving exaggeration. They claim that the physiological response of exaggeration (in certain cases, like giving your GPA a dishonest boost in an interview) is very different than the physiological response of outright lying. In fact, exaggerating can sometimes be self-serving in that you are forced to live up to what you have said (Mendes compared it to goal-setting).
NY Times also did a piece on this study:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/hea...
They call these little exaggerations, "future-truths."
As I was listening, I recalled BKP's infamous, "A testimony is found in the bearing of it" ("The Candle of the Lord," Ensign, Jan 1983; or http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...) and couldn't help but make a connection.
So basically, the Mormons figured out this self-brainwash technique decades ago. You see, it's not an outright lie, so you don't have to feel guilty for saying it. Yet, since you said it, you're obligated to FORCE it to come true or look like a liar.
It's scary that you can tell a lie and convince yourself it's not a lie. Consider this from the NY Times article: "The researchers videotaped the interviews, and independent observers rated how students looked and behaved. 'The ones who exaggerated the most appeared the most calm and confident' on the ratings, Dr. Mendes said."
I'm picturing Oaks' creepy smirk as he calmly states, "it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true" (see his rationalization here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v..., where he also states, "not everything that’s true is useful.")
If you ever wondered how the GA's can stand at every conference and be so convincing (to members) about their status as "Special Witnesses," consider this (again from NY Times):
"...fibs can reflect something close to the opposite of the frustration, insecurity and secretiveness that often fuel big lies. That may be why they can come so easily, add up so fast and for some people — especially around closing time — become indistinguishable from the truth."
| Today was a regretful day in my life; I went to church to see my parents speak today for Mother's Day. Attending church wasn't the regret though. The regret is that I had to give up NBA playoff tickets to...err....go to church. Giving up the tickets is a long story that isn't too important to go into. All I ask is that you accept that that's just the way it was.
Anyway, since I wasn't going to the game, I thought I'd just have to quit fuming and accept that I'm at where I'm at and just make the best of it.
To deal with my current situation, I began to observe the actions, behaviors, and mannerisms of the people in Sacrament meeting. I have a slight fascination of observing people's behavior and actions in various places and church is one of my favorite places to observe people, so this was the best I could come up with.
I couldn't help but notice that a good number of the attendees in Sacrament meeting looked, how you say, somewhat depressed. It was this solemnity look on their faces that made me wonder "Why do people willingly come to church?" I'm sure it varies person to person, but whatever the reason, is your reason to attend church more important than your enjoyment? I for one happen to be one who likes to maximize their enjoyment as much as possible. I don't know if I'm the oddity or if that's normal.
As I sat there listening to the various prayers, the talks finally came. Oh good!! I can't wait to hear the "golden" bits of wisdom the Mormon members have. The talks were on...you'll never guess....MOTHERS!! It seemed like all the talks placed mothers/women on this predetermined path (i.e. have kids and raise them). Saying that motherhood is the highest calling a woman can engage in. Ehh?
While being a parent can be rewarding, so I hear, to say that Big Sky Daddy views motherhood as the "noblest" calling, is absurd, in my opinion. I don't like the idea that this type of choice is chosen above all choices a woman can make. It seems like it puts women in a rock and a hard place by emphasizing that the most important being (God) prefers women to be a certain way. And what gets me on that, is that members of the Church are taught to make choices that please God. So what's a faithful Mormon to do?
As much as I wanted to take something from this meeting that had some value from what a speaker said, I couldn't. One, it was real hard to focus when I couldn't stop thinking about those golden tickets (these tickets were way better than the golden ticket from Willy Wonka). And two, every time I heard something that was meant to be uplifting, I couldn't help but go right back to my crossword puzzle. Wow, the crossword puzzle was more enjoyable by comparison. How sad is that?
I realized I dislike the way the Mormon church dictates choices (the limited amount that they approve of) to the women in the church. It seems like it creates stagnant thinking on the women's part by way of dictating what only choices are acceptable to God (whenever a Mormon says "god", you can replace that with "the Mormon church" and it means the exact same thing).
In Mormondom you're given choice A and anything other than choice A is an abomination in God's sight. How can you expand your horizons when your choices are so limited? Thinking anything other than what Sky Daddy wants is treacherous territory. Seems hard to further your thoughts if the Mormon way is the way.
Maybe I'm too much of heathen to get anything out of church anymore. Besides, I must be past all feeling (they must mean 'feeling stupid') for me to not realize that Sacrament meeting is filled with the Spirit. And if the Spirit is everywhere in the building, then the Mormon church must be legit. How could I have been so blind?
On a side note: A friend and I were discussing the humor in someone going down to the Gateway mall in SLC and dress in what is perceived to be old-school prophet attire and preach that people don't have to accept the Gateway mall as their mall. But there is a better and bigger mall. And begin to tell of the "sinful" ways of the Gateway and how the new Downtown mall is the answer.
If someone does this, please let me know. I don't have it in me to keep a straight face while preaching. So, if someone can pull it off and wants to, I'd love to see this
| Occasionally people make the suggestion that even if we don’t believe the church is “true”, we should still be able to stay in the church for the good parts, and ignore the bad – that despite its problems, the church “works” for some people. I think that is worth examining.
