"The Bible Says 1830" - Second Edition

> The conclusions of scholars who would claim that
> Joseph Smith did not know Egyptian and made up the > Book of Abraham are based solely upon examination
> of these fragments currently in the possession of
> the church.

That is not true. They have the entire book of Abraham. The presidency of the church has admitted it.

Second, the facsimiles that Joseph copied from the papyrus are drawn incorrectly. And translated incorrectly. Watch the videos again. You did not pay attention. (Sorry for my English, i am Dutch).

> The truth is, the original rolls (books) that were > once studied by Joseph Smith are lost, along with
> the whole translation he had made up to the moment > of his death.

No, they didn;t get lost in the fire of chicago. They found a letter written by Emma Smith along with the papyri, confirming it had once belonged to Joseph. It was the entire book of abraham. The facsimiles that Joseph copied were mot translated correctly also.

> What we have, however, is indeed a "pearl of great > price." Because it sheds light upon the nature of
> the Godhead, preexistence of the souls of mankind, > and much else besides.

All those thinks are not true, because Joseph was a false prophet.

> It is inspired scripture, which by itself cannot be > brushed aside by the few contemptuous statements of > the worldly-wise.

It's about the truth. I love truth. I hate lies.
Inspired? I know that he was not inspired by God.
D&C is inspired also....why did Jospeh changed some of his texts up to 4 times? Which of the four versions was inspired?

Raimond,

The video portions I watched only talked about the fragments which the church has possessed again since 1967. What "complete book of Abraham" are you refering to?

I know that the presidency sent some representatives in 1878 on a mission to interview with members of the Smith family who had never accepted B. Young as the prophet, and held (or purportedly so) artifacts and certain original writings and manuscripts of Joseph Smith in their possession: and apparently one of the things the LDS church was hoping to find was one or more of those entire rolls/books which had come with the mummies. No public announcement was ever made by the church leaders as to the findings of that mission. So whether or not the LDS church is in possession of any artifacts relating to the BofA beyond those dozen fragments is not public knowledge. I know of no "entire book of Abraham" out there being studied by scholars.

As for the facsimiles:
"Several of Joseph Smith's explanations are similar to interpretations of some Egyptologists, but some are not. Remember that Egyptology is not an exact science. Our understanding will be faulty until we have the entire text with which Joseph Smith was working and understand the Lord's way of working through his prophet. Did a later copyist insert the facsimiles in order to give readers a general idea of the accepted usage in his day? Facsimiles 2 and 3 are not mentioned in the written text, and we do not know who placed them in the texts that are currently dated many hundreds of years later than the events described. The inspired text of the Book of Abraham, as attested by the Holy Ghost, is a witness of its divine source. Someday this dilemma, along with many others, will be solved. (See D&C 101:32-34.)" - H. Donl Petersen.

And as to Joseph Smith changing texts "up to four times," this is simply not true. Yes, he deleted/changed some very few words from the Book of Commandments (Doctrine and Covenants) after the 1835 edition; but a study of the differences makes some apparent reasons obvious: the Saints in general would not understand certain details and the doctrine was the most important reason for the revelations in the first place. The meaning of ALL changed passages has been retained throughout. Just like when critics enjoy claiming that the Book of Mormon has received thousands of changes over the years, anyone can point to alterations and cry out "false prophet." Nothing ever stays permanently fixed: Joseph Smith himself made a few textual corrections for the 1837 edition of the BofM: does that mean the original was somehow wrong? No. The original was less clear, only apparently in contradiction; because as it read in the 1830 edition it was somewhat confusing as to the identity of certain people written about. I have carefully studied the 1830 edition of the BofM (and 1835 Book of Commandments). No changes since those first editions have altered a single doctrinal statement, nor relevant fact of any importance to understanding truth. Yes, if you count every grammatical mark, arrangement of verses and chapters, correction of spelling or grammar, et al, that has ever occurred in the BofM and D&C, you will wind up with quite a few "alterations" from the original editions. But critics of the Bible can make an even bigger claim like that, about how many changes have been made to it.

Changes to scriptural books are made to correct the mistakes of men, and to make the books more useful ("user friendly") to modern readers. If the original meaning of the original scripture is preserved, then that should be good enough.

Thank you for your reaction.

What about 2 Nephi 30:6 :

6 And then shall they rejoice,; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a (white) pure and a delightsome people.

How about the change to the political more correct word 'pure'?

