FAIR - Contribuciones del usuario [es]

El Libro de Abraham/Papiros de José Smith/Facsímiles/Facsímil 1

2019-08-16T20:31:30Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=El Libro de Abraham/Papiros de José Smith/Facsímiles/Facsímil 1
|H=Libro de Abraham Facsímil 1: La escena de "sofá león"
|S=Se afirma que el facsímil 1 es simplemente una escena funeraria típica y que hay muchos otros papiros que muestran la misma escena básica, y que las partes faltantes del dibujo se restauraron incorrectamente. También se afirma que Abraham nunca se ha asociado con la viñeta del sofá león como la que se muestra en el Facsímil # 1 del Libro de Abraham.
|L1=Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son las críticas relacionadas con el Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham?
|L2=Pregunta: ¿Qué representa normalmente la escena del sofá león en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham?
|L3=Pregunta: ¿Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham muestra una mano, o muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?
|L4=Pregunta: ¿Es José Smith papiros Facsímil 1 común y es similar a otras imágenes?
|L5=Pregunta: ¿Alguna de las explicaciones de José del Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham concuerda con lo que dicen los egiptólogos sobre las cifras?
|L6=Pregunta: ¿El nombre de Abraham sido siempre asociado con una escena egipcia "sofá león"?
|L7=Pregunta: ¿La historia del intento de sacrificio de Abraham descrita en el Libro de Abraham está respaldada por alguna otra fuente?
|L8=Un análisis de la restauración de Charles M. Larson de fax 1 compara con la original de papiro

}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son las críticas relacionadas con el Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Qué representa normalmente la escena del sofá león en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham muestra una mano, o muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Es José Smith papiros Facsímil 1 común y es similar a otras imágenes?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Alguna de las explicaciones de José del Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham concuerda con lo que dicen los egiptólogos sobre las cifras?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿El nombre de Abraham sido siempre asociado con una escena egipcia "sofá león"?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿La historia del intento de sacrificio de Abraham descrita en el Libro de Abraham está respaldada por alguna otra fuente?}}
{{:La crítica del mormonismo/Libros/By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri/Larson "restauración" del Facsímil 1}}
{{FMEBar
|subject=More evidence related to Book of Abraham Facsimile 1
}}

{{notas finales}}

[[en:Book of Abraham/Joseph Smith Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile 1]]
[[pt:O Livro de Abraão/Joseph Smith Papiros/Fac-símiles/Fac-símile 1]]

Pregunta: ¿Es la historia del intento de sacrificio de Abraham con el apoyo de otras fuentes?

2019-08-16T20:30:10Z

RogerNicholson: RogerNicholson trasladó la página Pregunta: ¿Es la historia del intento de sacrificio de Abraham con el apoyo de otras fuentes? a [[Pregunta: ¿La historia del intento de sacrificio de Abraham descrita en el Libro de Abraham está respaldada por...

#REDIRECCIÓN [[Pregunta: ¿La historia del intento de sacrificio de Abraham descrita en el Libro de Abraham está respaldada por alguna otra fuente?]]

Pregunta: ¿La historia del intento de sacrificio de Abraham descrita en el Libro de Abraham está respaldada por alguna otra fuente?

2019-08-16T20:30:10Z

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿La historia del intento de sacrificio de Abraham descrita en el Libro de Abraham está respaldada por alguna otra fuente?==
====Similitudes entre el ''Libro de Abraham'' y el ''Apocalpyse de Abraham''====

También de interés es cierta correlación entre'' El Libro de Abraham'' y el'' Apocalipsis de Abraham'', un documento judío, compuesto entre aproximadamente 70-150 dC. El Apocalipsis de Abraham describe la idolatría del padre de Abraham en detalle, y habla de cómo Abraham llegó a no creer en los dioses de su padre. Las citas siguientes describen cómo Dios le dijo a Abraham que dejara la casa de su padre para que él no fuera a ser destruida.
*{{s||Abraham|1|15-17}}:
<blockquote>
15 Y al levantar sus manos contra mí para sacrificarme y quitarme la vida, he aquí, elevé mi voz al Señor mi Dios, y el Señor escuchó y oyó, y me llenó con la visión del Todopoderoso, y el ángel de su presencia se puso a mi lado e inmediatamente soltó mis ligaduras; 
16 y me habló su voz: Abraham, Abraham, he aquí, Jehová es mi nombre, y te he oído, y he descendido para librarte y llevarte de la casa de tu padre y de toda tu parentela a una tierra extraña de la cual nada sabes; 
17 y esto por causa de que han apartado sus corazones de mí para adorar al dios de Elkénah, y al dios de Líbnah, y al dios de Mahmáckrah, y al dios de Korash, y al dios de Faraón, rey de Egipto; por tanto, he descendido para visitarlos y destruir a aquel que ha levantado su mano contra ti, Abraham, hijo mío, para quitarte la vida.
</blockquote>
*''El Apocalipsis de Abraham'' {{link|url=http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/box.pdf}}
<blockquote>
VIII. Y aconteció que mientras yo decía así a mi padre Taré en la corte de mi casa, viene por la voz de un Poderoso del cielo en una nube de fuego-burst, diciendo y gritando: "¡Abraham, Abraham" Y yo dijo: "Heme aquí" y Dios le dijo: "Tú eres la búsqueda de la comprensión de tu corazón al Dios de los dioses y el Creador; Yo mismo soy; salen de tu padre Taré, y sal fuera de la casa, para que tú también no la matasen en los pecados de la casa de tu padre " Y yo. salió. Y aconteció que cuando salí, que antes de que yo conseguí salir delante de la puerta del atrio, vino un estruendo de un [gran] truenos y él y su casa quemada, y todo lo que sea en su casa, abajo a la tierra, cuarenta codos.
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}
[[Category:Carta a un Director del SEI]]

[[en:Question: Is the story of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham supported by any other sources?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: É a história da tentativa de sacrifício de Abraão apoiada por quaisquer outras fontes?]]

Pregunta: ¿La historia del intento de sacrificio de Abraham descrita en el Libro de Abraham está respaldada por alguna otra fuente?

2019-08-16T20:30:03Z

RogerNicholson:

Pregunta: ¿Alguna de las explicaciones de José del Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham concuerda con lo que dicen los egiptólogos sobre las cifras?

2019-08-16T20:28:51Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Alguna de las explicaciones de José del Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham concuerda con lo que dicen los egiptólogos sobre las cifras?==
{{translate}}
====The Angel of the Lord (Figure 1)====
Angels or heavenly messengers were frequently represented by birds in Egyptian literature. This is an element more contemporary to a later redactor and/or copyist of the Book of Abraham. The Egyptian word for angel is " 'ḫ". The Greek word for angel is "ἄγγελος". In the respective lore, they could potentially turn into birds and bring messages from God. Additionally, see above for traditions that mention the appearance of an angel to Abraham.

<blockquote>The Egyptian term for angel is 'ḫ. The term “designates entities or beings . . . [and] their
(spirit-)state and the power emanating from them.” It was part of a larger spiritual world. The
Egyptian spirit world was generally divided into three classes: gods [Egyptian and Greek translation included], angels [Egyptian and Greek translation included], and demons [Egyptian and Greek translation included]. The larger category of these beings
was the spirit [Egyptian and Greek translation included]. When an individual died, his or her soul [Egyptian and Greek translation included] either became an angel [Egyptian and Greek Translation included] or a demon [Egyptian and Greek translation included] depending on whether the proper rites had been performed, and whether he or she had lived properly.

[. . .]

These are all features of the 'ḫ, who had power over the damned, and the living, could cause health, sickness, childbirth, financial distress, or general malady. They could also send
dreams, lead men and women, do work, fight demons, light lamps, kill, move ships, transform themselves into lotuses, barley, falcons, phoenixes, herons, geese, swallows,
ibises, vultures, other birds, bulls, crocodiles, snakes, spirits, gods, fire, air, whatever form desired, and in that form they could appear in various places, to whomever they
wished. They open doors, travel through fire, loose bonds, drive away crocodiles,
snakes, vultures, pigs, cockroaches, and other undesirable creatures, control water, winds, fire, and enemies, brings bread, water, beer, and other foods.

As shown in the following table, the descriptions overlap considerably showing that the Roman period
description is a continuation of previous pharaonic understandings, and that both ἄγγελος and [other Greek terms are attempts to render the Egyptian term 'ḫ into Greek.<ref>Gee, John "'There Needs No Ghost, My Lord, Come from the Grave to Tell Us This' Dreams and Angels in Ancient Egypt'; Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts Brigham Young University</ref></blockquote>

====Human sacrifice for upsetting standing religious order (Figures 2, 3, and 4)====
Human sacrifice is well attested in ancient Egypt. It was common to those who rejected the standing religious order as a human sacrifice to the Gods as form of capital punishment. This was virtually unknown during Joseph Smith's day. He could only have learned this information from revelation.
{{MaxwellInstituteBar
|link=https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1422&index=6
|title=An Egyptian Context for the Sacrifice of Abraham
|author=Kerry Muhelstein and John Gee
|publication=Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture
|vol=20
|num=2
|date=2010
|summary=The existence of human sacrifice in ancient Egypt has been variously debated and denied. While Egyptologists generally admit that the practice existed in the formative periods of Egyptian society, opinions among Egyptologists for later time periods range from claiming that "there is no certain evidence for the practice of human sacrifice . . . from the Old Kingdom onwards" to asserting that there is "indisputable evidence for the practice of human sacrifice in classical ancient Egypt." However difficult it may be for modern societies to accept that a practice we detest, such as human sacrifice, occurred in past civilizations we admire, further research and discoveries necessitate a reassessment of the possibility of this practice within Egyptian culture. While there is not a universally accepted definition of human sacrifice, for the purposes of this paper we will define human sacrifice as the slaying of a person in a ritual context.
}}

Of interest in this publication is the citation of Dr. Robert Ritner (the most vocal critic of the Book of Abraham) in support of human sacrifice in ancient Egypt. His quote: "[there is] indisputable evidence for the practice of human sacrifice in classical ancient Egypt."<ref>In his review of the Gospel Topics Essay published by the Church in 2014, Robert Ritner retracts these comments and makes a distinction between "human sacrifice" and "capital punishment". Latter-day Saint scholars have responded that they were one and the same.</ref>

====Abraham fastened upon an altar (Figure 2)====
Traditions about Abraham confirm that he was nearly sacrificed and that he was bound upon an altar. See above for the extrabiblical traditions that testify to this. Additionally, scholars have found links between Abraham and Osiris in Semitic adaptations of Egyptian lore. There has also been another papyrus located that associates Abraham with a lion couch scene.

Kevin Barney:
<blockquote> The adaptation of an Egyptian psychostasy vignette from chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead in the judgment scene of the Testament of Abraham, the adaptation of the Egyptian original underlying the Demotic Story of Setna in a Jewish popular version (replacing Osiris with Abraham), and the adaptation of a hypocephalus in the Apocalypse of Abraham provide a stunning glimpse of how J-red, living and working in the same era, may have adapted vignettes from a Book of Breathings and a hypocephalus as illustrations of the Book of Abraham, which had come under his care as a part of the ancient transmission of the text. In my view, the Semitic Adaptation theory turns the facsimiles and their interpretations from a perceived weakness of the Book of Abraham into a real strength. <ref>Barney, Kevin L. "Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant > The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources" see https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1098&index=10.</ref></blockquote>

Another lion couch scene has been discovered which actually includes Abraham's name. It should be noted that the article that this papyri was included in does ''not'' claim that Abraham is the figure on the lion couch, and notes that "[t]he figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a woman." That is very clear from looking at the papyrus. However, the wording under the figure states "Abraham upon..." ("Abraham epi" in Greek) and then it becomes unintelligible so scholars are at a stand-still as to knowing if the circling of the name of Abraham in that phrase is the identification of the figure as Abraham. It is very arguable, however, that with the preposition ("epi" meaning things ranging from "at", to "near" to "upon") and the circling of Abraham's name that this is an identification of Abraham as the figure on the couch in some form. This can simply not be demonstrated conclusively. <ref>See John Gee, [https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/07/research-and-perspectives-abraham-in-ancient-egyptian-texts?lang=eng Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts] on lds.org (July 1992)</ref>

[[File:Abraham.lion.couch.jpg|thumb|500px|center|Photo appearing in John Gee, [https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/07/research-and-perspectives-abraham-in-ancient-egyptian-texts “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,”] Ensign, Jul 1992, 60 Caption "A lion couch scene appears in Leiden Papyrus I 384 (PGM xii). The outline marks Abraham’s name, written in Greek. (Courtesy of Rijksmuseum van Oudheden.)" (click to enlarge)]]

====The idolatrous God of Elkenah and an association with sacrifice (Figures 3, 4, and 5)====
Kevin Barney:
<blockquote>
We began by examining the Book of Abraham text to see what it tells us about the figure Elkenah. Based on an assumption that the El- element in the name is Semitic ʾel, we identified a number of possible linguistic structures for an ancient El combination. We then reviewed six concrete proposals for Elkenah, concluding that the strongest possibilities, “El of Canaan” and “El the Creator,” both point in the direction of the same deity: Canaanite El.

