LDS Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham is False

[dzheremi]

The Book of Abraham is true and no one has proven otherwise. Too bad that the papyri used to write it was burned up.

Yeah, I'm sure you really hate that. What a bummer that there is (according to this view) no extant evidence by which we can verify JS' translation abilities...

Never mind that the mysterious 'second papyri' that would supposedly prove Joseph Smith's abilities as 'translator' cannot be used as positive proof of anything if it did ever actually exist and was thereafter "burned up", because in the absence of the physical artifact itself literally anything can be claimed about its contents (hence, the "Book of Abraham" claims to be a translation of it).

That's kind of how we got from the days of Horapollo's Hieroglyphica and its study by the likes of Athanasius Kircher (read: people who did not know what they were talking about with regard to the reading of Egyptian, so they basically made stuff up) to people like Champollion and the actual decipherment of Egyptian -- you know, the thing that proves that Joseph Smith was a complete and utter fraud who knew nothing. Eventually people like Champollion in France and Thomas Young in England made breakthroughs by working with the Rosetta stone and other Egyptian texts (things that actually exist in the real world) to begin matching up the different languages on the stone, and yielded phonetic readings of the Egyptian hieroglyphs. In this process, nobody put their favorite magic rock in a hat or wore special spectacles or whatever other nonsense was involved in JS' various 'translations' of things. They did cross-linguistic comparisons, like we're still trained to do.

Just face it: You can either admit that the Joseph Smith papyri that actually exists (the one professionally translated by Dr. Ritner) is or at least corresponds to the one JS possessed and supposedly translated to make the "Book of Abraham", or you can continue to deny that in the face of all evidence to the contrary and thereby tacitly admit that you have no actual proof of anything, only a religiously-motivated narrative which the closest thing to possible evidence (the JS papyri) strongly suggests is completely wrong.

Either way: In no case is JS or the Mormon narrative regarding the origins of the BOA actually supported by anything.

You've got nothing.

 

[He is the way]

Yeah, I'm sure you really hate that. What a bummer that there is (according to this view) no extant evidence by which we can verify JS' translation abilities...

Never mind that the mysterious 'second papyri' that would supposedly prove Joseph Smith's abilities as 'translator' cannot be used as positive proof of anything if it did ever actually exist and was thereafter "burned up", because in the absence of the physical artifact itself literally anything can be claimed about its contents (hence, the "Book of Abraham" claims to be a translation of it).

That's kind of how we got from the days of Horapollo's Hieroglyphica and its study by the likes of Athanasius Kircher (read: people who did not know what they were talking about with regard to the reading of Egyptian, so they basically made stuff up) to people like Champollion and the actual decipherment of Egyptian -- you know, the thing that proves that Joseph Smith was a complete and utter fraud who knew nothing. Eventually people like Champollion in France and Thomas Young in England made breakthroughs by working with the Rosetta stone and other Egyptian texts (things that actually exist in the real world) to begin matching up the different languages on the stone, and yielded phonetic readings of the Egyptian hieroglyphs. In this process, nobody put their favorite magic rock in a hat or wore special spectacles or whatever other nonsense was involved in JS' various 'translations' of things. They did cross-linguistic comparisons, like we're still trained to do.

Just face it: You can either admit that the Joseph Smith papyri that actually exists (the one professionally translated by Dr. Ritner) is or at least corresponds to the one JS possessed and supposedly translated to make the "Book of Abraham", or you can continue to deny that in the face of all evidence to the contrary and thereby tacitly admit that you have no actual proof of anything, only a religiously-motivated narrative which the closest thing to possible evidence (the JS papyri) strongly suggests is completely wrong.

Either way: In no case is JS or the Mormon narrative regarding the origins of the BOA actually supported by anything.

You've got nothing.

As I said before, there were two mummies and two rolls of papyri. There is only one roll or fragments of the papyri left, the other was burned when the museum that housed it burned down. Many people who visited the museum saw it and knew it was there. Therefore the consensus that the Book of Abraham must have been written from the Papyri that is still in existence is a flawed conception.

 

[dzheremi]

As I said before, there were two mummies and two rolls of papyri. There is only one roll or fragments of the papyri left, the other was burned when the museum that housed it burned down. Many people who visited the museum saw it and knew it was there. Therefore the consensus that the Book of Abraham must have been written from the Papyri that is still in existence is a flawed conception.