The good:
The mormon church does offer a social network, and teaches basic common sense things like honesty, hard work, etc. I honestly can't think of anything good about the mormon church that can't be found elsewhere, at less of a cost, but for the sake of argument let’s agree that there is good in the mormon church.
The question becomes, what do we have to ignore in order to receive the “benefits”?
The bad:
Racism. There is no denying that the mormon church has been a racist organization throughout most of its history, and arguably still is.
When I was a young aaronic priesthood holder, there was a young man from Brazil living with a family in our ward. He had been raised in the church and attended priesthood meeting, but he never had a turn in the presidency. He would sit on the front row with the rest of us during sacrament meeting, but would be left to sit awkwardly alone while the rest of us passed the sacrament. He even went on temple trips with the rest of us, sitting outside with one of the adults while the rest of us did baptisms.
I can’t imagine how he must have felt.
Until relatively recently the church considered millions of people, including diligent, faithful members, unworthy to hold its priesthood, which it routinely gave to 12 year old white boys, simply because of their race. I cannot ignore that.
Yes, the policy has changed, but I don’t believe a single leader has ever said the policy was a mistake, or apologized to the millions of people, including my friend from Brazil, who it slapped in the face all those years. GBH could have boldly stated on national TV, “We were wrong. It was a terrible mistake. We apologize unequivocally.” Instead he dismissed it as an insignificant “fleck of history.” I cannot ignore that.
Sexism. Even now women and girls are not allowed to hold the mormon priesthood, or serve in positions of leadership other than in auxiliary organizations under male supervision. Mormon males are taught that they are the leaders, and that females should follow them. I cannot ignore that.
Look at a group picture of the church leadership. Do they represent all of the inhabitants of the Earth? I cannot ignore that.
I cannot ignore that in the mormon church untrained men are encouraged to interrogate young children about their sexuality. I cannot ignore that many young peoples’ lives have been destroyed because of the church’s teachings about homosexuality. I cannot ignore that church leaders travel in first class luxury while bragging that members are donating the gold fillings from their teeth to the church, because that is all they have left to give.
I cannot understand how people are able to “just ignore” the racist, sexist, destructive aspects of the mormon church.
There are many wonderful sources of good in the world. You shouldn’t have to hold your nose.
| I'm currently reading "Tell It All" by Fanny Stenhouse (it's online and I HIGHLY recommend it). Her book covers her conversion to mormonism in England, the lies, fraud and deceit of mormon leaders which she became acquainted with while still in England, her subsequent emigration with her husband and children to Utah by boat and handcart, etc. She tells about how vile Brigham Young and other church leaders were, blood atonement, polygamy, etc., and gives us a picture of what Utah was like during the 1800's.
Her accounts concerning polygamy are heartbreaking. I had never heard about some women going insane as a result of polygamy.
This is what she said about it:
"Had I been treated with the cruelty and neglect which has fallen to the lot of so many unfortunate women in Utah, I should probably have been in my grave to-day, or in that Asylum, which has been provided by the Church-situated on a lonely hill at a sufficient distance from the city, so that the cries of the unhappy, ill-treated, insane women should not be heard."
I've learned not to believe everything I read, so I did a search to find out if this had really happened. The results of my search show that, indeed, some women went insane because of polygamy. I haven't found enough information to determine the extent of this, but it is sad to imagine what mental and emotional anguish these women suffered to cause them to go insane.
Included in these women is a daughter of John Taylor who went insane as a result of her father "endeavoring to force her into polygamy".
The reporter of the following link (from the New York Times in 1882) was visiting asylums in the United States and said that "in no instance have I seen sights so horrible" as what he saw in Utah.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-...
This article also talks about some women going insane:
http://www.biblebelievers.net/Cults/M...
In my research I also learned that there are women today who go insane in countries where polygamy is practiced.
Polygamy is a vile, despicable, disgusting practice that is degrading to women.
|  | Here Oaks Attempts To Defend His Anti-Criticsm Comments On The PBS Documentary, "The Mormons"
Article Archived: May 8, 2008, at 07:38 AM
Stored Under Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Steve Benson |  | |
In making his case for censorship, Oaks tells interview Helen Whitney the following (availabe on the LDS Church's own offical media site):
OAKS: "I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever. Well, of course, that sounds like religious censorship also.
"But not everything that’s true is useful. I am a lawyer, and I hear something from a client. It’s true, but I’ll be disciplined professionally if I share it because it’s part of the attorney-client privilege. There’s a husband-wife privilege, there’s a priest-penitent privilege, and so on. That’s an illustration of the fact that not everything that’s true is useful to be shared.
"In relation to history, I was speaking in that talk for the benefit of those that write history. In the course of writing history, I said that people ought to be careful in what they publish because not everything that’s true is useful. See a person in context; don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation.
WHITNEY: "Just one more question on that. In every church, in every person, there’s a shallow territory usually explained away through context. Many find information through the Internet — some would rather find things out about the Church history, doctrine through teachings, rather than the Internet, or other resources.
OAKS: "It’s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That’s an old problem in Mormonism — a feeling of members that they shouldn’t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should’ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life.
"There are several different elements of that. One element is that we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.
"On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t."