This deity compares favorably with the information set forth in the Book of Abraham text regarding Elkenah. In particular, the type of sacrifice described in Abraham 1 fits a cultic setting in Syro-Palestinian or Canaanite territory much more readily than it fits a Mesopotamian or AssyroBabylonian scenario. More to the point, the scene on Facsimile 1, with its representation of a human sacrifice on an Egyptian lion couch, fits extremely well with Egyptian Middle Kingdom evidence for
the cultic ritual of human sacrifice. Although there is much more work to be done (including similar studies of the other names in the Book of Abraham onomasticon), both the name Elkenah and the cult described in the text seem to point to a Syro-Palestinian context for Abraham 1. Consistent with Lundquist’s study, I believe that future research should focus on this region as a prime location for the possible setting of the text.<ref>Barney, Kevin L. "On Elkenah as Canaanite El," Journal of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 19, no. 1 (2010)</ref></blockquote>

====The idolatrous Gods of Libnah, Korash, and Mahmackrah (Figures 6, 7, and 8)====
The idolatrous Gods of Libnah, Korash, and Mahmakrah have been identified as Gods worshipped by ancient Mesopotamians. Along with the commentary of scholars below, Hugh Nibley has shown how the names of these deities would be associated with the canopic jars depicted here in his book "An Approach to the Book of Abraham".

Michael Rhodes:

<blockquote>The names of the idolatrous gods mentioned in facsimile 1 provide another example of the validity of the Prophet Joseph’s explanations. If Joseph Smith had simply made up the names, the chances of their corresponding to the names of ancient deities would be astronomically small. The name Elkenah, for example, is clearly related to the Hebrew ttt ‘el q?n?h/ q?neh “God has created / the creator.” Elkenah is found in the Old Testament as the name of several people, including Samuel’s father (see 1 Samuel 1:1). The name is also found as a divine name in Mesopotamian sources as dIl-gi-na / dIl-kí-na / dÉl-ké-na. Libnah may be related to the Hebrew leb?n?h “moon” (see Isaiah 24:23) from the root l?b?n “white.” A city captured by Joshua was called libn?h (see Joshua 10:29). The name Korash is found as a name in Egyptian sources. A connection with K?reš the name of the Persian king Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28), is also possible. <ref>Michael D. Rhodes, [https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-4-number-2-2003/teaching-book-abraham-facsimiles “Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimiles,”] ''Religious Educator'' 4, no. 2 (2003): 115–123</ref></blockquote>

John Tvedtnes:

<blockquote>John Gee and others have more recently reexamined the names and come to similar conclusions. John M. Lundquist also noted that each of the gods or idols mentioned in Abraham 1:17 appears in the compilation of some 3,800 Mesopotamian deities published in 1950 by Anton Deimel. Many of these names are Akkadian a Semitic language related to Hebrew and more distantly to Egyptian. <ref>Tvedtnes, John "Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers". FairMormon Conference 2005 https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2005-John-Tvedtnes.pdf. Tvedtnes cites this paper in support of his assertion: John Lundquist, “Was Abraham in Ebla?” in Studies in Scripture II: The Pearl of Great Price, ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent Jackson (Salt Lake City: Randall, 1985). </ref></blockquote>

Hugh Nibley (framing his thought process in an imaginary dialogue) regarding how the four canopic jars could be both Mesopotamian gods and the four quarters of the earth (as found in Fac 2) argued:
<blockquote>. . . As far as the Egyptians were concerned, the four quarters of the earth ''were'' people. If the Book of Abraham wants to think of the four canopic jars as representing idolatrous gods ''and'' the four regions at the same time, this is entirely in keeping with the way the Egyptians thought about it. Now right here in the temple of Opet where we are so much at home "the genies of the four winds" enjoy a conspicuous display, and why are they there? The four winds, according to our handbook, head the list of more than fifty ritual appearances of the sacred four---it all began with the four winds and the four directions, represented as early as the Pyramid Texts by the four canopic vases<ref>Constant De Wit, "Les genies des quartre vents au temple d'Opet," CdE 32 (1957):35-37. </ref>

[. . .]

It has been found that all these combinations have one thing in common--what Professor Constant de Wit calls the "quaternary principle"; he suggests that the whole business originally goes back to the four winds and probably started at Heliopolis.

Dick: Naturally

Mr. Jones: On good evidence. Even one of the Joseph Smith Papyri shows that.

Jane: Which one?

Mr. Jones: Fragment No. 8 in the Era listing, corresponding to chapter 5 of the Book of the Dead<ref>IE 71 (February 1968): 40-G.</ref> Allen has rendered it: "His nose is open in Busiris. He rests in Heliopolis. . . . If north winds come, he sits in the south; if south winds come, he sits in the north; if west winds come, he sits in the east; if east winds come, he sits in the west<ref>De Wit, "Les genies des quatre vents au temple d'Opet," 39; cf. IE 71 (February 1968): 40-G; translated by Wilson, "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri," 75.</ref>

[. . .]

Mr. Jones: The animal heads seem to have been borrowed by the Egyptians in the first place. Originally the canopic vases didn't have the animal heads; they were just plain jars<ref>Kurt Sethe, Zur Geschichte der Einbalsamierung bei den Agypten und einiger damit verbunderer Brauche (Berlin: Akaemie der Wissenschaften, 1934), 217.</ref> Scholars believe "that the theriomorphic vase in Egypt, as elsewhere can be traced to an origin in North Syria."<ref>S.R.K. Glanville, "Egyptian Theriomorphic Vessels in the British Museum," JEA 12 (1929): 57.</ref> Yet the four heads are already canonically prescribed in the Pyramid Texts, so that it is suggested that their appearance in Egypt in the Nineteenth Dynasty was actually a return to the old idea.<ref>Adolf Rusch, Die Entwicklung der Himmelsgottin Nut zu einer Totengottheit (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922), 46.</ref> The idea behind the canopic figures was certainly familiar to Canaan, where, according to the rabbis, the princes of the various nations were typified by animals, just as were the princes of Israel<ref>Leopold Cohn, "An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria," JQR 10 (1898): 316-17</ref>

Dick: But only four of them?

Mr. Jones: That was a concession to the system. Thus, though from time immemorial the Egyptians spoke of the other nations as the "Nine Bows," they believed that at the judgement the ''four'' races of mankind would stand in their proper positions<ref>Eugene Lefebure, "Les quatre races au jugement denier," Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 4 (1876): 44-48.</ref> Professor Georges Posener has shown that the Egyptians named the peoples and countries of the world after their ''directions'' and hence conceived of the ''four'' cardinal directions; to each of the cardinal directions they also gave cardinal colors--red, white, black, and green.<ref>Georges Posener, "Sur l'orientation et l'orde des joints cardinaux chex les Egyptiens," in Gottinger Vortrage vom Agyptologischen Kolloquium der Akademie am 25, un 26. August 1964</ref> They knew that there were many countries, of course, but they insisted on fitting everything into the system--a sort of cosmic plan that seems to have hypnotized many ancient people.<ref>A bibliography of works relevant to this subject may be found in the footnotes in Hugh Nibley "Tenting, Toll, and Taxing," in The Ancient State, CWHN 10: 41-46, 76-83. See also Werner Muller, Die heilge Stadt Roma quadrata, himmlisches Jerusalem und die Mythe vom Weltnabel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1961). </ref>

Dick: So, nobody had to borrow from anybody.

Mr. Jones: So, the various ideas could easily meet and fuse--in Canaan, especially, the newly found Brooklyn Papyrus shows the people familiar with the same ideas: "The invoking of the four Babylonian deities is certainly evidence of the presence of a Babylonian cult in this area." The four gods in question happen to be Bel, Nabu, Shamash, and Nergal<ref>Emil G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New York: Arno, 1969), 86; cf. De Wit, "Les genies des quarte vents au temple d'Opet," 31.</ref> corresponding closely to the four great gods of the Egyptian four directions.<ref> Nibley, Hugh "An Approach to the Book of Abraham" (Provo, UT: FARMS) 2009. Print. [https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/an-approach-to-the-book-of-abraham/]. Nibley's discussion of this is much longer--occupying 38 pages. Represented here are only parts that stood as the most prominent in reading the first few pages and the most useful to readers in the opinion of the author of this article. Readers are encouraged to see Nibley's entire discussion as it is very enlightening. </ref></blockquote>

====The idolatrous God of Pharaoh (figure 9)====
Daniel C. Peterson:
<blockquote>One noteworthy element of the religious situation portrayed in the Book of Abraham is the identification of a crocodile as the idolatrous god of Pharaoh, right there underneath the lion couch. That’s a kind of odd thing to come up with if you’re a yokel farm-boy from upstate New York. Is that the first thing that comes to your mind? “Oh, idolatrous god of Pharaoh!”
Although this may have seemed strange in Joseph Smith’s day, discoveries in other ancient texts confirm this representation. Unas or Wenis, for example, was the last king of the fifth dynasty, around 2300 B.C., and his pyramid still stands at Saqqara, south of modern Cairo. Utterance 317, Unas’ pyramid texts, includes the following: “The king appears as the crocodile god Sobek, and Unas has come today from the overflowing flood. Unas is Sobek, green plumed, wakeful, alert…. Una arises as Sobek, son of Neith. One scholar observes that “the god Sobek is … viewed as a manifestation of Horus, the god most closely identified with the kingship of Egypt” during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom era (around 2000 B.C., maybe a little later), which includes the time period that tradition indicates is Abraham’s time.
Intriguingly, Middle Kingdom Egypt saw a great deal of activity in the large oasis to the southwest of modern Cairo known as the Faiyum. Crocodiles were common there. You know what the name of the place was to the Greeks? The major town there was called “Crocodileopolis.” <ref> Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference </ref></blockquote>

====Abraham in Egypt (Figure 10)====
Foreigners in Egypt, like Abraham was, are often represented by a Lotus Flower (sometimes referred to alternatively as a water lily), the figure depicted here, as argued by Dr. Hugh Nibley. Nibley cites Waltraud Guglielmi, a non-LDS Egyptologist, to support his assertion specifically referencing divine and human visitors in Egypt.

<blockquote>The lotus, perhaps the richest of all Egyptian symbols, can stand for the purest abstraction, as when it indicates nothing but a date in one tomb or a place in another.<ref>Kurt H. Sethe, Urkunden des alten Reichs, 4 vols. (Leipzig:Hinrichs, 1932)1:111</ref> In Facsimile 3 we are told that it points to two things, a man and a country, indicating the special guest-to-host relationship between them. Most of the time the lotus announces a party situation, adding brightness to the occasion; etiquette required guests to a formal party to bring a lotus offering to the host--hence the flower served as a token both of invitation and admission<ref>Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price," IE 72 (September 1969: 89-93)</ref>. [E.A. Wallis Budge] observed how in the Kerasher Manuscript, in which the person being presented wears exactly the same peculiar lotus headdress as our Shulem (figure 5), "instead of the bullock-skin dripping with blood, which is generally seen suspended near the throne of the god, masses of lotus flowers are represented, giving a totally different aspect to the scene<ref>Budge, Book of the Dead (Papyrus of Hunefer)34.</ref>. Yet, while the lotuses "seem to have figured prominently" in formal occasions, according to Aylward Blackman, we still do not understand the flower offerings, any more than we do the combination of lotus stands and small libation vessels such as our figure 3.<ref>Aylward H. Blackman, "A Study of Liturgy Celebrated in the Temple of Aton at El-Amarna," in Recuel d'etudes Egyptologiques dediqué a la memoire de Jean Francois Champollion (Paris: Champion, 1922), 517, 521.</ref>. It would now seem that these tall and narrow Egyptian ritual stands originated in Canaan.<ref> Samuel Yeivin, "Canaanite Ritual Vessels in Egyptian Cultic Practices," JEA 62 (1976): 114.</ref>

[. . .]

The lotus is definitely a welcome to Egypt from the king to human and divine visitors; the divinity who received the token reciprocated by responding to the king "I give thee all the lands of thy majesty, the foreign lands to become they slaves. I give thee the birds, symbols of thine enemies"<ref>Waltraund Guglielmi, "Zur Symbolik des 'Dargringes des StrauBes der sh.t'" ZAS 103 (1976): 108.</ref> In receiving a lotus, the king in return ritually receives the land itself, while the god in accepting a lotus from the king promises him in return the reverent obedience of his subjects.<ref> Ibid., 110-11</ref> "The flowers are mostly heraldic plants . . . associated with the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt," for in some the main purpose of the lotus rites is to "uphold the dominion of the King" as nourisher of the land.<ref>Ibid., 111-12</ref> Moreover, its significance is valid at every level of society, the louts being a preeminent example of how mythological themes and religious symbolism were familiarly integrated into the everyday life of the Egyptians.<ref>Ibid</ref>.