"A lot of people saw it" does not make the Mormon religious belief that the Book of Abraham has its source in this other, lost papyrus the scholarly/academic consensus, and the scholarly/academic consensus is literally the only view that matters, because it's Joseph Smith's word against the scholarly work of people who can actually read Egyptian (on any given papyri/in general, to take this beyond the question of which papyri goes with what, since that question doesn't matter if you can't read anything to begin with). And these people who can actually read Egyptian have consistently called the Book of Abraham a religious -- not historical -- document.

This really isn't debatable and frankly what you have to say about it as a Mormon doesn't matter, precisely because this a scientific question, not a religious one. Listen to the dispassionate scholars (i.e., not those bought off by BYU/FARMS and made to lie about everything to keep people tithing). Nobody's saying you can't have your book. Just stop pretending that you have support for its claimed historicity that you do not have.

 

[Hrairoo]

It doesn't really matter if there was another papyrus. It is not true simply for the fact that someone in charge of the LDS church has lied somewhere.

I can open up my triple combination scriptures from my baptism in 1996 right now and look at the beginning of the Pearl of Great Price where all three fascimiles are printed along with Joseph Smith's numbered translation of each pictograph and figure.

Some papyri burned up, you say? Irrelevant. Because we have the papyrus that these things came from and they have been translated by actual Egyptologists. It doesn't say what Smith thought it did.

The church leaders have seen fit to keep these fascimiles present in the scriptures, which means, in some fashion, they endorse Joseph Smith's translation of the pictographs and figures. Yet that also means that they believe the translation is of the papyrus that is still in existence, not the burned up papyrus.

You cannot get away from the fact that in order to believe in the truth of the BoA, you must also accept the church's stance on the current papyrus we have found. So, here are the options, as I see them. 1. The leaders of the church did not have the discernment of the Spirit to enable them to see the falsehood in the fascimiles that Joseph Smith redrew and translated, and for many years after the papyrus pieces were found and Egyptologists were able to give a correct translation, or 2. They did understand that Joseph Smith's translation was false and just kept them in anyway. It was either an accident(which calls their God-given authority to lead into question) or it was done deliberately.

It's like the seer stone issue all over again. We are not taught in Sunday school about the seer stone and looking in a hat. In younger years, all the pictures I was shown were of Joseph Smith looking at the gold plates by candlelight. So, was it something accidental? Did faith make the leaders present the story in this way? Or did they know all along and willfully deceive me and so many others? If it was deception to any degree at all, it makes it all unworthy of faith. God would not order his prophets to manipulate his children into salvation. God is a God of truth.

 

[He is the way]

"A lot of people saw it" does not make the Mormon religious belief that the Book of Abraham has its source in this other, lost papyrus the scholarly/academic consensus, and the scholarly/academic consensus is literally the only view that matters, because it's Joseph Smith's word against the scholarly work of people who can actually read Egyptian (on any given papyri/in general, to take this beyond the question of which papyri goes with what, since that question doesn't matter if you can't read anything to begin with). And these people who can actually read Egyptian have consistently called the Book of Abraham a religious -- not historical -- document.

This really isn't debatable and frankly what you have to say about it as a Mormon doesn't matter, precisely because this a scientific question, not a religious one. Listen to the dispassionate scholars (i.e., not those bought off by BYU/FARMS and made to lie about everything to keep people tithing). Nobody's saying you can't have your book. Just stop pretending that you have support for its claimed historicity that you do not have.

Are those scholars able to read the papyri which was burned up in the museum? If not how in the world can they say that papyri was not that papyri that was used to write the Book of Abraham? The truth is, they can't. Some people have it in their head that the papyri found in New York was the only papyri that existed. That is just NOT true. How can those scholars make a correct determination with only part of the evidence? Half of a puzzle does not paint a clear picture. Besides that Joseph Smith received revelation directly from God. The Book of Mormon was direct revelation from God. Moses also received direct revelation from God. The Bible is direct revelation from God.

 

[dzheremi]

Asking questions like these, HITW, only shows everyone involved in this thread that you have not understood the actual issues involved with the JS Papyri and the Book of Abraham.