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/e...
| Well, this is what I've been waiting for. Certainly, I'll be interested to read what more up-to-speed BoA observers have to say about this article, but in any case, I thought I'd offer up my impressions. Simply put: it sucks. Gee spends far too much time trying to discredit various witnesses, and to undermine knowledge concerning the "discovery" of the JS papyri. In short, Gee has no real thesis beyond a very basic, 5-alarm "Must defend the BoA! Must defend the BoA!" Basically, reading this article is like watching an academic in free-fall.
Just as a small sampling of this embarrassment, check out this:
John Gee wrote:
Since there is no official position, members of the church divide into four opinions about the translation of the Book of Abraham. The smallest group, comprising about 0.5 percent of members—according to my informal, admittedly unscientific surveys—thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the existing fragments that were in the Met. The next largest group thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus fragments that are no longer in existence. About one-third think that there is or was no connection between the Book of Abraham and any papyrus fragments. The largest group, more than half of members, do not care where the Book of Abraham came from.
Only .5 percent of members?!? Gee, why might this be, Prof. Gee? Aren't members informed about these very important and controversial apologetic issues?
Elsewhere, Gee relies upon this now very tired Mopologetic chestnut:
All approaches will be biased. Objectivity is a myth.
Right. Especially those approaches which have their basis in sound Egyptological disciplinary practices. Right?
In this next quote, Gee seems to (already) be mourning the mantel he has been forced(?) to shoulder within LDS apologetics:
If you do address the issue in print, you need to know that the two sides in the dispute will never leave you alone. It is a life sentence with no possibility of parole.
Yeeouch! I guess this means that Robert Ritner is in for a lifetime of harassment as well? Next, Gee seems to be channeling juliann:
If you decide you want to enter the debate, you ought to do some real homework. There is a large bibliography, and there are dozens of theories to master, not to mention a large body of evidence. Many mistakes would not have been made had Egyptologists only known the literature better.
And dig this howler:
If you want to do anything with the originals, you need to apply to the archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at least a full year in advance. You will need approvals from half a dozen committees that meet only once a month and for whom your request will be far down the list of agenda items. Requests to do anything before that time will garner an automatic denial.
Hmmm. And how many times have we heard LDS assert that historical archives are "wide open"? This seems to blow that out of the water! Gee whiz! A full year! And who are the "half a dozen committees"? Is one of them the SCMC?
This, in effect, is how Gee winds up the article:
Whatever goodwill Professor Baer had established among the Mormons by his tact has more than been destroyed by the recent cooperation of certain Egyptologists with anti-Mormons. Whatever short-term tactical gains for anti-Mormonism these Egyptologists may have made, the net result is a long-term loss for a serious Egyptological examination of the material. Those who wish to work with the originals will have to find ways to distance themselves from those efforts and the individuals involved in them, and from those who violate the church's copyrights on the material. It is worth following Professor Ritner's warning that those "for whom ridicule . . . [is] an occupation" and who are "not disposed to be particularly charitable" are "not relevant to the present discussion."
A couple of points here. Am I mistaken, or was this Ritner quote originally directed at LDS apologists? Furthermore, does this not seem like a kind of finger-wagging threat?
All in all, I found this piece by Gee to be an exercise in futility. He failed to deal with any of the more pertinent issues, and ultimately, the article functions primarily in the arena of rhetoric (rather than Egyptological scholarship). He is sitting here warning people that they had better back off, or else! The whole article seems like a long winded variation on that old childhood thread: "You better be nice, or I'm taking my ball home!"
| I'm sure this has been covered before, but I was reminded of it today and thought that newbies here would benefit by reading these things.
Our temple recommend interviews include the question "are you honest in all of your dealings?" It seems that honesty doesn't count in some cases, and that sweeping truth under a rug, even if "for a season", is the new defintion of honesty for not only church members but church leaders.
Let's reflect upon just a few of the words of the leaders [all emphasis is mine]:
"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. EVERYTHING may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the REPUTATION of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."
- Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii
What Dallin is saying here is that even if we find historical facts directly in the church's own history that make the brethren or their testimonies look bad, or cast a bad light on Joseph Smith [even if it’s all true!], then we have to try to limit its influence. Another “gross error”, in my opinion.
And here's one of the most popular quotes amongst those who have discovered that mormonism is a lie:
This is Boyd K. Packer when he talks about sharing “all” of the truth:
“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of CHURCH HISTORY to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. SOME THNGS THAT ARE TRUE ARE NOT VERY USEFUL. That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. ... Do not spread disease germs!" - Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271
I would ask, how is telling TRUTH “spreading disease germs” or “not very useful”? Why would one want to repent for telling the truth [and worse yet, be told by a 'prophet, seer and revelator' to keep our mouths shut about truth if it doesn't support the way the church is run right now]? Does not the temple recommend interview specifically ask us if we "are honest in all our dealings”? It seems to me that these statements also strongly contradict the admonishings of prophets [past and present] which clearly state that the church bears careful investigation and so does its leaders.
Russell M. Nelson said, "To anyone who, because of TRUTH [?], may be tempted to become a dissenter against the Lord and his anointed, weigh carefully your action in light of this sacred scripture: (he then quotes Alma 47:36). [see - Russell M. Nelson, “Truth—and More,” Ensign, Jan. 1986, page 69 for the full talk].
I submit that if the church, which claims its foundation is based on truth, SHOULD have its members become concerned and speak out if they find falsehoods in the very religion that claims it is the “one and only true church”; that we are to be “honest in all our dealings”; that “the Lord’s anointed will NEVER fail or lead us astray”; and that we are to investigate our religion thoroughly. Elder Nelson’s comments are contradictory, dishonest, and shameful.