[. . .]

The numerous studies of the Egyptian lotus design are remarkably devoid of conflict, since this is one case in which nobody insists on a single definitive interpretation. The points emphasized are (1) The abstract nature of the symbol, containing meanings that are far from obvious at first glance (2) the lotus as denoting high society, especially royal receptions, at which the presentation of a lotus to the host was obligatory [. . .]; to be remiss in lotus courtesy was an unpardonable blunder, for anyone who refuses the lotus is under a curse, (3) the lotus as the symbol of Lower Egypt, the Delta with all its patriotic and sentimental attachments ; (4) the lotus as Nefertem, the defender of the border; (5) the lotus as the king or rule, defender, and nourisher of the land; (6) the lotus as the support of the throne at the coronation. It is a token of welcome and invitation to the royal court and the land, proffered by the king himself as guardian of the border.<ref>See Nibley, Hugh "[https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/abraham-in-egypt/ Abraham in Egypt]" FARMS: Provo, UT (1981) PRINT p.444-450</ref></blockquote>

====Pillars of Heaven (Figure 11)====
Kevin Barney:

<blockquote>
In Hebrew cosmology, the raqîa’ or “firmament” was believed to be a solid dome, supported by pillars.57 The raqîa’ in turn was closely associated with the celestial ocean, which it supported.58 In the lower half of Facsimile 1, we have the raqîa’ (1) connected with the waters, as with the celestial ocean, (2) appearing to be supported by pillars, and (3) being solid and therefore capable of serving itself as a support, in this case for the lion couch. The bottom half of Facsimile 1 would have looked to J-red very much like a microcosm of the universe (in much the same way that the divine throne chariot of Ezekiel 1—2, which associates the four four-faced fiery living creatures with the raqîa’ above their heads on which God sits enthroned, is a microcosm of the universe). The Egyptian artist’s perspective is not necessarily a limitation on J-red. The stacking effect of waters apparently both being supported and acting as a support would have suggested to J-red the Hebrew conception of the raqîa’. <ref> Barney, Kevin L. "
Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant > The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources" https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1098&index=10</ref></blockquote>

====Firmament over our heads (Figure 12) ====
The Hebrew term "Raukeeyang" is a transliteration of the word "raqîa’". In Figure 12, Joseph Smith describes "Raukeeyang" as the firmament over our heads and a crocodile swims through it. This makes sense in light of modern scholarship that identifies Egyptian's conception of heaven as a "Heavenly Ocean" with this figure. LDS Scholars have cited Non-LDS Egyptologist Erik Hornung whose work supports this. <ref>Erik Hornung (non-LDS), “Himmelsvorstellungen,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie, 7 vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowit, 1977–1989), 2:1216. For these and other examples, see Peterson, “News from Antiquity”; Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2009), 115–78; Nibley and Rhodes, One Eternal Round, 236–45; John Gee, “A New Look at the Conception of the Human Being in Ancient Egypt,” in “Being in Ancient Egypt”: Thoughts on Agency, Materiality and Cognition, ed. Rune Nyord and Annette Kjølby (Oxford, U.K.: Archaeopress, 2009), 6–7, 12–13.</ref>

"Shamau" is presented as related to samayim, a dual form meaning "heaven(s)" "Shaumahyeem" using the Sephardic Hebrew transliteration Joseph learned from Joshua Seixas as opposed to the Ashkenazic method.

Louis Zucker, a Jewish scholar from the University of Utah wrote:

<blockquote> Another such word is Shaumahyeem [exactly the Seixas pronunciation], heavens, in the sense of Genesis 1; '''Shaumau is an invented singular, unknown to the Bible'''<ref>"Joseph Smith as a Student of Hebrew," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 3, no. 2 [Summer 1968]: 41-55, here, p. 51, emphasis added. The Hebrew (MT) does not use both "name" and "heavens" but rather "his name" alone. For instance, we read in the 1985 JPS Tanakh: "Sing to God, chant hymns to His name; extol Him who rides the clouds; the LORD is his name. Exult in His presence." Michael Dahood, then-Professor of Ugaritic and Phoenician Languages and Literature at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, rendered this verse as follows in his translation/commentary on the Psalter: "Sing, o gods, chant, O his heavens [note: not "his name] pave the highway for the Rider of the Clouds! Delight in Yahweh, and exult before him!" While it is true that some dispute the vocalization of this word in this verse, it is disputed due to grammatical/contextual reasons for preferring "his name" no a rejection of samaw being a true archaic singular form of "heavens". Instead of Joseph Smith simply cribbing from the Hebrew he studied under Joshua Seixas (and later, Alexander Neibaur) and blundering along the way (per Zucker), something more is going on as coincidence for this and many other issues is an unlikely explanation, especially in light of modern biblical scholarship and philology. </ref></blockquote>

</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}

[[en:Question: Do any of Joseph's explanations of Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 agree with what Egyptologists say about the figures?]]

Pregunta: ¿Alguna de las explicaciones de José del Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham concuerda con lo que dicen los egiptólogos sobre las cifras?

2019-08-16T20:28:13Z

RogerNicholson: Página creada con «{{FairMormon}} <onlyinclude> ==Question: Do any of Joseph's explanations of Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 agree with what Egyptologists say about the figures?== {{translate}}...»

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Do any of Joseph's explanations of Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 agree with what Egyptologists say about the figures?==
{{translate}}
====The Angel of the Lord (Figure 1)====
Angels or heavenly messengers were frequently represented by birds in Egyptian literature. This is an element more contemporary to a later redactor and/or copyist of the Book of Abraham. The Egyptian word for angel is " 'ḫ". The Greek word for angel is "ἄγγελος". In the respective lore, they could potentially turn into birds and bring messages from God. Additionally, see above for traditions that mention the appearance of an angel to Abraham.

<blockquote>The Egyptian term for angel is 'ḫ. The term “designates entities or beings . . . [and] their
(spirit-)state and the power emanating from them.” It was part of a larger spiritual world. The
Egyptian spirit world was generally divided into three classes: gods [Egyptian and Greek translation included], angels [Egyptian and Greek translation included], and demons [Egyptian and Greek translation included]. The larger category of these beings
was the spirit [Egyptian and Greek translation included]. When an individual died, his or her soul [Egyptian and Greek translation included] either became an angel [Egyptian and Greek Translation included] or a demon [Egyptian and Greek translation included] depending on whether the proper rites had been performed, and whether he or she had lived properly.

[. . .]

These are all features of the 'ḫ, who had power over the damned, and the living, could cause health, sickness, childbirth, financial distress, or general malady. They could also send
dreams, lead men and women, do work, fight demons, light lamps, kill, move ships, transform themselves into lotuses, barley, falcons, phoenixes, herons, geese, swallows,
ibises, vultures, other birds, bulls, crocodiles, snakes, spirits, gods, fire, air, whatever form desired, and in that form they could appear in various places, to whomever they
wished. They open doors, travel through fire, loose bonds, drive away crocodiles,
snakes, vultures, pigs, cockroaches, and other undesirable creatures, control water, winds, fire, and enemies, brings bread, water, beer, and other foods.

As shown in the following table, the descriptions overlap considerably showing that the Roman period
description is a continuation of previous pharaonic understandings, and that both ἄγγελος and [other Greek terms are attempts to render the Egyptian term 'ḫ into Greek.<ref>Gee, John "'There Needs No Ghost, My Lord, Come from the Grave to Tell Us This' Dreams and Angels in Ancient Egypt'; Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts Brigham Young University</ref></blockquote>

====Human sacrifice for upsetting standing religious order (Figures 2, 3, and 4)====
Human sacrifice is well attested in ancient Egypt. It was common to those who rejected the standing religious order as a human sacrifice to the Gods as form of capital punishment. This was virtually unknown during Joseph Smith's day. He could only have learned this information from revelation.
{{MaxwellInstituteBar
|link=https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1422&index=6
|title=An Egyptian Context for the Sacrifice of Abraham
|author=Kerry Muhelstein and John Gee
|publication=Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture
|vol=20
|num=2
|date=2010
|summary=The existence of human sacrifice in ancient Egypt has been variously debated and denied. While Egyptologists generally admit that the practice existed in the formative periods of Egyptian society, opinions among Egyptologists for later time periods range from claiming that "there is no certain evidence for the practice of human sacrifice . . . from the Old Kingdom onwards" to asserting that there is "indisputable evidence for the practice of human sacrifice in classical ancient Egypt." However difficult it may be for modern societies to accept that a practice we detest, such as human sacrifice, occurred in past civilizations we admire, further research and discoveries necessitate a reassessment of the possibility of this practice within Egyptian culture. While there is not a universally accepted definition of human sacrifice, for the purposes of this paper we will define human sacrifice as the slaying of a person in a ritual context.
}}

Of interest in this publication is the citation of Dr. Robert Ritner (the most vocal critic of the Book of Abraham) in support of human sacrifice in ancient Egypt. His quote: "[there is] indisputable evidence for the practice of human sacrifice in classical ancient Egypt."<ref>In his review of the Gospel Topics Essay published by the Church in 2014, Robert Ritner retracts these comments and makes a distinction between "human sacrifice" and "capital punishment". Latter-day Saint scholars have responded that they were one and the same.</ref>

====Abraham fastened upon an altar (Figure 2)====
Traditions about Abraham confirm that he was nearly sacrificed and that he was bound upon an altar. See above for the extrabiblical traditions that testify to this. Additionally, scholars have found links between Abraham and Osiris in Semitic adaptations of Egyptian lore. There has also been another papyrus located that associates Abraham with a lion couch scene.

Kevin Barney:
<blockquote> The adaptation of an Egyptian psychostasy vignette from chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead in the judgment scene of the Testament of Abraham, the adaptation of the Egyptian original underlying the Demotic Story of Setna in a Jewish popular version (replacing Osiris with Abraham), and the adaptation of a hypocephalus in the Apocalypse of Abraham provide a stunning glimpse of how J-red, living and working in the same era, may have adapted vignettes from a Book of Breathings and a hypocephalus as illustrations of the Book of Abraham, which had come under his care as a part of the ancient transmission of the text. In my view, the Semitic Adaptation theory turns the facsimiles and their interpretations from a perceived weakness of the Book of Abraham into a real strength. <ref>Barney, Kevin L. "Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant > The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources" see https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1098&index=10.</ref></blockquote>

Another lion couch scene has been discovered which actually includes Abraham's name. It should be noted that the article that this papyri was included in does ''not'' claim that Abraham is the figure on the lion couch, and notes that "[t]he figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a woman." That is very clear from looking at the papyrus. However, the wording under the figure states "Abraham upon..." ("Abraham epi" in Greek) and then it becomes unintelligible so scholars are at a stand-still as to knowing if the circling of the name of Abraham in that phrase is the identification of the figure as Abraham. It is very arguable, however, that with the preposition ("epi" meaning things ranging from "at", to "near" to "upon") and the circling of Abraham's name that this is an identification of Abraham as the figure on the couch in some form. This can simply not be demonstrated conclusively. <ref>See John Gee, [https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/07/research-and-perspectives-abraham-in-ancient-egyptian-texts?lang=eng Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts] on lds.org (July 1992)</ref>

[[File:Abraham.lion.couch.jpg|thumb|500px|center|Photo appearing in John Gee, [https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/07/research-and-perspectives-abraham-in-ancient-egyptian-texts “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,”] Ensign, Jul 1992, 60 Caption "A lion couch scene appears in Leiden Papyrus I 384 (PGM xii). The outline marks Abraham’s name, written in Greek. (Courtesy of Rijksmuseum van Oudheden.)" (click to enlarge)]]

====The idolatrous God of Elkenah and an association with sacrifice (Figures 3, 4, and 5)====
Kevin Barney:
<blockquote>
We began by examining the Book of Abraham text to see what it tells us about the figure Elkenah. Based on an assumption that the El- element in the name is Semitic ʾel, we identified a number of possible linguistic structures for an ancient El combination. We then reviewed six concrete proposals for Elkenah, concluding that the strongest possibilities, “El of Canaan” and “El the Creator,” both point in the direction of the same deity: Canaanite El.