Everyone here can point you to the evidence that actually exists, and even point out why Mormon presuppositions about another papyrus don't really change anything, but we can't understand these things for you.

I wish you the best of luck in figuring out the truth for yourself, but I think like your friend Peter1000, you have proven that there is such a thing as the intellectual equivalent of 'throwing good money after bad' in these Mormon/non-Mormon discussions, where everything just becomes basically a big time and effort sink, so I'm going to bow out of future interaction. Take care.

 

[mmksparbud]

Asking questions like these, HITW, only shows everyone involved in this thread that you have not understood the actual issues involved with the JS Papyri and the Book of Abraham.

Everyone here can point you to the evidence that actually exists, and even point out why Mormon presuppositions about another papyrus don't really change anything, but we can't understand these things for you.

I wish you the best of luck in figuring out the truth for yourself, but I think like your friend Peter1000, you have proven that there is such a thing as the intellectual equivalent of 'throwing good money after bad' in these Mormon/non-Mormon discussions, where everything just becomes basically a big time and effort sink, so I'm going to bow out of future interaction. Take care.

I know how you feel. It's like the Jew, they can not see that changing virgin to young maiden doesn't really do anything, the original still states virgin. But it's impossible for them to see it for it means that Jesus was born to a virgin which would indeed make Him God. LDS can not see that it doesn't make any difference if they found 10 more papyri---JS did not translate what he had correctly. To admit that, means he is not a prophet of God and they can't face that.
They also can not admit that David, though a murderer, is still called a man of God, who did all that God commanded. JS said murderers can not be in the presence of God, but even Moses killed a man and is most definitely in the presence of God. They refuse to see it and then finally had to say under some circumstances, God may change His mind! God does not change. When God forgives, He forgets. That is why He can still say that David kept His commandments. To admit this, means JS did not tell the truth, he is not God's prophet.

 

[He is the way]

Asking questions like these, HITW, only shows everyone involved in this thread that you have not understood the actual issues involved with the JS Papyri and the Book of Abraham.

Everyone here can point you to the evidence that actually exists, and even point out why Mormon presuppositions about another papyrus don't really change anything, but we can't understand these things for you.

I wish you the best of luck in figuring out the truth for yourself, but I think like your friend Peter1000, you have proven that there is such a thing as the intellectual equivalent of 'throwing good money after bad' in these Mormon/non-Mormon discussions, where everything just becomes basically a big time and effort sink, so I'm going to bow out of future interaction. Take care.

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. You take care also and be safe. These are trying times.

 

[Leaf473]

Tithing checks are made out to the ward, cash is put in an envelope and given to the bishop or one of his councilors. I think most people pay online now. Two part slips of paper are used with a copy for the donor for people who do not donate online. Careful records are kept and there are receipts handed out or many people get on line receipts.

thank you for your answers.

do you wish to answer this question?
during the temple recommend interview, will a bishop just take the person's word for it that they are a full tithe payer?


does an LDS have the option of giving anonymously?

if so, and if an LDS thus chooses to tithe anonymously, can they then say that they are a full-time payer in the temple recommend interviews and the bishop will accept it?

 

[Leaf473]

Jesus said to the lawyer "this do, and thou shalt live." So what did the lawyer have to do? He had to LOVE God and his neighbor. In the story of the good Samaritan we learn who the neighbor was:

(New Testament | Luke 10:33 - 37)

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

These scriptures are NOT passive, they are action scriptures. There are indeed requirements to eternal life.

"These scriptures are NOT passive, they are action scriptures. There are indeed requirements to eternal life."
I agree 100%!

imo, Jesus presents the way to "get on good terms" with God, including obtaining eternal life, is by showing mercy, love, compassion to the people around you.

but he doesn't give the lawyer a specific plan of action.
is Jesus saying that we all ought to walk up and down the road from Jerusalem to Jericho looking for victims of violent crime?
no, nobody thinks that.

Jesus tells the lawyer to go and live that way.
faith that is alive produces action, yes!

a similar situation with the Rich Young ruler.
Jesus does tell him to start selling his stuff and donating the money to the poor.

we don't know if the man did it or not.
that's probably good, hopefully he did do it and he did it in secret, anonymously.