Here’s another from Dallin: He published an article for the February 1987 Ensign Magazine. Again, Dallin declared that there is no place in the church for public criticism of church leaders, even if the criticism is true. He also said:
"Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our USE of truth should be disciplined by other values. ... When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.
-Dallin H. Oaks, "Reading Church History," CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B
-
This is what is more correctly termed “Lying by omission, or more strongly called “lying for the Lord”. It could also be regarded as lying to save face, and telling the truth later when it’s more convenient. The scripture he quoted does not say “There is a time to tell the truth and a time to lie [by omission, or for the Lord...ha]”.
I submit that truth is NEVER constrained by other virtues. Otherwise, members shouldn’t be constantly saying, “I know this church is true, I know the prophet is true, I know the scriptures are true, etc.”
| I left the LDS way of life eight years ago. It took me about two years to get the whole thing out of my system, though it only took a couple of weeks to go from, "Why don't I like going to church?" to "Wait a minute ... this is totally false! Oh thank god!"
I remember one moment when I was standing on the stairs, halfway between one level and the next. I looked out the window that ran along the stairway, at the beautiful green trees glistening with dew, and I realized I was finally free to love the universe. I felt joy.
Another profound moment came to me when I was watching a brilliant documentary about the universe and the commentator said that someday (billions of years from now), the universe as we know it would no longer exist. Our world, our memories, everything we'd done or felt or were would be gone forever. Some people would find this terrifying; I thought it was deeply profound. I realized that I live for now, for the people in my life now, for the world I influence now. I didn't have to waste now struggling to make an eternal later, one that would drag on forever. There is only today. I love today. I can give love today. What a fabulous realization.
I am now free to love unconditionally such a diverse group of people as non-religious friends, Catholic co-workers, romance writers, gay relatives, eccentric artists, and a "Non-Mormon!" spouse. I don't judge them as imperfect or waste time trying to make them as bland as everyone else. I get to spend all my time enjoying their existence!
Mormonism only factors into my life when still-in relatives mention it, or when curious friends ask me about it. It makes amazing dinner conversation, as even the simplest and most ordinary-seeming beliefs leave their jaws hanging open. (Yes, magic underwear. Yes, hot drinks are mostly evil. Yes, they *assign* you talks. Yes, God always chooses an old white guy living in Utah to tell everyone on the planet what to do.)
The memories are fading now. I couldn't sneak into a church and fit seamlessly in anymore. I'd forget the "right" words. I'd get mad when someone was treated rudely based on their clothing or their language. I'd probably wear something that couldn't fit bra straps under it, much less underwear with sleeves. I'd fall asleep during a testimony. (Okay, so I'd still fit in a little bit.)
I no longer spend hours each day trying to figure out if my every move is right or wrong, if God disapproves of yet another thought that's crossed my mind unbidden, if even my dreams are a sin.
I don't spend hours judging who is righteous enough for me to associate with, or who is unrighteous enough that I should bring casserole to their house and invite them to church.
I don't give tithing money to a Bishop who has a very large house and too many cars for his salary range, just to watch him turn down aid to a family barely holding on to their humble home.
But mostly, I don't feel like a hypocrite.
An ugly, lying, hidden hypocrite who constantly bends over backwards in my own brain to make sense of the stuff I know doesn't make sense, the stuff I know doesn't fit the real world I see around me. A sinful shame breathing filth every moment of the day, terrified to touch anyone for fear of dirtying my hands further. Someone who sees the shadows of hell in every corner, and the lust of evil behind every outsider's eye.
I can still remember those feelings. But they're distant, fading. Part of a mythology long since dead in my world. I live in another world now, one where I can look up at the stars and see a billion mysterious points of light. I know nothing about them or myself -- and I have only a brief, beautiful life to study them.
How utterly magnificent.
| Many of you know that Joseph Smith, Jr., obtained in the mid 1800s papyri scrolls which were part of a travelling mummy show. He claimed that one of the scrolls contained a story about the Biblical Abraham. He then claimed to translate the Egyptian characters and reveal the story. The resulting “Book of Abraham” is one of the most important of the LDS scriptures. A good deal of the unique LDS theology comes from this book.
Critics argue that his “translation” actually came from a common Egyptian funerary text called the Book of Breathings - and had nothing to do with Abraham. Critics argue that the BoA therefore proves Smith as a fraud. This particular papyrus (say the Egyptologists) was for a dead Egyptian named Hor. It was a pagan document designed to help Hor pass to the next world and become a deity himself (or something to that effect).
Who is right?
Well, consider “Facsimile 3”:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac3...
This drawing was copied from the papyrus and allegedly ties directly in to the story line of the BoA. In Joseph Smith’s “version” of the scroll, Abraham teaches the Egyptians about astrology. Here is Smith’s official explanation of the drawing:
Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.
Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.
Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.
Egyptologists could not disagree more with Joseph Smith’s explanations.
Dr. Robert Ritner, a renowned Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, explains the real meanings of the labels on the drawings:
Label for Osiris (Fig. 1 of Facsimile 3): Recitation by Osiris, Foremost of the Westerners, Lord of Abydos(?), the great god forever and ever(?).