This deity compares favorably with the information set forth in the Book of Abraham text regarding Elkenah. In particular, the type of sacrifice described in Abraham 1 fits a cultic setting in Syro-Palestinian or Canaanite territory much more readily than it fits a Mesopotamian or AssyroBabylonian scenario. More to the point, the scene on Facsimile 1, with its representation of a human sacrifice on an Egyptian lion couch, fits extremely well with Egyptian Middle Kingdom evidence for
the cultic ritual of human sacrifice. Although there is much more work to be done (including similar studies of the other names in the Book of Abraham onomasticon), both the name Elkenah and the cult described in the text seem to point to a Syro-Palestinian context for Abraham 1. Consistent with Lundquist’s study, I believe that future research should focus on this region as a prime location for the possible setting of the text.<ref>Barney, Kevin L. "On Elkenah as Canaanite El," Journal of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 19, no. 1 (2010)</ref></blockquote>

====The idolatrous Gods of Libnah, Korash, and Mahmackrah (Figures 6, 7, and 8)====
The idolatrous Gods of Libnah, Korash, and Mahmakrah have been identified as Gods worshipped by ancient Mesopotamians. Along with the commentary of scholars below, Hugh Nibley has shown how the names of these deities would be associated with the canopic jars depicted here in his book "An Approach to the Book of Abraham".

Michael Rhodes:

<blockquote>The names of the idolatrous gods mentioned in facsimile 1 provide another example of the validity of the Prophet Joseph’s explanations. If Joseph Smith had simply made up the names, the chances of their corresponding to the names of ancient deities would be astronomically small. The name Elkenah, for example, is clearly related to the Hebrew ttt ‘el q?n?h/ q?neh “God has created / the creator.” Elkenah is found in the Old Testament as the name of several people, including Samuel’s father (see 1 Samuel 1:1). The name is also found as a divine name in Mesopotamian sources as dIl-gi-na / dIl-kí-na / dÉl-ké-na. Libnah may be related to the Hebrew leb?n?h “moon” (see Isaiah 24:23) from the root l?b?n “white.” A city captured by Joshua was called libn?h (see Joshua 10:29). The name Korash is found as a name in Egyptian sources. A connection with K?reš the name of the Persian king Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28), is also possible. <ref>Michael D. Rhodes, [https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-4-number-2-2003/teaching-book-abraham-facsimiles “Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimiles,”] ''Religious Educator'' 4, no. 2 (2003): 115–123</ref></blockquote>

John Tvedtnes:

<blockquote>John Gee and others have more recently reexamined the names and come to similar conclusions. John M. Lundquist also noted that each of the gods or idols mentioned in Abraham 1:17 appears in the compilation of some 3,800 Mesopotamian deities published in 1950 by Anton Deimel. Many of these names are Akkadian a Semitic language related to Hebrew and more distantly to Egyptian. <ref>Tvedtnes, John "Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers". FairMormon Conference 2005 https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2005-John-Tvedtnes.pdf. Tvedtnes cites this paper in support of his assertion: John Lundquist, “Was Abraham in Ebla?” in Studies in Scripture II: The Pearl of Great Price, ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent Jackson (Salt Lake City: Randall, 1985). </ref></blockquote>

Hugh Nibley (framing his thought process in an imaginary dialogue) regarding how the four canopic jars could be both Mesopotamian gods and the four quarters of the earth (as found in Fac 2) argued:
<blockquote>. . . As far as the Egyptians were concerned, the four quarters of the earth ''were'' people. If the Book of Abraham wants to think of the four canopic jars as representing idolatrous gods ''and'' the four regions at the same time, this is entirely in keeping with the way the Egyptians thought about it. Now right here in the temple of Opet where we are so much at home "the genies of the four winds" enjoy a conspicuous display, and why are they there? The four winds, according to our handbook, head the list of more than fifty ritual appearances of the sacred four---it all began with the four winds and the four directions, represented as early as the Pyramid Texts by the four canopic vases<ref>Constant De Wit, "Les genies des quartre vents au temple d'Opet," CdE 32 (1957):35-37. </ref>

[. . .]

It has been found that all these combinations have one thing in common--what Professor Constant de Wit calls the "quaternary principle"; he suggests that the whole business originally goes back to the four winds and probably started at Heliopolis.

Dick: Naturally

Mr. Jones: On good evidence. Even one of the Joseph Smith Papyri shows that.

Jane: Which one?

Mr. Jones: Fragment No. 8 in the Era listing, corresponding to chapter 5 of the Book of the Dead<ref>IE 71 (February 1968): 40-G.</ref> Allen has rendered it: "His nose is open in Busiris. He rests in Heliopolis. . . . If north winds come, he sits in the south; if south winds come, he sits in the north; if west winds come, he sits in the east; if east winds come, he sits in the west<ref>De Wit, "Les genies des quatre vents au temple d'Opet," 39; cf. IE 71 (February 1968): 40-G; translated by Wilson, "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri," 75.</ref>

[. . .]

Mr. Jones: The animal heads seem to have been borrowed by the Egyptians in the first place. Originally the canopic vases didn't have the animal heads; they were just plain jars<ref>Kurt Sethe, Zur Geschichte der Einbalsamierung bei den Agypten und einiger damit verbunderer Brauche (Berlin: Akaemie der Wissenschaften, 1934), 217.</ref> Scholars believe "that the theriomorphic vase in Egypt, as elsewhere can be traced to an origin in North Syria."<ref>S.R.K. Glanville, "Egyptian Theriomorphic Vessels in the British Museum," JEA 12 (1929): 57.</ref> Yet the four heads are already canonically prescribed in the Pyramid Texts, so that it is suggested that their appearance in Egypt in the Nineteenth Dynasty was actually a return to the old idea.<ref>Adolf Rusch, Die Entwicklung der Himmelsgottin Nut zu einer Totengottheit (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922), 46.</ref> The idea behind the canopic figures was certainly familiar to Canaan, where, according to the rabbis, the princes of the various nations were typified by animals, just as were the princes of Israel<ref>Leopold Cohn, "An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria," JQR 10 (1898): 316-17</ref>

Dick: But only four of them?

Mr. Jones: That was a concession to the system. Thus, though from time immemorial the Egyptians spoke of the other nations as the "Nine Bows," they believed that at the judgement the ''four'' races of mankind would stand in their proper positions<ref>Eugene Lefebure, "Les quatre races au jugement denier," Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 4 (1876): 44-48.</ref> Professor Georges Posener has shown that the Egyptians named the peoples and countries of the world after their ''directions'' and hence conceived of the ''four'' cardinal directions; to each of the cardinal directions they also gave cardinal colors--red, white, black, and green.<ref>Georges Posener, "Sur l'orientation et l'orde des joints cardinaux chex les Egyptiens," in Gottinger Vortrage vom Agyptologischen Kolloquium der Akademie am 25, un 26. August 1964</ref> They knew that there were many countries, of course, but they insisted on fitting everything into the system--a sort of cosmic plan that seems to have hypnotized many ancient people.<ref>A bibliography of works relevant to this subject may be found in the footnotes in Hugh Nibley "Tenting, Toll, and Taxing," in The Ancient State, CWHN 10: 41-46, 76-83. See also Werner Muller, Die heilge Stadt Roma quadrata, himmlisches Jerusalem und die Mythe vom Weltnabel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1961). </ref>

Dick: So, nobody had to borrow from anybody.

Mr. Jones: So, the various ideas could easily meet and fuse--in Canaan, especially, the newly found Brooklyn Papyrus shows the people familiar with the same ideas: "The invoking of the four Babylonian deities is certainly evidence of the presence of a Babylonian cult in this area." The four gods in question happen to be Bel, Nabu, Shamash, and Nergal<ref>Emil G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New York: Arno, 1969), 86; cf. De Wit, "Les genies des quarte vents au temple d'Opet," 31.</ref> corresponding closely to the four great gods of the Egyptian four directions.<ref> Nibley, Hugh "An Approach to the Book of Abraham" (Provo, UT: FARMS) 2009. Print. [https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/an-approach-to-the-book-of-abraham/]. Nibley's discussion of this is much longer--occupying 38 pages. Represented here are only parts that stood as the most prominent in reading the first few pages and the most useful to readers in the opinion of the author of this article. Readers are encouraged to see Nibley's entire discussion as it is very enlightening. </ref></blockquote>

====The idolatrous God of Pharaoh (figure 9)====
Daniel C. Peterson:
<blockquote>One noteworthy element of the religious situation portrayed in the Book of Abraham is the identification of a crocodile as the idolatrous god of Pharaoh, right there underneath the lion couch. That’s a kind of odd thing to come up with if you’re a yokel farm-boy from upstate New York. Is that the first thing that comes to your mind? “Oh, idolatrous god of Pharaoh!”
Although this may have seemed strange in Joseph Smith’s day, discoveries in other ancient texts confirm this representation. Unas or Wenis, for example, was the last king of the fifth dynasty, around 2300 B.C., and his pyramid still stands at Saqqara, south of modern Cairo. Utterance 317, Unas’ pyramid texts, includes the following: “The king appears as the crocodile god Sobek, and Unas has come today from the overflowing flood. Unas is Sobek, green plumed, wakeful, alert…. Una arises as Sobek, son of Neith. One scholar observes that “the god Sobek is … viewed as a manifestation of Horus, the god most closely identified with the kingship of Egypt” during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom era (around 2000 B.C., maybe a little later), which includes the time period that tradition indicates is Abraham’s time.
Intriguingly, Middle Kingdom Egypt saw a great deal of activity in the large oasis to the southwest of modern Cairo known as the Faiyum. Crocodiles were common there. You know what the name of the place was to the Greeks? The major town there was called “Crocodileopolis.” <ref> Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference </ref></blockquote>

====Abraham in Egypt (Figure 10)====
Foreigners in Egypt, like Abraham was, are often represented by a Lotus Flower (sometimes referred to alternatively as a water lily), the figure depicted here, as argued by Dr. Hugh Nibley. Nibley cites Waltraud Guglielmi, a non-LDS Egyptologist, to support his assertion specifically referencing divine and human visitors in Egypt.

<blockquote>The lotus, perhaps the richest of all Egyptian symbols, can stand for the purest abstraction, as when it indicates nothing but a date in one tomb or a place in another.<ref>Kurt H. Sethe, Urkunden des alten Reichs, 4 vols. (Leipzig:Hinrichs, 1932)1:111</ref> In Facsimile 3 we are told that it points to two things, a man and a country, indicating the special guest-to-host relationship between them. Most of the time the lotus announces a party situation, adding brightness to the occasion; etiquette required guests to a formal party to bring a lotus offering to the host--hence the flower served as a token both of invitation and admission<ref>Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price," IE 72 (September 1969: 89-93)</ref>. [E.A. Wallis Budge] observed how in the Kerasher Manuscript, in which the person being presented wears exactly the same peculiar lotus headdress as our Shulem (figure 5), "instead of the bullock-skin dripping with blood, which is generally seen suspended near the throne of the god, masses of lotus flowers are represented, giving a totally different aspect to the scene<ref>Budge, Book of the Dead (Papyrus of Hunefer)34.</ref>. Yet, while the lotuses "seem to have figured prominently" in formal occasions, according to Aylward Blackman, we still do not understand the flower offerings, any more than we do the combination of lotus stands and small libation vessels such as our figure 3.<ref>Aylward H. Blackman, "A Study of Liturgy Celebrated in the Temple of Aton at El-Amarna," in Recuel d'etudes Egyptologiques dediqué a la memoire de Jean Francois Champollion (Paris: Champion, 1922), 517, 521.</ref>. It would now seem that these tall and narrow Egyptian ritual stands originated in Canaan.<ref> Samuel Yeivin, "Canaanite Ritual Vessels in Egyptian Cultic Practices," JEA 62 (1976): 114.</ref>

[. . .]

The lotus is definitely a welcome to Egypt from the king to human and divine visitors; the divinity who received the token reciprocated by responding to the king "I give thee all the lands of thy majesty, the foreign lands to become they slaves. I give thee the birds, symbols of thine enemies"<ref>Waltraund Guglielmi, "Zur Symbolik des 'Dargringes des StrauBes der sh.t'" ZAS 103 (1976): 108.</ref> In receiving a lotus, the king in return ritually receives the land itself, while the god in accepting a lotus from the king promises him in return the reverent obedience of his subjects.<ref> Ibid., 110-11</ref> "The flowers are mostly heraldic plants . . . associated with the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt," for in some the main purpose of the lotus rites is to "uphold the dominion of the King" as nourisher of the land.<ref>Ibid., 111-12</ref> Moreover, its significance is valid at every level of society, the louts being a preeminent example of how mythological themes and religious symbolism were familiarly integrated into the everyday life of the Egyptians.<ref>Ibid</ref>.

[. . .]