I think it fits well with what John the Baptist taught
Luke 3:10 The multitudes asked him, "What then must we do?" 11 He answered them, "He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise."

is JB talking only about jackets and food?
I think if a person today has excess cars, houses, bedrooms, it is good to ask God about giving that to a person who doesn't have one.

 

[Hrairoo]

thank you for your answers.

do you wish to answer this question?
during the temple recommend interview, will a bishop just take the person's word for it that they are a full tithe payer?


does an LDS have the option of giving anonymously?

if so, and if an LDS thus chooses to tithe anonymously, can they then say that they are a full-time payer in the temple recommend interviews and the bishop will accept it?

I do not believe tithing can be given anonymously. Each donation must be associated with your member record number.

From the General Handbook on lds.org:

33. Records and Reports
"Accurate records help Church leaders know members and identify their needs. For example, records can help leaders identify who may need special care to become more active in the Church or to become worthy of temple blessings. Accurate records also help leaders evaluate progress and make plans for improvement.

Financial records include information about tithes and other offerings and costs for activities and supplies."

34. Finances and Audits
"Church funds are sacred and must be carefully accounted for and protected. These funds may be used only by authorized members for authorized Church purposes. Church leaders must protect against the embezzlement and any other misuse of Church funds. These funds may not be used for personal purposes or “borrowed.” Nor may Church funds be mixed with personal funds or deposited into the account of an individual. These and other misuses of Church funds are serious offenses that may result in Church membership restrictions or withdrawal.
The bishop assigns the ward clerk or an assistant ward clerk to help with ward financial record keeping. These duties are outlined in this section and explained further in instructions from Church headquarters or the assigned area office.

• Each week this clerk helps a member of the bishopric account for all tithes and other offerings (see 34.6.2). He normally accompanies the bishopric member who deposits the funds in a bank, although another Melchizedek Priesthood holder may do so. He also submits or transmits the related donation reports to Church headquarters or the assigned area office. Only members of the bishopric—not clerks—may receive funds for the ward.
  
  
• This clerk makes sure ward financial obligations are paid promptly. He prepares checks or, in locations where checks are not used, payment approval forms.
  
  
• He helps the bishopric prepare the annual ward budget and keep track of the ward budget allowance (see 34.7.1 and 34.7.2). He informs the bishop of the status of ward expenditures in relation to the budget allowance.
  
  
• He reconciles the ward checking account each month as instructed in 34.6.7.
  
  
• Each year he prepares and organizes records to help the bishop conduct tithing settlement. He produces and distributes the year-to-date tithing and offerings statements and year-end summaries to members. He also helps the bishop prepare a year-end report of tithing status in the ward.
  
  
• He participates in financial audits by stake auditors and takes corrective actions if needed (see 34.9).

Contributions
Church leaders should teach members the principles of tithes and other offerings and encourage members to live these principles. Nonmembers may also make contributions to the Church. However, a person who has had their membership withdrawn may not pay tithing or other offerings to the Church.
When and How to Pay Tithing

Leaders encourage members to pay tithing as they receive their income. However, members who wish to pay annually may do so.

Members give their tithing and a completed Tithing and Other Offerings form to the bishop or one of his counselors.

Tithing Settlement

The bishop holds tithing settlement near the end of each year. In urgent cases when the bishop is absent, the stake president may authorize one of the bishop’s counselors to conduct tithing settlement. However, such a need would be rare.

All members should attend tithing settlement to make sure their contribution records are correct and to declare to the bishop their status as tithe payers. If possible, all members of a family should attend tithing settlement.

In addition to reviewing records of members’ tithing, fast offerings, and other donations, during tithing settlement the bishop can discuss the principle of tithing with them, encourage them to give a generous fast offering, and discuss other relevant matters. At the time of tithing settlement, a clerk or a member of the bishopric could also review the Individual Ordinance Summary with members (see 33.6).

Instructions for tithing settlement are provided by Church headquarters or the assigned area office.

Receiving Tithing and Other Offerings

The Lord has given bishops the sacred trust of receiving and accounting for the tithes and other offerings of the Saints (see Doctrine and Covenants 42:30–33; 119). Only the bishop and his counselors may receive tithes and other offerings. Under no circumstances should their wives, other members of their families, clerks, or other ward members receive these contributions. The only exception is when Aaronic Priesthood holders are assigned to collect fast offerings (see 34.4.2).