Label for Isis (Fig. 2 of Facsimile 3): Isis the great, the god’s mother.
Label for Maat (Fig. 4 of Facsimile 3): Maat, mistress of the gods.
Label for Hor (Fig. 5 of Facsimile 3): The Osiris Hor, justified forever.
Label for Anubis (Fig. 6 of Facsimile 3): Recitation by Anubis, who makes protection(?), foremost of the embalming booth
Invocation: O gods of the necropolis, gods of the caverns, gods of the south, north, west, and east, grant salvation to the Osiris Hor, the justified, born by Taikhibit.
“THE BREATHING PERMIT OF HÔR” AMONG THE JOSEPH SMITH PAPYRI,” Robert K. Ritner, The University of Chicago, Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
Ritner continues:
Smith misunderstood “Pharaoh” as a personal name (cf. Abraham 1:25), and the name above fig. 2 is unquestionably that of the female Isis. Osiris (fig. 1) is certainly not “Abraham,” nor is it possible that the altar of Osiris (fig. 3) “signifies Abraham.” Maat (fig. 4) is not a male “prince,” Hor (fig. 5) is not a “waiter,” nor is Anubis (fig. 6) a “slave” (because of his dark skin). Such interpretations are uninspired fantasies and are defended only with the forfeiture of scholarly judgment and credibility.
So, the labels which exit in Facsimile 3 PRECISELY MATCH the text of the papyrus in the possession of the LDS church. It is a funerary procession for the deceased Hor. The picture matches the existing papyrus.
No part of the existing papyrus has anything to do with Abraham, so Mormons sometimes argue, “Well, we must be missing some of the papyrus.”
Given Facsimile 3, whether some of the papyrus is missing or not seems irrelevant. The picture directly matches the existing text. The labels in the picture match the existing text.
The labels claimed by Joseph Smith are simply incorrect. Isis is “Isis the great, the god’s mother.” Figure 2 is assuredly not “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.”
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for how Joseph Smith got these labels wrong. If he could read the characters above the head of figure 2, he would have “translated” just like professor Ritner, “Isis the great, the god’s mother.”
Smith did not.
Is there any reasonable explanation which can logically reconcile Joseph Smith’s mistakes on Facsimile 3?
| In 1828, Martin Harris, acting as scribe for Joseph Smith, recorded the first 116 pages of The Book of Mormon. He asked permission of Joseph Smith to let him borrow these pages to take home with him so he could show them to his wife. Martin’s wife was very skeptical and feared that her wealthy husband was being conned out of his money in order to get the Book of Mormon published for Joseph. Joseph inquired of the Lord to know if he might do as Martin Harris had requested, but was refused. Joseph inquired again, but received a second refusal. Still, Martin Harris persisted as before, and Joseph applied again, but the last answer was not like the two former ones. In this the Lord permitted Martin Harris to take the manuscript home with him. Three weeks later Mr. Harris returned to Joseph and told him that he had lost the 116 pages.
Joseph was very distraught over this, exclaiming "Oh, my God! All is lost! All is lost! What shall I do? I have sinned." It is widely believed that Martin Harris’ wife had taken the pages. The reasoning was that if Joseph was indeed a prophet he could retranslate those same pages exactly as before and that would prove he was actually translating instead of just making up the Book of Mormon story as he dictated to Martin. Finally, Joseph inquired of the Lord as to what he should do; in response, he received a revelation, which is recorded in section 10 of the Doctrine & Covenants. He was told that he should not retranslate those lost pages because Satan’s cunning plan was to have evil men alter the words in the original translation and wait until Joseph retranslated those pages. The evil men would then produce the original lost 116 pages with the alterations to prove that Joseph was a fraud.
God, of course, knew of Satan’s eventual plan and had Nephi make two sets of plates that cover essentially the same material but written a little differently. Joseph was instructed to now translate from the large plates of Nephi, instead of the smaller, abridged plates of Nephi that he had translated from earlier. This way the same basic information that should be included in the Book of Mormon was there, but it would not be expected to match exactly the original lost 116 pages that were first translated by Joseph.
The official story taught and recorded by the church is non-sensical for the following reasons:
1) The evil men that were conspiring to alter the original documents could not have done so without it being very obvious that the original document was altered. When Martin Harris was scribing for Joseph, he didn’t use a pencil and paper. Martin wrote with ink on foolscap. Any alteration would be very noticeable and not convincing to anyone.
In addition to the rubbing out of old words and rewriting of new words, the handwriting would have been different. Any rudimentary handwriting inspection would have determined that it had been altered, especially easy to determine given that the new handwriting would have occurred in the same spot as the rubbed out and re-written words.
2) If the evil men that were planning on changing the stolen 116 pages thought their plan of changing some words from these pages would work to discredit Joseph they would not have been completely foiled by Joseph translating from different plates to tell the first part of the Book of Mormon story. If they thought their alterations would have gone unnoticed then they would have still tried to alter the 116 pages to discredit his work.
For example, they could have changed some names of people or places or altered events that are central to the beginning of the Book of Mormon and thereby prove that Joseph’s new translation was in error. If they really thought their alterations would have gone unnoticed they could have changed the names of Nephi’s brothers or the cities they came from or many other items that would have been included in both sets of plates. But they never did this – why? If opponents of the Church really had the lost 116 pages as Joseph claimed they would have resurfaced in some form to at least attempt to discredit Joseph, even if they would not have been successful.