The numerous studies of the Egyptian lotus design are remarkably devoid of conflict, since this is one case in which nobody insists on a single definitive interpretation. The points emphasized are (1) The abstract nature of the symbol, containing meanings that are far from obvious at first glance (2) the lotus as denoting high society, especially royal receptions, at which the presentation of a lotus to the host was obligatory [. . .]; to be remiss in lotus courtesy was an unpardonable blunder, for anyone who refuses the lotus is under a curse, (3) the lotus as the symbol of Lower Egypt, the Delta with all its patriotic and sentimental attachments ; (4) the lotus as Nefertem, the defender of the border; (5) the lotus as the king or rule, defender, and nourisher of the land; (6) the lotus as the support of the throne at the coronation. It is a token of welcome and invitation to the royal court and the land, proffered by the king himself as guardian of the border.<ref>See Nibley, Hugh "[https://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/abraham-in-egypt/ Abraham in Egypt]" FARMS: Provo, UT (1981) PRINT p.444-450</ref></blockquote>

====Pillars of Heaven (Figure 11)====
Kevin Barney:

<blockquote>
In Hebrew cosmology, the raqîa’ or “firmament” was believed to be a solid dome, supported by pillars.57 The raqîa’ in turn was closely associated with the celestial ocean, which it supported.58 In the lower half of Facsimile 1, we have the raqîa’ (1) connected with the waters, as with the celestial ocean, (2) appearing to be supported by pillars, and (3) being solid and therefore capable of serving itself as a support, in this case for the lion couch. The bottom half of Facsimile 1 would have looked to J-red very much like a microcosm of the universe (in much the same way that the divine throne chariot of Ezekiel 1—2, which associates the four four-faced fiery living creatures with the raqîa’ above their heads on which God sits enthroned, is a microcosm of the universe). The Egyptian artist’s perspective is not necessarily a limitation on J-red. The stacking effect of waters apparently both being supported and acting as a support would have suggested to J-red the Hebrew conception of the raqîa’. <ref> Barney, Kevin L. "
Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant > The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources" https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1098&index=10</ref></blockquote>

====Firmament over our heads (Figure 12) ====
The Hebrew term "Raukeeyang" is a transliteration of the word "raqîa’". In Figure 12, Joseph Smith describes "Raukeeyang" as the firmament over our heads and a crocodile swims through it. This makes sense in light of modern scholarship that identifies Egyptian's conception of heaven as a "Heavenly Ocean" with this figure. LDS Scholars have cited Non-LDS Egyptologist Erik Hornung whose work supports this. <ref>Erik Hornung (non-LDS), “Himmelsvorstellungen,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie, 7 vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowit, 1977–1989), 2:1216. For these and other examples, see Peterson, “News from Antiquity”; Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2009), 115–78; Nibley and Rhodes, One Eternal Round, 236–45; John Gee, “A New Look at the Conception of the Human Being in Ancient Egypt,” in “Being in Ancient Egypt”: Thoughts on Agency, Materiality and Cognition, ed. Rune Nyord and Annette Kjølby (Oxford, U.K.: Archaeopress, 2009), 6–7, 12–13.</ref>

"Shamau" is presented as related to samayim, a dual form meaning "heaven(s)" "Shaumahyeem" using the Sephardic Hebrew transliteration Joseph learned from Joshua Seixas as opposed to the Ashkenazic method.

Louis Zucker, a Jewish scholar from the University of Utah wrote:

<blockquote> Another such word is Shaumahyeem [exactly the Seixas pronunciation], heavens, in the sense of Genesis 1; '''Shaumau is an invented singular, unknown to the Bible'''<ref>"Joseph Smith as a Student of Hebrew," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 3, no. 2 [Summer 1968]: 41-55, here, p. 51, emphasis added. The Hebrew (MT) does not use both "name" and "heavens" but rather "his name" alone. For instance, we read in the 1985 JPS Tanakh: "Sing to God, chant hymns to His name; extol Him who rides the clouds; the LORD is his name. Exult in His presence." Michael Dahood, then-Professor of Ugaritic and Phoenician Languages and Literature at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, rendered this verse as follows in his translation/commentary on the Psalter: "Sing, o gods, chant, O his heavens [note: not "his name] pave the highway for the Rider of the Clouds! Delight in Yahweh, and exult before him!" While it is true that some dispute the vocalization of this word in this verse, it is disputed due to grammatical/contextual reasons for preferring "his name" no a rejection of samaw being a true archaic singular form of "heavens". Instead of Joseph Smith simply cribbing from the Hebrew he studied under Joshua Seixas (and later, Alexander Neibaur) and blundering along the way (per Zucker), something more is going on as coincidence for this and many other issues is an unlikely explanation, especially in light of modern biblical scholarship and philology. </ref></blockquote>

</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}

[[en:Question: Do any of Joseph's explanations of Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 agree with what Egyptologists say about the figures?]]

Pregunta: ¿Qué representa normalmente la escena del sofá león en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham?

2019-08-16T20:25:56Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Qué representa normalmente la escena del sofá león en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham?==
===The lion couch vignette usually represents the embalming of the deceased individual in preparation for burial===

[[Image:BOAfacsimile1.jpg|300px|center|thumb|Fotografía del Facsímil 1 del recuperado Papiros de José Smith]]
El papiro con la ilustración representada en Facsímil 1 ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_1 vista]) es el único elemento recuperado que tiene alguna relación con el texto del Libro de Abraham.

Esta viñeta se llama una "escena de sofá león" por los egiptólogos. Por lo general representa el embalsamamiento del individuo fallecido en preparación para el entierro. Sin embargo, esta escena en particular sofá león representa la resurrección de Hor (figura 2), ayudado por el dios egipcio Anubis (3). <ref>Michael D. Rhodes, ''The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), 19 (18–23).</ref>

{{s||Abraham|1|12}} y las notas a Facsímil 1 la identifican como la representación de Abraham de ser sacrificado por el sacerdote de Elkénah en Ur.
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}
[[Category:Carta a un Director del SEI]]

[[en:Question: What does the lion couch scene normally represent?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: O que faz cena sofá o leão normalmente representam?]]

Pregunta: ¿Lo que normalmente representado por la escena sofá león?

2019-08-16T20:25:48Z

RogerNicholson: RogerNicholson trasladó la página Pregunta: ¿Lo que normalmente representado por la escena sofá león? a Pregunta: ¿Qué representa normalmente la escena del sofá león en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham?

#REDIRECCIÓN [[Pregunta: ¿Qué representa normalmente la escena del sofá león en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham?]]

Pregunta: ¿Qué representa normalmente la escena del sofá león en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham?

2019-08-16T20:25:47Z

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Lo que normalmente representado por la escena sofá león?==
===The lion couch vignette usually represents the embalming of the deceased individual in preparation for burial===

[[Image:BOAfacsimile1.jpg|300px|center|thumb|Fotografía del Facsímil 1 del recuperado Papiros de José Smith]]
El papiro con la ilustración representada en Facsímil 1 ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_1 vista]) es el único elemento recuperado que tiene alguna relación con el texto del Libro de Abraham.

Esta viñeta se llama una "escena de sofá león" por los egiptólogos. Por lo general representa el embalsamamiento del individuo fallecido en preparación para el entierro. Sin embargo, esta escena en particular sofá león representa la resurrección de Hor (figura 2), ayudado por el dios egipcio Anubis (3). <ref>Michael D. Rhodes, ''The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), 19 (18–23).</ref>

{{s||Abraham|1|12}} y las notas a Facsímil 1 la identifican como la representación de Abraham de ser sacrificado por el sacerdote de Elkénah en Ur.
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}
[[Category:Carta a un Director del SEI]]

[[en:Question: What does the lion couch scene normally represent?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: O que faz cena sofá o leão normalmente representam?]]

El Libro de Abraham/Papiros de José Smith/Facsímiles/Facsímil 1/Asociación entre Abraham y la escena de sofá león

2019-08-16T20:20:48Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=El Libro de Abraham/Papiros de José Smith/Facsímiles/Facsímil 1/Asociación entre Abraham y la escena de sofá león
|H=Asociación entre Abraham y la escena del sofá león en el Libro de Abraham
|S=
|L1=Pregunta: ¿El nombre de Abraham sido siempre asociado con una escena egipcia "sofá león"?
|L2=Pregunta: ¿Es la historia del intento de sacrificio de Abraham con el apoyo de otras fuentes?
}}
{{uncheck}}
<onlyinclude>
{{epígrafe|VIII. Y aconteció que mientras yo decía así a mi padre Taré en la corte de mi casa, viene por la voz de un Poderoso del cielo en una nube de fuego-burst, diciendo y gritando: "¡Abraham, Abraham" Y yo dijo: "Heme aquí" y Dios le dijo: "Tú eres la búsqueda de la comprensión de tu corazón al Dios de los dioses y el Creador; Yo soy: Sal de tu padre Taré, y sal fuera de la casa, para que tú también no la matasen en los pecados de la casa de tu padre "Y salí.. Y aconteció que cuando salí, que antes de que yo conseguí salir delante de la puerta del atrio, vino un estruendo de un [gran] truenos y él y su casa quemada, y todo lo que sea en su casa, abajo a la tierra, cuarenta codos. ''El Apocalipsis de Abraham'', {{link|url=http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/box.pdf}}
}}
{{parabreak}}

{{:Pregunta: ¿El nombre de Abraham sido siempre asociado con una escena egipcia "sofá león"?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Es la historia del intento de sacrificio de Abraham con el apoyo de otras fuentes?}}
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}

[[en:Book of Abraham/Joseph Smith Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile 1/Association with Abraham]]
[[pt:O Livro de Abraão/Joseph Smith Papiros/Fac-símiles/Fac-símile 1/Associação com Abraão]]

La crítica del mormonismo/Libros/By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri/Larson "restauración" del Facsímil 1

2019-08-16T15:51:28Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=La crítica del mormonismo/Libros/By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri/Larson "restauración" del Facsímil 1
|H=Un análisis de la restauración de Charles M. Larson de fax 1 compara con la original de papiro
|S=El libro "... por su propia mano sobre el papiro" presenta una "restauración" del Facsímil 1 (p. 65), que pretende estar "basado en el estudio moderno de la egiptología y escenas similares en numerosos papiros existentes". Sin embargo, la disponibilidad reciente de imágenes de alta definición [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri de los papiros en el sitio web de Historia de la Iglesia] ahora brinda la oportunidad de comparar la restauración de Larson con la original. Hay una serie de discrepancias que indican que la restauración contiene varias inexactitudes significativas. Examinamos esas inexactitudes en este sub-artículo.
|L1=Pregunta: ¿Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham muestra una mano, o muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?
|L2=Bell: "las huellas cuestionables por encima de la cabeza de la figura de Osiris son en realidad los restos de su mano derecha"
|L3=Pregunta: ¿Debería la restauración del Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham incluir un falo?
|L4=Bell: "no habría suficiente espacio disponible para restaurar la mano de Anubis, el falo erecto de Osiris, y el cuerpo y las alas de Isis"
|L5=Pregunta: ¿Era la cabeza original del sacerdote en Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham realmente la cabeza del chacal de Anubis?
|L6=Pregunta: ¿Estaba el sacerdote representado en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham con un cuchillo o era algún otro objeto?
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Pregunta: ¿Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham muestra una mano, o muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?}}
{{:Bell: "las huellas cuestionables por encima de la cabeza de la figura de Osiris son en realidad los restos de su mano derecha"}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Debería la restauración del Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham incluir un falo?}}
{{:Bell: "no habría suficiente espacio disponible para restaurar la mano de Anubis, el falo erecto de Osiris, y el cuerpo y las alas de Isis"}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Era la cabeza original del sacerdote en Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham realmente la cabeza del chacal de Anubis?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Estaba el sacerdote representado en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham con un cuchillo o era algún otro objeto?}}

{{notas finales}}


[[en:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri/Larson "restoration" of Facsimile 1]]

[[Category:Carta a un Director del SEI]]

La crítica del mormonismo/Libros/By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri/Larson "restauración" del Facsímil 1

2019-08-16T15:50:59Z

RogerNicholson:

La crítica del mormonismo/Libros/By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri/Larson "restauración" del Facsímil 1

2019-08-16T15:49:47Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=La crítica del mormonismo/Libros/By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri/Larson "restauración" del Facsímil 1
|H=Un análisis de la restauración de Charles M. Larson de fax 1 compara con la original de papiro
|S=El libro "... por su propia mano sobre el papiro" presenta una "restauración" del Facsímil 1 (p. 65), que pretende estar "basado en el estudio moderno de la egiptología y escenas similares en numerosos papiros existentes". Sin embargo, la disponibilidad reciente de imágenes de alta definición [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/egyptian-papyri de los papiros en el sitio web de Historia de la Iglesia] ahora brinda la oportunidad de comparar la restauración de Larson con la original. Hay una serie de discrepancias que indican que la restauración contiene varias inexactitudes significativas. Examinamos esas inexactitudes en este sub-artículo.
|L1=Pregunta: ¿Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham muestra una mano, o muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?
|L2=Bell: "las huellas cuestionables por encima de la cabeza de la figura de Osiris son en realidad los restos de su mano derecha"
|L3=Pregunta: ¿Debería la restauración del Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham incluir un falo?
|L4=Bell: "no habría suficiente espacio disponible para restaurar la mano de Anubis, el falo erecto de Osiris, y el cuerpo y las alas de Isis"
|L5=Pregunta: ¿Era la cabeza original del sacerdote en Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham realmente la cabeza del chacal de Anubis?
|L6=Pregunta: ¿Estaba el sacerdote representado en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham con un cuchillo o era algún otro objeto?
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri
|author=Charles Larson
|noauthor=
|section=
|previous=
|next=
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}

{{:Pregunta: ¿Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham muestra una mano, o muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?}}
{{:Bell: "las huellas cuestionables por encima de la cabeza de la figura de Osiris son en realidad los restos de su mano derecha"}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Debería la restauración del Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham incluir un falo?}}
{{:Bell: "no habría suficiente espacio disponible para restaurar la mano de Anubis, el falo erecto de Osiris, y el cuerpo y las alas de Isis"}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Era la cabeza original del sacerdote en Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham realmente la cabeza del chacal de Anubis?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Estaba el sacerdote representado en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham con un cuchillo o era algún otro objeto?}}

{{notas finales}}


[[en:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri/Larson "restoration" of Facsimile 1]]

Pregunta: Fue el sacerdote representa en Facsímil 1 con un cuchillo u otro objeto?