Ward members give contributions to a member of the bishopric in a sealed envelope with a properly completed Tithing and Other Offerings form enclosed. Church members should not leave their donations unattended, such as by placing them in a contribution box or under the door of the bishop’s office.

Checks should be made payable to the ward, not to the bishop or the Church. In units where members make payments electronically (such as direct deposit or automatic bill pay), payments should be deposited in the Church’s bank account as instructed by Church headquarters or the assigned area office.

Only the stake president and his counselors should receive funds for the stake. They should maintain custody of the funds until the funds are recorded and prepared for deposit by a member of the stake presidency and a clerk. "

 

[Leaf473]

The Book of Abraham is true and no one has proven otherwise. Too bad that the papyri used to write it was burned up.

well, and I mean this gently, but generally speaking the "burden of proof" is on the person making the claim

for example, I don't think anyone has proved that The Urantia Book didn't come from God.
(I don't believe that it did.)

The Urantia Book - Wikipedia

 

[Leaf473]

It doesn't really matter if there was another papyrus. It is not true simply for the fact that someone in charge of the LDS church has lied somewhere.

I can open up my triple combination scriptures from my baptism in 1996 right now and look at the beginning of the Pearl of Great Price where all three fascimiles are printed along with Joseph Smith's numbered translation of each pictograph and figure.

Some papyri burned up, you say? Irrelevant. Because we have the papyrus that these things came from and they have been translated by actual Egyptologists. It doesn't say what Smith thought it did.

The church leaders have seen fit to keep these fascimiles present in the scriptures, which means, in some fashion, they endorse Joseph Smith's translation of the pictographs and figures. Yet that also means that they believe the translation is of the papyrus that is still in existence, not the burned up papyrus.

You cannot get away from the fact that in order to believe in the truth of the BoA, you must also accept the church's stance on the current papyrus we have found. So, here are the options, as I see them. 1. The leaders of the church did not have the discernment of the Spirit to enable them to see the falsehood in the fascimiles that Joseph Smith redrew and translated, and for many years after the papyrus pieces were found and Egyptologists were able to give a correct translation, or 2. They did understand that Joseph Smith's translation was false and just kept them in anyway. It was either an accident(which calls their God-given authority to lead into question) or it was done deliberately.

It's like the seer stone issue all over again. We are not taught in Sunday school about the seer stone and looking in a hat. In younger years, all the pictures I was shown were of Joseph Smith looking at the gold plates by candlelight. So, was it something accidental? Did faith make the leaders present the story in this way? Or did they know all along and willfully deceive me and so many others? If it was deception to any degree at all, it makes it all unworthy of faith. God would not order his prophets to manipulate his children into salvation. God is a God of truth.

fascinating!

I've heard just a little bit about these seer stones and Joseph plunging his face into the translating hat.

is it known if that process was used for the book of Abraham as well?

 

[He is the way]

thank you for your answers.

do you wish to answer this question?
during the temple recommend interview, will a bishop just take the person's word for it that they are a full tithe payer?


does an LDS have the option of giving anonymously?

if so, and if an LDS thus chooses to tithe anonymously, can they then say that they are a full-time payer in the temple recommend interviews and the bishop will accept it?

As far as I know the bishop will take the word of the tithe payer, but the bishop and stake presidency have the gift of discernment, so they could know whether or not the person is a full tithe payer. A person can give as much as they want to whoever or what ever they want, but tithes are for God and should be paid to His church for the purpose of building up His church and kingdom on the earth. Most of the congregation do not know who or how much any other person pays in tithes and offerings and as I have said most of those are paid online now days. It would be possible for a person to give to the church anonymously. When a person declares that they are a full tithe payer, they are declaring it not only to the bishop, but to God also.

 

[Leaf473]

I do not believe tithing can be given anonymously. Each donation must be associated with your member record number.

From the General Handbook on lds.org:

33. Records and Reports
"Accurate records help Church leaders know members and identify their needs. For example, records can help leaders identify who may need special care to become more active in the Church or to become worthy of temple blessings. Accurate records also help leaders evaluate progress and make plans for improvement.