3) The general belief at the time was that Martin Harris’s wife burned the 116 pages. If she destroyed them, then this entire story is simply made up by Joseph Smith. But the prophet Joseph evidently was afraid she had not, but had secretly hidden them, for the purpose of entrapping him, should he ever attempt to reproduce the pages. If the work was really of God, the manuscript could be reproduced word for word without a mistake. If, however, Joseph created it himself, his memory would hardly be adequate to such a task, without numberless changes or verbal differences—and thus "give himself away," since he loudly professed to be all the time aided "by the gift and power of God." Since the lost pages never surfaced in any form, it is likely that they were destroyed immediately by Martin Harris’s wife. Therefore, the entire story about someone altering pages is impossible and just made up by Joseph because he knew he could not reproduce those same pages as he was not really translating the Book of Mormon story.
4) It is convenient that the prophets of old just happened to make an extra set of plates 1500 years ago to cover this contingency, isn’t it? For further details:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/b...
It’s hard to believe that Satan and some evil men were really behind the plot to steal the 116 pages. The stolen pages would have eventually come forth in probably a failed attempt to discredit Joseph. If nothing else they would have been worth a lot of money so we can’t imagine why the evil men, if they existed, would not have used the pages to either try to discredit Smith, ransom them to Martin and Joseph or hold on to them to eventually sell them. The stolen pages wouldn’t have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.
Instead it seems much more plausible that Martin Harris’ wife had immediately destroyed the pages to defy her husband. If that’s the case, is there any other reason why Joseph would make up the story about Satan’s plan to discredit him? I haven’t found any members that can explain Joseph’s actions with a reasonable explanation.
To learn more about the Lost 116 Pages: http://www.mormonthink.com/lost116web...
| One remaining "chink in my armor" is my vulnerability to seductive people and their abilities to manufacture needs in me that I didn't even know I had. My friends so clearly see right through them... and then compassionately wait to see if I'm able to figure things out. It's been embarrassing that I'm still so easily led, but realizing it's not my fault and releasing that false sense of guilt has been a huge step forward for me.
I grew up being lied to, which is par for the course in so many families... but worse, I grew up being lied to in a place that claimed to be a safe and caring "hospital for sinners," a place where I was told that I could safely let down all my defenses because "God would never allow a profit to stand" if Mormonism was fake. [Just don't point out that the Mormon God let JS be killed as a Mormon witness to what a lying, horndog con artist he was, ok?] Like everyone else, I wasn't converted to Mormonism as I grew up, but instead, I was seduced into the false sense of eternal security that Mormonism so cunningly and craftily sells.
Mormonism seduced me by manufacturing a need, an insatiable hunger for the alleged ability to control my eternal future, and then promising to fill that hunger with their (stolen from the Masons) temple rituals that "only" cost a "paltry" 10++% of all my +gross+ income. Mormonism convinced me that I had powers beyond *all* the nonmember mortals and immortals... I had powers rivaling those of God himself! I could control my post-mortal progression and thus I could control how God treated me!
But, wait... let's just stop and think this through for a minute. Why would I or anyone need those alleged powers? Couldn't I trust the Mormon God to do like his son said and "Love me as [Jesus] had loved everyone" since God and Jesus were allegedly "one" in thought, word and deed? But, if I couldn't trust God or Jesus, someone was lying... was it God? Was it Jesus? Or was it, God forbid, the Mormons themselves who were lying about God and Jesus and everything else?!
Mormons of course never come right out and and openly discuss the full depth of what they are selling because, one, everyone would then clearly see that Mormonism is based on the god of this world's vanity and egoic tendencies, and two, Mormons are too busy making every other Mormon feel so insecure that the only way any Mormon can feel the least bit of safety is to continually strive to control God.
I don't know about you, but I never wanted those powers, especially not the ability to control God, and I don't know anyone who really does. I have a hard enough time trying to decide what to wear to work every morning let alone trying to decide how can I control God today!
When we get right down to it, isn't everything about Mormonism all about vying with God for control of our souls? If I were doing everything the Mormons told me to do, wasn't I promised that I could be a Queen in the eternities, outranking even Jesus himself as he is just a "Prince" of Peace?
Does this manufactured need and resultant hunger to wrest control of our souls from the vicious Mormon God set all Mormons on a path of being gods unto themselves instead of being able to trust the God they worship... or trust anyone, really, especially and including themselves?
What is your take on this?
|  | I Was Forced To Pay Big Bucks To Go To The Temple
Article Archived: May 6, 2008, at 07:11 AM
Stored Under Topic: TITHING
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: 1111 | | |
Sixteen years ago, when my husband (now ex) and I were quite young and had only been married a few years, we wanted to go to the temple and be sealed. We had gotten civily married at first.
At that time, we were VERY poor. We scraped from paycheck to paycheck, and we still couldn't make ends meet. (we had lots of debt at the time). I shopped discount stores, got my clothes at Deseret Industries, and I only had $40 to spend on groceries every TWO WEEKS. We were forced to go on welfare. (thankfully, a couple of years later he got an excellent job). For Christmas we would get a special slip of paper from the Bishop so we could go to Deseret Industries and chose some Christmas presents for ourselves and others...used things.