2019-08-16T15:43:46Z

RogerNicholson: RogerNicholson trasladó la página Pregunta: Fue el sacerdote representa en Facsímil 1 con un cuchillo u otro objeto? a Pregunta: ¿Estaba el sacerdote representado en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham con un cuchillo o era algún otro objeto?

#REDIRECCIÓN [[Pregunta: ¿Estaba el sacerdote representado en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham con un cuchillo o era algún otro objeto?]]

Pregunta: ¿Estaba el sacerdote representado en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham con un cuchillo o era algún otro objeto?

2019-08-16T15:43:46Z

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Estaba el sacerdote representado en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham con un cuchillo o era algún otro objeto?==
===En las representaciones típicas de la escena "sofá de león", el sacerdote es la celebración de un objeto===

Desde Facsímil 1 parece ser una escena bastante típico de los textos funerarios egipcios, se observa que otros motivos egipcios similares no muestran el sacerdote sosteniendo un cuchillo. Una restauración propuesta de Facsímil 1 por egiptólogo Lanny Bell, por ejemplo, muestra el sacerdote con una taza en la mano por la cifra en el sofá león.

===Los testigos, uno de los cuales era un anti-Mormón, describen a un hombre atado y relajado en el sofá león, y un sacerdote con un cuchillo en la mano===

Muchos de los Últimos Días Santos estudiosos creen que el desplazamiento fue dañado después de que José tradujo la viñeta y alguna evidencia parece apoyar este punto de vista. Una temprana miembro de la Iglesia que vio los papiros en 1841, por ejemplo, los describió como que contiene la escena de un altar con "" un hombre atado y puesto en ella, y un sacerdote con un cuchillo en la mano, de pie a los pies, con una paloma sobre la persona obligada en el Altar con varios dioses ídolo de pie alrededor de él. '"<ref>William I. Appleby Journal, 5 May 1841, ms. 1401 1, pp. 71–72, LDS Church Archives; citado en Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 184.</ref> Del mismo modo, el reverendo Henry Caswall, que visitó Nauvoo en abril de 1842, tuvo la oportunidad de ver algunos de los papiros egipcios. Caswall, que era hostil a los Santos, describió Facsímil 1 como tener un "" hombre de pie junto a él con un cuchillo dibujado. '"<ref>{{CriticalWork:Caswall:City of the Mormons|pages=71-72}}, LDS Church Archives; as quoted in Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 184.</ref>

===Debido a los daños en el papiro, es imposible determinar lo que el sacerdote está sosteniendo en su mano===

No es posible a través de un examen del papiro original para determinar lo que el sacerdote está sosteniendo en su mano.

[[File:Comparison of objects held by priest.spanish.jpg|thumb|center|500px|Una comparación de los objetos que se presume que se han celebrado por el sacerdote en Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham. El facsímil original, falta este detalle. Egiptólogo Lanny Campana asume que el sacerdote sostenía un objeto. Charles Larson muestra el sacerdote sostiene nada, con el ala del segundo pájaro propuesta ocupando el espacio. José Smith indicó que el sacerdote sostenía un cuchillo.]]
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}
[[Category:Carta a un Director del SEI]]

[[en:Question: Was the priest depicted in Facsimile 1 holding a knife or some other object?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Foi o padre representado na Fac-símile 1 segurando uma faca ou algum outro objeto?]]

Pregunta: ¿Estaba el sacerdote representado en el Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham con un cuchillo o era algún otro objeto?

2019-08-16T15:43:37Z

RogerNicholson:

Pregunta: Era la cabeza original del sacerdote en Facsímil 1 realmente la cabeza de chacal Anubis?

2019-08-16T15:42:22Z

RogerNicholson: RogerNicholson trasladó la página Pregunta: Era la cabeza original del sacerdote en Facsímil 1 realmente la cabeza de chacal Anubis? a [[Pregunta: ¿Era la cabeza original del sacerdote en Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham realmente la cabeza d...

#REDIRECCIÓN [[Pregunta: ¿Era la cabeza original del sacerdote en Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham realmente la cabeza del chacal de Anubis?]]

Pregunta: ¿Era la cabeza original del sacerdote en Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham realmente la cabeza del chacal de Anubis?

2019-08-16T15:42:22Z

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Era la cabeza original del sacerdote en Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham realmente la cabeza del chacal de Anubis?==
===Las fotos de alta resolución muestran evidencia de que la cabeza del sacerdote era originalmente el chacal-jefe de Anubis===

La cabeza del sacerdote en la restauración Hedlock parece simplemente copiar el jefe de la figura reclinada. Un examen del papiro, sin embargo, muestra evidencia de que la cabeza era originalmente el de Anubis. En este caso, la restauración Larson parece ser correcta.
* Tenga en cuenta que hay una parte de la parte posterior del tocado de Anubis visible en el original.
* Es más probable que la parte posterior del tocado mostró cabello en lugar de un sólido tal como se representa en la imagen Larson.
[[File:Larson.restoration.anubis.1.spanish.jpg|center|1000px]]
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}
[[Category:Carta a un Director del SEI]]

[[en:Question: Was the original head of the priest in Facsimile 1 actually the jackal head of Anubis?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Era a cabeça original do sacerdote na Fac-símile 1, na verdade, o cabeça de chacal de Anúbis?]]

Pregunta: ¿Era la cabeza original del sacerdote en Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham realmente la cabeza del chacal de Anubis?

2019-08-16T15:42:16Z

RogerNicholson:

Pregunta: En caso de que la restauración de Facsímil 1 incluirá un falo?

2019-08-16T15:41:26Z

RogerNicholson: RogerNicholson trasladó la página Pregunta: En caso de que la restauración de Facsímil 1 incluirá un falo? a Pregunta: ¿Debería la restauración del Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham incluir un falo?

#REDIRECCIÓN [[Pregunta: ¿Debería la restauración del Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham incluir un falo?]]

Pregunta: ¿Debería la restauración del Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham incluir un falo?

2019-08-16T15:41:26Z

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Debería la restauración del Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham incluir un falo?==
===La restauración Larson añade un falo en la figura reclinada, algo que nunca se ve en una figura vestida Osiris===

La restauración Larson añade un falo en la figura de descanso , algo que nunca se ve en una figura de Osiris vestido.
* El supuesto parece ser que las marcas de control en las piernas representan los pantalones. También se puede observar esta suposición en la restauración Hedlock contenida en el Libro de Abraham. Sin embargo , un examen del papiro original muestra que las piernas de la figura se elaboraron , y que una falda egipcia envolvente fue entonces dibuja sobre ellos. La ropa no es un par de pantalones . Este detalle no es ni siquiera en la imagen Larson, como las dos líneas que distinguen las piernas y la falda escocesa se fusionan en una sola línea , la grasa .
* Se puede ver en el detalle de cerca que las líneas discontinuas de la falda escocesa se extienden más allá de las líneas de la pierna, corte la línea exterior de la falda escocesa .
* También se puede ver que la falda es curvada , mientras que las patas son rectas .
* La restauración Larson añade un falo (que hemos elegido oscura ) en la ubicación del ombligo de la figura, en base a la ubicación de la intersección de las piernas y una estimación de donde aparecería la parte superior de la falda escocesa .
[[File:Larson.restoration.comparison.to.original.skirt.detail.spanish.jpg|center|1000px]]
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}
[[Category:Carta a un Director del SEI]]

[[en:Question: Should the restoration of Facsimile 1 include a phallus?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Caso a restauração da Fac-símile 1 incluem um falo?]]

Pregunta: ¿Debería la restauración del Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham incluir un falo?

2019-08-16T15:41:20Z

RogerNicholson:

Pregunta: ¿El Facsímil 1 muestra una mano, o se muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?

2019-08-16T15:39:19Z

RogerNicholson: RogerNicholson trasladó la página Pregunta: ¿El Facsímil 1 muestra una mano, o se muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro? a Pregunta: ¿Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham muestra una mano, o muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?

#REDIRECCIÓN [[Pregunta: ¿Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham muestra una mano, o muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?]]

Pregunta: ¿Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham muestra una mano, o muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?

2019-08-16T15:39:19Z

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham muestra una mano, o muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?==
===Las fotos de alta resolución de los papiros muestran claramente que se trataba de un cambio, no un ala===

La restauración Larson presume que la ventaja representada en Facsímil 1 es en cambio el ala de un pájaro. Hay varios elementos que refutan esto.
* Es evidente que el artista egipcio llamó alas de una manera específica, como se puede observar por el ala del ave a la derecha.
* Las dos manos tienen pulgares distintas.
* La suposición de que las manchas de tinta en la mano representan puntos en el ala aves está refutada por un examen minucioso de la original, que muestra rastros de tinta que indican que las líneas estaban conectadas originalmente.
* También es claro que la tinta que falta se correlaciona con grietas en los papiros. Tenga en cuenta que las grietas se extienden a través de todos los dedos, y que la tinta se ha desprendido a lo largo de las grietas.
* Tenga en cuenta que el dedo índice (el uno al lado del pulgar) es continua en el original, pero fue disuelta en dos partes en la restauración Larson.
[[File:larson.wing.composite.4.spanish.small.jpg|center|1000px]]
[[File:Hand.wing.comparison.1a.spanish.jpg|center]]
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}
[[Category:Carta a un Director del SEI]]

[[en:Question: Does Facsimile 1 show a hand, or does it show the wing of a second bird?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Faz Fac-símile 1 mostram uma mão? Ou será que mostram a asa de um segundo pássaro?]]

Pregunta: ¿Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham muestra una mano, o muestra el ala de un segundo pájaro?

2019-08-16T15:39:13Z

RogerNicholson:

Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son las críticas relacionadas con el Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham?

2019-08-16T15:25:05Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son las críticas relacionadas con el Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham?==
[[Image:facsimile1.jpg|300px|center|thumb|Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham]]
Se hacen las siguientes afirmaciones con respecto Facsímile 1:
* Que fax 1 es simplemente una escena típica funerario y hay muchos otros papiros que muestran la misma escena básica.
* Se afirma que las partes que faltan del dibujo fueron restaurados incorrectamente:
** La cabeza del sacerdote debería haber sido la de Anubis.
** El sacerdote no debería haber sido la celebración de un cuchillo.
** La porción retratado como segunda mano de Abraham debería haber sido el ala de un segundo pájaro.
* Se dice que Abraham nunca se ha asociado con la viñeta sofá león como el retratado en Facsímil No. 1 del Libro de Abraham.
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}
[[Category:Carta a un Director del SEI]]

[[en:Question: What are the criticisms related to Facsimile 1?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Quais são as críticas relativas a Fac-símile 1?]]

Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son las críticas relacionadas con Facsímil 1?

2019-08-16T15:24:54Z

RogerNicholson: RogerNicholson trasladó la página Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son las críticas relacionadas con Facsímil 1? a Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son las críticas relacionadas con el Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham?

#REDIRECCIÓN [[Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son las críticas relacionadas con el Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham?]]

Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son las críticas relacionadas con el Facsímil 1 en el Libro de Abraham?

2019-08-16T15:24:54Z

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son las críticas relacionadas con Facsímil 1?==
[[Image:facsimile1.jpg|300px|center|thumb|Facsímil 1 del Libro de Abraham]]
Se hacen las siguientes afirmaciones con respecto Facsímile 1:
* Que fax 1 es simplemente una escena típica funerario y hay muchos otros papiros que muestran la misma escena básica.
* Se afirma que las partes que faltan del dibujo fueron restaurados incorrectamente:
** La cabeza del sacerdote debería haber sido la de Anubis.
** El sacerdote no debería haber sido la celebración de un cuchillo.
** La porción retratado como segunda mano de Abraham debería haber sido el ala de un segundo pájaro.
* Se dice que Abraham nunca se ha asociado con la viñeta sofá león como el retratado en Facsímil No. 1 del Libro de Abraham.
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}
[[Category:Carta a un Director del SEI]]

[[en:Question: What are the criticisms related to Facsimile 1?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Quais são as críticas relativas a Fac-símile 1?]]