Financial records include information about tithes and other offerings and costs for activities and supplies."

34. Finances and Audits
"Church funds are sacred and must be carefully accounted for and protected. These funds may be used only by authorized members for authorized Church purposes. Church leaders must protect against the embezzlement and any other misuse of Church funds. These funds may not be used for personal purposes or “borrowed.” Nor may Church funds be mixed with personal funds or deposited into the account of an individual. These and other misuses of Church funds are serious offenses that may result in Church membership restrictions or withdrawal.
The bishop assigns the ward clerk or an assistant ward clerk to help with ward financial record keeping. These duties are outlined in this section and explained further in instructions from Church headquarters or the assigned area office.

• Each week this clerk helps a member of the bishopric account for all tithes and other offerings (see 34.6.2). He normally accompanies the bishopric member who deposits the funds in a bank, although another Melchizedek Priesthood holder may do so. He also submits or transmits the related donation reports to Church headquarters or the assigned area office. Only members of the bishopric—not clerks—may receive funds for the ward.
  
  
• This clerk makes sure ward financial obligations are paid promptly. He prepares checks or, in locations where checks are not used, payment approval forms.
  
  
• He helps the bishopric prepare the annual ward budget and keep track of the ward budget allowance (see 34.7.1 and 34.7.2). He informs the bishop of the status of ward expenditures in relation to the budget allowance.
  
  
• He reconciles the ward checking account each month as instructed in 34.6.7.
  
  
• Each year he prepares and organizes records to help the bishop conduct tithing settlement. He produces and distributes the year-to-date tithing and offerings statements and year-end summaries to members. He also helps the bishop prepare a year-end report of tithing status in the ward.
  
  
• He participates in financial audits by stake auditors and takes corrective actions if needed (see 34.9).

Contributions
Church leaders should teach members the principles of tithes and other offerings and encourage members to live these principles. Nonmembers may also make contributions to the Church. However, a person who has had their membership withdrawn may not pay tithing or other offerings to the Church.
When and How to Pay Tithing

Leaders encourage members to pay tithing as they receive their income. However, members who wish to pay annually may do so.

Members give their tithing and a completed Tithing and Other Offerings form to the bishop or one of his counselors.

Tithing Settlement

The bishop holds tithing settlement near the end of each year. In urgent cases when the bishop is absent, the stake president may authorize one of the bishop’s counselors to conduct tithing settlement. However, such a need would be rare.

All members should attend tithing settlement to make sure their contribution records are correct and to declare to the bishop their status as tithe payers. If possible, all members of a family should attend tithing settlement.

In addition to reviewing records of members’ tithing, fast offerings, and other donations, during tithing settlement the bishop can discuss the principle of tithing with them, encourage them to give a generous fast offering, and discuss other relevant matters. At the time of tithing settlement, a clerk or a member of the bishopric could also review the Individual Ordinance Summary with members (see 33.6).

Instructions for tithing settlement are provided by Church headquarters or the assigned area office.

Receiving Tithing and Other Offerings

The Lord has given bishops the sacred trust of receiving and accounting for the tithes and other offerings of the Saints (see Doctrine and Covenants 42:30–33; 119). Only the bishop and his counselors may receive tithes and other offerings. Under no circumstances should their wives, other members of their families, clerks, or other ward members receive these contributions. The only exception is when Aaronic Priesthood holders are assigned to collect fast offerings (see 34.4.2).

Ward members give contributions to a member of the bishopric in a sealed envelope with a properly completed Tithing and Other Offerings form enclosed. Church members should not leave their donations unattended, such as by placing them in a contribution box or under the door of the bishop’s office.

Checks should be made payable to the ward, not to the bishop or the Church. In units where members make payments electronically (such as direct deposit or automatic bill pay), payments should be deposited in the Church’s bank account as instructed by Church headquarters or the assigned area office.

Only the stake president and his counselors should receive funds for the stake. They should maintain custody of the funds until the funds are recorded and prepared for deposit by a member of the stake presidency and a clerk. "

Wow. Okay, so no anonymous tithing, that's pretty clear from your quote of the handbook.

Thanks for the info!

Also, what is a tithing settlement meeting?

 

[Hrairoo]

fascinating!