Moving forward: Okay, so we go interview with our Bishop, and tell him we want to go to the temple and be sealed for time and all eternity. We had not paid tithing in quite awhile...we didn't have ANY money. To pay tithing would have meant we would have had to give up an essential living expense (or two...or three). Of course, we were always made to feel guilty about this.
Our Bishop sat back in his chair, looked us over, and then questioned us about our tithing. He then leaned forward and told us that he couldn't allow us to go to the temple because we were behind in our tithing payments. He told us that in order to be allowed to enter the 'holy building', we would have to be square with the Lord, and square with the church. We asked him how much "back" tithing we owed. He looked at a paper, and then told us we owed...are you ready for this???
$$$$$$$$$$$$ OVER FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS!! $$$$$$$$$$$
We asked him if we could make payments (hahaha!!) ...like we could afford to...sheeesh....and he seemed angry and stern, and told us that there was "no way he'd allow us to go the temple" unless we paid our back tithing. (@#$%!!)
So guess what we did? We TOOK OUT A LOAN, on top of the other loans we had that we couldn't afford (for our home, our furniture, credit card bills, car payment, etc.) so we could pay the mormon church to 'allow' us into their temple. Yes, a loan. We could NOT afford the payments. If I remember right, we had to consolodate later on and paid outragious interest to get that done. We paid for years on that ridiculous loan, and of course spent a couple more years (before the good job) scraping worse than we ever had before. What's worse is I had a daughter already, and we just had a baby boy, too. My children suffered so the mormon church could line their pockets more.
What makes this whole thing even worse is that our temple experience TOTALLY SUCKED...the temple workers were rude, rushing us around, and didn't make my "real" wedding day special. It was all about rushing us in and out so they could bring in the next couple.
I can't even explain the anger and frustation I feel when I think of how poor we were, on WELFARE, scraping to eat, struggling to keep clothes on our backs, and having to GO INTO DEBT so we could PAY for our temple recommends. Yep, God is poor and he needs our money. Not only that, but he expects us to go into debt for it, even though he also expressely forbids us to go into debt (according to his "prophets"). Kind of reminds me of Adam and Eve...eat that apple, but don't eat it.
|  | This Is For Those Wanting To Understand The Meaning Of The Temple Signs, Penalties And Tokens
Article Archived: May 6, 2008, at 07:09 AM
Stored Under Topic: MASONS
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Odell Campbell | | |
I finally understand the temple signs!
I regularly attended the temple, was a temple worker, and studied the scriptures, but I never knew or understood the meaning or significance of the temple penalties (pre-1990) or the signs.
After leaving the church, I learned that Joseph Smith copied the ceremony from the Freemason ceremony he was introduced to seven weeks prior.
Now I understand the meaning of all those silly signs etc.
I have been reading a book by historian John J. Robinson, entitled “Born in Blood” The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry.” Despite its unfortunate title, the book is well researched and well written. Mr. Robinson is an expert on the 14th and 15th centuries. In researching the Peasant Rebellion, he believes that a secret organization that planned the rebellion was the remnants of the Knights Templar and the predecessor of Freemasonry. By his own admission, the connection is completely speculative, but the book is full of good and interesting history of Europe and the Vatican during the 1300’s through the 1500’s.
During the book, the author describes signs and tokens of Freemasonry as a clue to its origins (presumably to the Knights Templar).
Robinson describes in details those signs and penalties. Apparently Joseph Smith lacked the good sense to include the allegorical tale of Hiram Abish and only stole the Masonic tokens and penalties.
For those of you who wanted to understand what the signs, tokens and penalties meant, I give you further Light and Knowledge.
After expressing his willingness to take the oath, the candidate, still blindfolded, is guided into the proper position for an Entered Apprentice. He kneels on his bare left knee, with his right leg ahead of him in the angle of the square. In front of him on the altar is the holy book of his faith, open, with the compass and square on the open book. In the Entered Apprentice ceremony, the square is on top of the points of the compass.
The candidate places his left hand under the book, palm up, while his right hand is on top of the compass and square, palm downward. In this position, he takes the first of the oaths that has brought so much criticism down on the Masonic institution.
….
Upon the completion of the oath, the candidate is instructed to kiss the holy book, as a token of his sincerity. He is then asked what it is that he desires most to which the proper answer is, “light.” At this response, the blindfold is removed and the secrets of the Entered Apprentice are revealed to him. Among these are the hand grip and the two hand signs. One is the penal sign, which recalls the penalty “to have my throat cut across,” as the hand, thumb inward, is drawn quickly across the throat, then dropped to the side. The other sign repeats the position in which the hands were placed under and on the holy book when taking the oath: left palm up, right palm down, hands about two inches apart.
pp. 206-207.
After being guided to the ceremony, passing around the large room from station to station, the candidate once again finds himself before the altar, still blindfolded, where he takes the oath of the second degree. He is guided into a position that has him kneeling on his bare right knee. His right hand is on the compass and square on the Bible, while his left hand is raised with his upper arm, horizontal and his forearm vertical, thus forming a square. Once again, the Master of the lodge assures him that the will not interfere with his duty to God or country.
….