Pregunta: ¿El egipcio sería demasiado largo y voluminoso en las planchas para explicar el Libro de Mormón?

2019-08-06T20:54:21Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿El egipcio sería demasiado largo y voluminoso en las planchas para explicar el Libro de Mormón?==
=== El libro de Mormón deja claro que el Egipcio reformado habían sido adaptados por ellos para una escritura concisa===

Se ha dicho que el egipcio sería demasiado largo y voluminoso en las planchas para dar cuenta del Libro de Mormón:
<blockquote>
[En egipcio tomaría]"tal vez cuatro , o incluso más de cuatro veces del espacio que ocupa en inglés, y es bastante seguro que, dado que el Libro de Mormón tiene 600 páginas de grosor, se necesitarían al menos mil planchas para que quepa en lengua egipcia, lo que hay escrito ".
" {{io}}<Ref>{{CriticalWork:A Little Talk:1840|pages=1–8}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Hoy se escucha muy poco de esta crítica; Los "hechos" lingüísticos se ha puesto al día con el Libro de Mormón, y los críticos han abandonado en gran medida este enfoque.
 
En el momento en que se hizo esta afirmación, el conocimiento del egipcio estaba en su infancia. Los críticos de la época sabían poco sobre el egipcio, porque "nadie" sabía mucho. Los críticos probablemente estaban pensando en los jeroglíficos egipcios. Sin embargo, el Libro de Mormón deja en claro que el egipcio reformado había sido adaptado por ellos para una escritura concisa. Como se discutió en el [[Libro de Mormón / Anacronismos / Egipcio reformado | artículo principal]], las variantes del Viejo Mundo de las formas egipcias (como Demótico) eran bastante compactas y muy adecuadas para escribir con limitaciones de espacio.
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}



[[pt:Pergunta: Será que egípcia ser demasiado longo e volumoso nas placas para explicar o Livro de Mórmon?]]
[[en:Question: Would Egyptian be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon?]]

Pregunta: ¿El egipcio sería demasiado largo y voluminoso en las planchas para explicar el Libro de Mormón?

2019-08-06T20:51:10Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿El egipcio sería demasiado largo y voluminoso en las planchas para explicar el Libro de Mormón?==
{{translate}}
=== El libro de Mormón deja claro que el Egipcio reformado habían sido adaptados por ellos para una escritura concisa===

Se ha dicho que el egipcio sería demasiado largo y voluminoso en las planchas para dar cuenta del Libro de Mormón:
<blockquote>
[En egipcio tomaría]"tal vez cuatro , o incluso más de cuatro veces del espacio que ocupa en inglés, y es bastante seguro que, dado que el Libro de Mormón tiene 600 páginas de grosor, se necesitarían al menos mil planchas para que quepa en lengua egipcia, lo que hay escrito ".
" {{io}}<Ref>{{CriticalWork:A Little Talk:1840|pages=1–8}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Hoy se escucha muy poco de esta crítica; Los "hechos" lingüísticos se ha puesto al día con el Libro de Mormón, y los críticos han abandonado en gran medida este enfoque.
 
En el momento en que se hizo esta afirmación, el conocimiento del egipcio estaba en su infancia. Los críticos de la época sabían poco sobre el egipcio, porque "nadie" sabía mucho. Los críticos probablemente estaban pensando en los jeroglíficos egipcios. Sin embargo, el Libro de Mormón deja en claro que el egipcio reformado había sido adaptado por ellos para una escritura concisa. Como se discutió en el [[Libro de Mormón / Anacronismos / Egipcio reformado | artículo principal]], las variantes del Viejo Mundo de las formas egipcias (como Demótico) eran bastante compactas y muy adecuadas para escribir con limitaciones de espacio.
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}



[[pt:Pergunta: Será que egípcia ser demasiado longo e volumoso nas placas para explicar o Livro de Mórmon?]]
[[en:Question: Would Egyptian be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon?]]

El Mormonismo y los profetas

2019-05-24T03:47:15Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|H=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|S=
|L1=José Smith como profeta
|L2=Las características de los profetas Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormones")
|L3=Revelación después de que José Smith
|L4=El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo
|L5=Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19
|L6=Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:José Smith/Como profeta}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las características de los profetas Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormones")}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Revelación después de que José Smith}}
{{:El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos}}

</onlyinclude>


[[de:Mormonismus und Propheten]]
[[en:Mormonism and prophets]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Profetas]]

El Mormonismo y los profetas

2019-05-24T03:46:34Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|H=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|S=
|L1=José Smith como profeta
|L2=Las características de los profetas Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormones")
|L3=Revelación después de que José Smith
|L4=El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo
|L5=Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19
|L6=Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:José Smith/Como profeta}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Caracteristicas}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Revelación después de que José Smith}}
{{:El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos}}

</onlyinclude>


[[de:Mormonismus und Propheten]]
[[en:Mormonism and prophets]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Profetas]]

El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las características de los profetas Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormones")

2019-05-24T03:46:01Z

RogerNicholson: Página creada con «{{FairMormon}} <onlyinclude> {{H1 |L=El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las características de los profetas Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormones") |H=Las características de...»

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las características de los profetas Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormones")
|H=Las características de los profetas Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormones")
|S=
|L1=Pregunta: ¿Los profetas de los Santos de los Últimos Días no son realmente "profetas" porque no predicen eventos desconocidos?
|L2=Pregunta: ¿Las Autoridades Generales guardan silencio sobre algunos temas, permitiendo que las organizaciones académicas o de voluntarios tomen su lugar?
|L3=Pregunta: ¿El departamento de asuntos públicos de la Iglesia actúa independientemente de la dirección del liderazgo de la Iglesia?
|L4=Pregunta: ¿Qué dice la Iglesia sobre la propiedad de los miembros de la Iglesia que publican revelaciones personales, sueños o visiones?
|L5=Pregunta: ¿Le gustó a David O. McKay ser "reconocido, alabado y leonado"?
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Pregunta: ¿Los profetas de los Santos de los Últimos Días no son realmente "profetas" porque no predicen eventos desconocidos?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Las Autoridades Generales guardan silencio sobre algunos temas, permitiendo que las organizaciones académicas o de voluntarios tomen su lugar?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿El departamento de asuntos públicos de la Iglesia actúa independientemente de la dirección del liderazgo de la Iglesia?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Qué dice la Iglesia sobre la propiedad de los miembros de la Iglesia que publican revelaciones personales, sueños o visiones?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Le gustó a David O. McKay ser "reconocido, alabado y leonado"?}}

{{notas finales}}

[[en:Mormonism and prophets/Characteristics]]

Pregunta: ¿Le gustó a David O. McKay ser "reconocido, alabado y leonado"?

2019-05-24T03:45:48Z

RogerNicholson: Página creada con «{{FairMormon}} <onlyinclude> ==Pregunta: ¿Le gustó a David O. McKay ser "reconocido, alabado y leonado"?== {{translate}} ===It takes a certain talent to transform an acco...»

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Le gustó a David O. McKay ser "reconocido, alabado y leonado"?==
{{translate}}
===It takes a certain talent to transform an account that praises McKay as a “modest, private person,” into an “admission” that McKay “liked” his celebrity===

Some claim that David O. McKay "liked his ‘celebrity status’ and wanted ‘to be recognized, lauded, and lionized'."<ref>{{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing the Heavenly Gift|pages=348, citing {{CriticalWork:Quinn:Mormon Hierarchy2|pages=363}} Quinn cites Francis Gibbons, ''David O. McKay: Apostle to the World, Prophet of God'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1986), 347, 263.}}</ref>

<onlyinclude>Snuffer quotes D. Michael Quinn: “a First Presidency secretary acknowledged that [David O.] McKay liked his ‘celebrity status,’ and wanted ‘to be recognized, lauded, and lionized’” (349). He cites Quinn’s ''Extensions of Power'' volume, which gives as its source a book by secretary Francis M. Gibbons.<ref>The citation is from Quinn, ''Extensions of Power'', 363. Quinn cites Francis Gibbons, ''David O. McKay: Apostle to the World, Prophet of God'' (Deseret Book 1986), 347, 263.</ref> A check of these references is discouraging, but not surprising for those familiar with Quinn’s methods.<ref>See note 55 herein.</ref> The actual text of Gibbons’ volume for the pages cited reads:

<blockquote>
[263] The encroachment on [McKay's] private life that celebrity status imposed...was something President McKay adjusted to with apparent difficulty. He was essentially a modest, private person, reared in a rural atmosphere, who at an early age was thrust into the limelight of the Mormon community. And as he gained in experience...as wide media exposure made his name and face known in most households, he became, in a sense, a public asset whose time and efforts were assumed to be available to all. This radical change in status was a bittersweet experience. To be recognized, lauded, and lionized is something that seemingly appeals to the ego and self-esteem of the most modest among us, even to David O. McKay. But the inevitable shrinkage in the circle of privacy that this necessarily entails provides a counter-balance that at times outweighs the positive aspects of public adulation. This is easily inferred from a diary entry of July 19, 1950....The diarist hinted that it had become so difficult to venture forth on the streets of Salt Lake City that he had about decided to abandon the practice. For such a free spirit as he, for one who was so accustomed to going and coming as he pleased, any decision to restrict his movements about the city was an imprisonment of sorts. But the only alternatives, neither of which was acceptable, were to go in disguise or to ignore or to cut short those who approached him. The latter would have been especially repugnant to one such as David O. McKay, who had cultivated to the highest degree the qualities of courtesy and attentive listening.

It was ironic, therefore, that as the apostle's fame and influence widened, the scope of his private life was proportionately restricted.... [347]

Everywhere he traveled in Australia, or elsewhere on international tours, President McKay received celebrity treatment. Enthusiastic, cheering, singing crowds usually greeted him at every stop, sometimes to the surprise or chagrin of local residents. A group of well-known Australian athletes, about a flight to Adelaide with President McKay's party, learned an embarrassing lesson in humility. Seeing a large, noisy crowd at the airport, and assuming they were the object of its adulation, the handsome young men stepped forward to acknowledge the greeting [348] only to find that the cheers and excitement were generated by the tall, white-haired man who came down the ramp after them.
</blockquote>

It takes a certain talent to transform an account that praises McKay as a “modest, private person,” (whose privacy and personal convenience suffered because of how unwilling he was to appear rude or short with anyone) into an “admission” that McKay “liked” his celebrity. The original line about being “recognized, lauded, and lionized” is obviously intended to point out that such things are a danger to anyone because they appeal to the ego, and all would be tempted by them—but it is likewise clear that Gibbons does not think that McKay succumbed to that temptation. Snuffer is helping Quinn bear false witness against both McKay and Gibbons.</onlyinclude>

</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}


[[en:Question: Did David O. McKay like to be "recognized, lauded, and lionized"?]]

Pregunta: ¿Qué dice la Iglesia sobre la propiedad de los miembros de la Iglesia que publican revelaciones personales, sueños o visiones?

2019-05-24T03:43:50Z

RogerNicholson: Página creada con «{{FairMormon}} <onlyinclude> ==Pregunta: ¿Qué dice la Iglesia sobre la propiedad de los miembros de la Iglesia que publican revelaciones personales, sueños o visiones?==...»

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Qué dice la Iglesia sobre la propiedad de los miembros de la Iglesia que publican revelaciones personales, sueños o visiones?==
{{translate}}
==="No member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve"===

{{ChurchResponseBar
|link=http://www.lds.org/church/news/five-ways-to-detect-and-avoid-doctrinal-deception?lang=eng
|title=Five Ways to Detect and Avoid Doctrinal Deception
|author=Church News
|publication=Church News
|date=17 September 2013
|summary=On the final day of BYU Campus Education Week, Robert L. Millet, an author and BYU professor, gave a presentation outlining five points Latter-day Saints can use to avoid doctrinal deception in the Church. He said that red flags should go off in members’ heads when they encounter things that are not doctrinally sound. 

One Saturday morning, Brother Millet said, he received a call from Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve. Elder Maxwell was concerned about a book that had received a lot of attention and had gained somewhat of a cult following. He asked Brother Millet if he knew about it and what he thought about it. Brother Millet said, “Elder Maxwell, frankly, it has a lot of doctrinal problems.” 

Elder Maxwell said, “It never ceases to amaze me how gullible the Latter-day Saints can be. Our lack of doctrinal sophistication makes us an easy prey for such fads.” Brother Millet then explained that Latter-day Saints ought to pore over the scriptures constantly to learn the doctrines, lest they be deceived. 