I've heard just a little bit about these seer stones and Joseph plunging his face into the translating hat.

is it known if that process was used for the book of Abraham as well?

Inside the church, in Sunday school and the church courses I took at BYU-I, I was taught that Joseph Smith could simply read Egyptian hieroglyphics by the power of God. The Book of Mormon was first translated using the Urim and Thummim(stones fastened together with wire frames, like glasses, called the interpreters). These were supposedly in the stone box in the ground along with the gold plates.

However, in my recent research, the Urim and Thummim were only used for the first translation attempt. When those 116 pages were lost by Martin Harris, Joseph was punished by the plates and Urim and Thummim being taken away. A year later, when the Lord said it was okay to start translating again, only the plates were returned to him.

The stone was found while helping a neighbor dig a well when he was a young boy. Often, when translating the BoM using the seer stone, the plates weren't even in the same room or building. He didn't need to touch them or even look at them. He just used the seer stone and hat. Which makes you wonder what the plates were even for.

In my research, it is said that Joseph Smith had made a grammatical dictionary out of the hieroglyphics on the papyrus. There are pages we have of passages from the BoA with corresponding hieroglyphics in the margins. These match those found on the papyrus that has been analyzed by Egyptologists and in the same order as found in the Grammatical alphabet. However, these pages have not been confirmed as being in Joseph's handwriting, so, it is unknown whether a scribe wrote it with him dictating or if one of his scribes after the fact attempted to write down the hieroglyphics and attribute them to the scripture Joseph had dictated.

What makes a stronger case for me, is on the church's official website, the apologetics I found was that "translated" doesn't mean writing something from one language into another. No, all this time, when Joseph Smith said he translated something, he meant that he got revelation from God. You tell me if that sounds disingenuous or not. On the church's official site, they said that after the "translation" of the BoM, Smith no longer needed the seer stones.

 

[Hrairoo]

Wow. Okay, so no anonymous tithing, that's pretty clear from your quote of the handbook.

Thanks for the info!

Also, what is a tithing settlement meeting?

It is a meeting you have with the Bishop at the end of every year. The clerk prints out a record of all of your contributions with dates and amounts and asks you to confirm if this is a full tithe.

From the church's website, the article "Why Tithing Settlement?"

A time for commitment. If you are not a full-tithe payer or if you haven’t paid any tithes or offerings, the interview with the bishop can be the beginning of repentance, a time to commit to begin or to do better.

 

[He is the way]

well, and I mean this gently, but generally speaking the "burden of proof" is on the person making the claim

for example, I don't think anyone has proved that The Urantia Book didn't come from God.
(I don't believe that it did.)

The Urantia Book - Wikipedia

It is my opinion that it is not possible to prove anything to anyone. Mostly people who do not want to believe will continue not believing and those who do believe will continue to believe. Sometimes people change their beliefs like Paul and Thomas of old due to events that happened. I have good reason to believe that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God. My great great grandfather's diary is part of that proof. That being said Paul could not prove to everyone that Jesus was the Christ, neither can I prove to everyone that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God.

 

[He is the way]

It is a meeting you have with the Bishop at the end of every year. The clerk prints out a record of all of your contributions with dates and amounts and asks you to confirm if this is a full tithe.

From the church's website, the article "Why Tithing Settlement?"

You should have also stated that tithing settlement is voluntary. People sign up for it if they want to go.

 

[Leaf473]

As far as I know the bishop will take the word of the tithe payer, but the bishop and stake presidency have the gift of discernment, so they could know whether or not the person is a full tithe payer. A person can give as much as they want to whoever or what ever they want, but tithes are for God and should be paid to His church for the purpose of building up His church and kingdom on the earth. Most of the congregation do not know who or how much any other person pays in tithes and offerings and as I have said most of those are paid online now days. It would be possible for a person to give to the church anonymously. When a person declares that they are a full tithe payer, they are declaring it not only to the bishop, but to God also.

thank you for the answers.

so a person can declare their own worthiness in a temple recommend interview, but the bishop may not believe them.

the temple recommend is not based on the person's own declaration, then, but on the Bishop's examination.

so, and again I mean this gently, it doesn't sound to me like
let a man/woman examine himself/herself
like 1 Corinthians 11 talks about.