After taking the oath, the blindfold is removed and the new Fellow Craft is taught the handgrip and password of this degree. He is also taught the penal sign, which calls to mind the penalty of having the heart plucked from his breast; he is shown how to move his flat right hand across his left breast, then let it drop to his side. As with the first degree, the due-guard of the Fellow Craft repeats the positions that his hands were in as he took the oath: the right hand in front of him waist high, palm down (as he held his hand on the Bible and compass and square), and his left arm raised, forming a square.
pp. 211-213.
After brief ceremonies similar to those of the first two degrees, the candidate is ready for the administration of the oath of the Master Mason, which the Master of the lodge once again assures himm will not interfer with any duty which he owes to his God, his country, or his family. The candidate is on his bare knees in front of the altar, with both palms down on the Holy Bible, on top of which the compass and square have been placed, with both legs of the compass above the square. The oath may vary considerably in precise wording from place to place because of its history of maintenance by verbal communication only, but everywhere are the essential point are the same.
…
After brief ceremonies, the blindfold is removed, and the newly sworn Master Mason is taught several secrets of that degree. He learns the penal sign, the hand signal based on the penalty of the Master Mason’s oath, which is to pass the hand in a slashing motion, palm downward and the thumb toward the body, across his stomach. The due-guard of he Master Mason repeats the position of his hands on the Holy Bible and the compass and square as he took the oath: with his upper arms along his sides, forearms out straight, with palms down. To this point, the ceremony is much like that of the first two degrees, but now is added a third sign, the Grand Hailing Sign of Distress of the Master Mason, given with the upper arms parallel to the ground, forearms vertical with hands above the head, palms forward.
pp. 215-217.
Finally, Solomon says that he will try, personally, to raise a body from the grave by using the “Lion’s Paw,” the grip of the Master Mason. Applying the grip (and assisted by several members of the lodge), he raises the candidate’s body to a vertical position and arranges that the candidates right foot is inside the right foot of Solomon, their knees pressed together, the left hands on each other’s backs, with a mouths close to each other’s ears. In some jurisdictions, the Worshipful Master, as King Solomon, whispers to the candidate the Master’s word mahabone and has him whisper the word back, cautioning the new Master that the word must only be passed in this position called the “five points of fellowship.” As the newly raised Master Mason learns the Master’s word, the blindfold is removed.
Stepping back, the Worshipful Master explains that the five points of fellowship are: Foot-to-foot, to indicate that a Master Mason will go out of his way, on foot if necessary, to assist a worthy brother; Knee-to-Knee, as a reminder that in his prayers to the Almighty, the Master Mason remembers his brother’s welfare as well as his own; Breast-to-Breast, as a pledge that each Master Mason will keep in his own breast any secrets of a brother when given to him as such, murder and treason excepted; Hand-to Hand, because a Master Mason will always be ready to reach out his hand to support a brother and to defend his character and reputation behind his back, as well as his face; and Mouth-to-Ear, because a Master Mason will always endeavor to caution and to give good advice to an eering brother in the most friendly manner, pointing out his faults and giving him timely counsel so that he may ward off approaching danger.
pp 221-222.
|  | Funerals And Directives In The "Bishops Handbook Of Instruction"
Article Archived: May 6, 2008, at 06:57 AM
Stored Under Topic: MORMON FUNERALS
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Druid | | |
Made the trip to Utah to bury my mother. Thanks for your condolences. As feared my siblings had intended for the Bishop to conduct the funeral. I explained to them I had a problem with this because of past instances where funerals were in effect hi-jacked and employed as a missionary opportunity to preach the gospel rather than celebrating the life of the deceased. I explain to them my wife and children was not interested in traveling thousands of miles to hear a bishop preach the gospel. I explained that besides faithful LDS members, people in attendance would include non-members, ex-members, closet doubters, heathens and the bishop should speak to this group differently than he would his own congregation.
None of this went over well, there was some tense discussion and it took a while to get these ideas across.
My request was for the bishop not to conduct or speak and just have people get up and relate fond remembrances of my mother. Which is contrary to what the church directs, they want gospel sermons-
“He (the bishop) ensures that the services are simple and dignified, with music and brief addresses and sermons centered on the gospel. ” From the Bishops Handbook of Instruction
Even though this was at a funeral home the church has the presumption to direct bishops to try and extend their influence into private mortuaries and call it an official meeting of the church-
“A funeral conducted by the bishop, whether in a meetinghouse or in another location, is a Church meeting and a religious service.” - From the Bishops Handbook of Instruction
A compromise was reached. A relative conducted, many family and friends were able to walk up and take a few minutes each instead of having assigned talks, but the bishop still spoke. However, he was informed of my concerns and didn’t do the whole plan of salvation like he would have normally for which I was grateful.
During the viewing a nice DVD slide show was discreetly looping on a flat screen at the other side of the room. This was a great hit and brought back memories to all who watched. (Sure beats just standing around looking at the body.) But the church disapproves even of this-
“Videocassettes and slides should not be used as part of the service.”
From the Bishops Handbook of Instruction
Because my fall from grace is well known. I felt old ward members and distant family I had not seen in many years were scrutinizing me. Several times I was asked with unnatural voice inflections ‘So…How are you Doooing???” All the while looking deep into my eyes as they turned on their special powers of discernment.
I feel we should resist unwanted Church intrusions. As has been shown in hundreds of other posts on this board, often they will back down.
| |
2.0 Feed
0.3 Feed