("Pure" and "white" are interchangeable, because it is referring to spiritual darkness, not skin color perse. The Lamanites lived in a hot lowland climate and ate raw meat: they degenerated to virtual barbarism: of course their skins became dark too, compared with the city-dwelling Nephites. And their whole way of life was repugnant to the higher civilized people.)

The name 'Jesus Christ was not even revealed at that time, so it had to be changed:

1 Nephi 12:18:
18 And the large and spacious building, which thy father saw, is vain imaginations, and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God, and (Jesus Christ), the Messiah (which who) is the Lamb of God, of whom the Holy Ghost beareth record, from the beginning of the world until this time, and from this time henceforth and forever.

The actual text was given word-for-word from God himself!

(No it wasn't; not in English anyway. The original was given in the language of the Nephites: which we are told was altered Egyptian and Hebrew: so much so, that their written form on the plates did not even adequately express much of what they were capable of saying with the spoken word. So Joseph Smith was putting down the English for the Nephite concept of a prophesied Messiah: and the name was probably close enough to the Greek for Jesus Christ to be legitimate. The B. C. Nephites knew of his name even though the more hardened Jews did not.)

Why did God discriminate blacks at one time?

(God never did. Man did. Even enlightened people can still carry prejudiced ideas with them, which only die out slowly with time. The Blacks in America were so lowly in heart and societal standing; they and the rest of us needed to have time. Even in 1978 there were people who had trouble with the directive. But God's timing is not to be questioned. Blacks are on the pathway to equality in all things, and have been ever since the Civil War.)

How do you explain the connection to the masonry? The rituals do not have the same origin.

(The Book of Abraham and the Masonic rituals coincide with Joseph Smith's introduction of the full temple endowment. Joseph and other brethren were Masons. Of course there are similarities: because all of these things have been revealed many times in the distant past, and vestiges of them have survived in corrupted or incomplete forms. The temple rituals are not rigidly held in one way only: Brigham Young changed things: and since then the endowment has changed in details. But the doctrines of salvation and the priesthood ordinances have not changed, unless it is that they have been added upon. We can expect to see more additions as time goes on: for Joseph Smith said that he had given to the Saints only half of what the Lord had revealed to him. In other words, the church members have never to this day been ready for the rest. But one day we must.)

How do you explain Isaiah43:10 and 44:8?

(You already know the "Mormon" answer to these: God is the ONLY GOD OF THIS WORLD. That is the meaning of the scriptures which say there is no other God but God himself. The doctrine of eternal progression is assumed in the Bible verses which hint at a preexistence for us, and which state that we are children (sons of) God and will become like him one day. If we are to become like him, then we are gods ourselves in nature and destiny: though now, down here, we are fallen and need redemption to get back home to heaven. This is all a testing place and learning time. But there is nothing contradictory with the Bible in the doctrine that we too will one day become gods. We just will never become gods to ourselves: God the Father will always be the only God of this earth, and he will always be our only God whom we worship.)

Why did Brigham Young say that every man in the celetial kingdom has at least 9 wives?

(Reference please.)

And how about 1Timothy 1:4?

(I concur: the world is filled with fables, and new ones to be added to the old. Endless genealogies refers to the Jewish propencity for vaunting their descent from Israel and Abraham: which doesn't do them any good at all if they don't keep the commandments in spirit and truth. Also the Greeks had their genealogies, which were even more mythical and worthless.)

Why does Brigham Young say that the earth is only 6000 years old?

(Reference again please. But I seem to recall that he was referring to the time since God made the earth to now. There is no contradiction in this. If you consider that the material with which the earth is formed is ageless - was never created nor can be - the Bible is not referring to anything except the time it took God to "make" the earth inhabitable (again). A "day" to God is at least 1,000 years. The scientists mock those who believe in creationism: but they are foolish themselves, trying to date everything, which has no age, because it has always existed. The Creation Story in Genesis could easily have taken place over a few thousand years, much of it within a few years: such as "rekindling" the sun, reconstituting the atmosphere and waiting for the sunlight to be visible to the surface of the planet, bringing sea life and animal life to restore an ecosystem, and finally starting mankind upon the earth when all was ready. "Mormons" believe there was a lot of work being done by God's children when the earth was formed, and it may be a true doctrine. Certainly it is a concept of myth, that the children of God actually performed the work according to his Word: and as we know, myth is woven throughout the fabric of our history and literature: even the Bible has much about it that is mythical: but nonetheless truth is taught by myth and fact combined. Personally, I am about to give up altogether trying to decipher in scripture where myth leaves off and fact begins. It is a fruitless quest: either you believe or you don't. Truth is what comes from and pleases God: and the way we receive it therefore hardly matters.)