Sooner or later someone comes along claiming a new revelation, a new doctrine, or some new way of life, said Brother Millet. He asked how members can determine if something is from God. He proposed five questions that a person might ask to determine if something is false.
}}

===First Presidency===

<blockquote>
It ought to have been known, years ago, by every person in the Church-for ample teachings have been given on the point--that no member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve. There is but one man upon the earth, at one time, who holds the keys to receive commandments and revelations for the Church, and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the Church. And any man who so far forgets the order instituted by the Lord as to write and publish what may be termed new doctrines, without consulting with the First Presidency of the Church respecting them, places himself in a false position, and exposes himself to the power of darkness by violating his Priesthood.

While upon this subject, we wish to warn all the Elders of the Church, and to have it clearly understood by the members, that, in the future, whoever publishes any new doctrines without first taking this course, will be liable to lose his Priesthood. <ref>Published proclamation of the First Presidency of the Church and the Twelve, Oct. 21, 1865) - [President Brigham Young, Elder Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, Amasa M. Lyman, Ezra T. Benson, Charles C. Rich, Elder Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, Franklin D. Richards, George Q. Cannon]</ref>

The history of the Church records many pretended revelations claimed by imposters or zealots who believed in the manifestations they sought to lead other persons to accept, and in every instance, disappointment, sorrow and disaster have resulted therefrom

When visions, dreams, tongues, prophecy, impressions or any extraordinary gift or inspiration conveys something out of harmony with the accepted revelations of the Church or contrary to the decisions of its constituted authorities, Latter-day Saints may know that it is not of God, no matter how plausible it may appear. Also they should understand that directions for the guidance of the Church will come, by revelation, through the head. All faithful members are entitled to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for themselves, their families, and for those over whom they are appointed and ordained to preside. But anything at discord with that which comes from God through the head of the Church is not to be received as authoritative or reliable. <ref>Joseph F, Smith, Anthon H. Lund, Charles W. Penrose, in ''Messages of the First Presidency'', 4:285.</ref>
</blockquote>

===Joseph Smith===

<blockquote>
Let us be faithful and silent, brethren, and if God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves. <ref>{{Book:Smith:TPJS|pages=91}}</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the spirit of God. <ref>{{Book:Smith:TPJS|pages=205}}</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them. <ref>{{Book:Smith:TPJS|194}}</ref>
</blockquote>

===Brigham Young===

<blockquote>
The adversary presents his principles and arguments in the most approved style, and in the most winning tone, attended with the most graceful attitudes; and he is very careful to ingratiate himself into the favour of the powerful and influential of mankind, uniting himself with popular parties, floating into offices of trust and emolument by pandering to popular feeling, though it should seriously wrong and oppress the innocent. Such characters put on the manners of an angel, appearing as nigh like angels of light as they possibly can, to deceive the innocent and the unwary. The good which they do, they do it to bring to pass an evil purpose upon the good and honest followers of Jesus Christ. <ref>Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:238–239 (3 June 1866).</ref>

If the Lord Almighty should reveal to a High Priest, or to any other than the head, things that are, or that have been and will be, and show to him the destiny of this people twenty-five years from now, or a new doctrine that will in five, ten, or twenty years hence become the doctrine of this Church and kingdom, but which has not yet been revealed to this people, and reveal it to him by the same Spirit, the same messenger, the same voice, and the same power that gave revelations to Joseph when he was living, it would be a blessing to that High Priest, or individual; but he must rarely divulge it to a second person on the face of the earth, until God reveals it through the proper source to become the property of the people at large. Therefore when you hear Elders, High Priests, Seventies, or the Twelve, (though you cannot catch any of the Twelve there, but you may the High Priests, Seventies, and Elders) say that God does not reveal through the President of the Church that which they know, and tell wonderful things, you may generally set it down as a God's truth that the revelation they have had, is from the devil, and not from God. <ref>{{JDfairwiki|vol=3|start=318|disc=46|author=Brigham Young}} </ref>

Now I want to tell you that which, perhaps, many of you do not know. Should you receive a vision of revelation from the Almighty, one that the Lord gave you concerning yourselves, or this people, but which you are not to reveal on account of your not being the proper person, or because it ought not to be known by the people at present, you should shut it up and seal it as close, and lock it as tight as heaven is to you, and make it as secret as the grave. The Lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for He cannot safely reveal Himself to such persons. It is as much as He can do to get a particle of sense into some of the best and most influential men in the Church, in regard to real confidence in themselves. They cannot keep things within their own bosoms.

They are like a great many boys and men that I have seen, who would cause even a sixpence, when given to them, to become so hot that it would burn through the pocket of a new vest, or pair of pantaloons, if they could not spend it. It could not stay with them; they would feel so tied up because they were obliged to keep it, that the very fire of discontent would cause it to burn through the pocket, and they would lose the sixpence. This is the case with a great many of the Elders of Israel, with regard to keeping secrets. They burn with the idea, "O, I know things that brother Brigham does not understand." Bless your souls, I guess you do. Don't you think that there are some things that you do not understand? "There may be some things which I do not understand." That is as much as to say, "I know more than you." I am glad of it, if you do. I wish that you knew a dozen times more.

When you see a person of that character, he has no soundness within him. If a person understands God and godliness, the principles of heaven, the principle of integrity, and the Lord reveals anything to that individual, no matter what, unless He gives permission to disclose it, it is locked up in eternal silence. And when persons have proven to their messengers that their bosoms are like the lock-ups of eternity, then the Lord says, I can reveal anything to them, because they never will disclose it until I tell them to. Take persons of any other character, and they sap the foundation of the confidence they ought to have in themselves and in their God. <ref>{{JDfairwiki|vol=4|start=288|disc=52|author=Brigham Young}} </ref>
</blockquote>

===Joseph F. Smith===

<blockquote>
We can accept nothing as authoritative but that which comes directly through the appointed channel, the constituted organizations of the priesthood, which is the channel that God has appointed through which to make known his mind and will to the world. <ref>{{Book:Smith:Gospel Doctrine|pages=42}}</ref>
</blockquote>

===Joseph Fielding Smith===

<blockquote>
It seems that periodically it becomes necessary to call attention to the true order the Lord has given us in regard to revelation. During the past three or four months I have received a number of communications, coming from various parts of the Church, asking if certain purported revelations or dreams or purported visions are reliable and have the endorsement of the Authorities of the Church. . . .

Now, the Lord will give revelations to this Church, and he will give commandments to this Church from time to time…but always in accordance with his own law; and we do not have to run around and invite individuals who are without authority to relate to us purported visions, or revelations or commandments, for the guidance of this people….

If a man comes among the Latter-day Saints, professing to have received a vision or a revelation or a remarkable dream, and the Lord has given him such, he should keep it to himself. It is all out of order, in this Church, for somebody to invite him into a sacrament service to relate that to the Church, because the Lord will give his revelations in the proper way, to the one who is appointed to receive and dispense the word of God to the members of the Church. . . .

Now, these stories of revelation, that are being circulated around, are of no consequence, except for rumor and silly talk by persons who have no authority….When you know God's truth, when you enter into God's rest, you will not be hunting after revelations from Tom, Dick and Harry all over the world. You will not be following the will-o'-the-wisp of the vagaries of men and women who advance nonsense and their own ideas. <ref>{{CR|author=Joseph Fielding Smith|date=April 1938|pages=65–67}}</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
When a revelation comes for the guidance of this people, you may be sure that it will not be presented in some mysterious manner contrary to the order of the Church. It will go forth in such form that the people will understand that it comes from those who are in authority, for it will be sent either to the presidents of stakes and the bishops of the wards over the signatures of the presiding authorities, or it will be published in some of the regular papers or magazines under the control and direction of the Church, or it will be presented before such a gathering as this at a general conference. It will not spring up in some distant part of the Church and be in the hands of some obscure individual without authority, and thus be circulated among the Latter-day Saints. Now, you may remember this. <ref>{{Book:Smith:Doctrines of Salvation|vol=1|pages=287}}</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
There have been individuals, from time to time, who have been invited to go into the wards, in the sacrament meetings, priesthood classes, Sunday Schools and Mutual Improvement organizations, and at times, for their special benefit, cottage meetings have been held where they might come and relate remarkable visions or revelations claimed by these individuals to have been given to them. All this is wrong. . . .

Now, the Lord will give revelations to this Church; and he will give commandments to this Church from time to time, and as it is necessary; but always in accordance with his own law; and we do not have to run around and invite individuals who are without authority to relate unto us purported visions, or revelations or commandments, for the guidance of this people.

Everything in the Church is done in order. Everything pertaining to the kingdom of God is in order, because it is obedient to law.

If a man comes among the Latter-day Saints, professing to have received a vision or a revelation or a remarkable dream, and the Lord has given him such, he should keep it to himself. It is all out of order, in this Church, for somebody to invite him into a sacrament service to relate that to the Church, because the Lord will give his revelations in the proper way, to the one who is appointed to receive and dispense the word of God to the members of the Church. <ref>{{Book:Smith:Doctrines of Salvation|vol=1|pages=288}}</ref>
</blockquote>

===Boyd K. Packer===

<blockquote>
We always know who is called to lead or to teach and have the opportunity to sustain or to oppose the action. It did not come as an invention of man but was set out in the revelations: “It shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church” (D&C 42:11; emphasis added). In this way, the Church is protected from any imposter who would take over a quorum, a ward, a stake, or the Church. <ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-weak-and-the-simple-of-the-church?lang=eng The Weak and Simple of the Church]|date=November 2007|pages=italics in original}}.</ref>
</blockquote>

===Neal A. Maxwell===

<blockquote>
There is a difference between a spiritual impression and a personal obsession. The latter may merely mask a long-held drive to be heard or to be vindicated, and aging does not automatically improve such views. <ref>{{Book:Maxwell:Notwithstanding My Weakness|pages=110}}</ref>
</blockquote>

</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}


[[en:Question: What does the Church say on the propriety of Church members publicizing personal revelations, dreams or visions?]]

Pregunta: ¿El departamento de asuntos públicos de la Iglesia actúa independientemente de la dirección del liderazgo de la Iglesia?

2019-05-24T03:42:17Z

RogerNicholson: Página creada con «{{FairMormon}} <onlyinclude> ==Pregunta: ¿El departamento de asuntos públicos de la Iglesia actúa independientemente de la dirección del liderazgo de la Iglesia?== {{tr...»

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿El departamento de asuntos públicos de la Iglesia actúa independientemente de la dirección del liderazgo de la Iglesia?==
{{translate}}
===This idea is illogical and somewhat offensive===

This page addresses two related criticisms of the Church:

# Some claim that official statements issued by Church public affairs are only the output of a bureaucratic Church department, and do not necessarily represent the views or intended message of the prophets and apostles.
#Others complain that receiving information from Church public affairs is not "as good" as hearing from prophets and apostles, and claim that Church leaders are hiding behind public affairs spokespeople.

It is ironic that the same critics who complain about a "rogue" Public Affairs department also often claim that individual apostles have the power or influence to insist that dissidents be subject to Church discipline. How is it, then, that these apostles are so powerful that they can unilaterally demand that someone be excommunicated, while remaining either so clueless or impotent that they cannot rein in a Public Affairs department that will not stay on message?

===Does Church Public Affairs "freelance"?===

Church Public Affairs has issued statements that make their role clear:

<blockquote>
Church Public Affairs "does not act independently of church leadership,” spokesman Scott Trotter….“Official statements on the [LDS] church websites are approved at the highest level.” He added, "The church is naturally concerned when some members deliberately misrepresent its leaders and actions. In such cases, the church reserves the right to publicly correct the record."<ref>Peggy Fletcher Stack, "[http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=51716530 Some LDS conservatives now at odds with their church]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (28 April 2011).</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2014, Michael Otterson (managing director of Church Public Affairs) wrote:

<blockquote>
First, it’s important to understand that the Public Affairs Department of the Church does not freelance. For Public Affairs to initiate or take a position inconsistent with the views of those who preside over the Church is simply unthinkable, as anyone who has ever worked for the Church will attest.

As managing director of the Public Affairs Department, I work under the direct supervision of two members of the Twelve apostles, two members of the Presidency of the Seventy and the Presiding Bishop, and alongside a remarkable and devoted staff of men and women.

This group of senior General Authorities often refers matters of particular importance to other councils of men and women leaders, to the full Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and to the First Presidency for further discussion or decision.<ref>{{Article:Otterson:Context Missing|pages=4}}</ref>
</blockquote>

He elsewhere wrote:

<blockquote>
Please also understand that no Church spokesperson...issues statements on behalf of the Church that are not either initiated or approved by members of the Twelve and, at times, by the First Presidency. We stand by the statement that was issued on their behalf, and which was accurate in every detail.<ref>{{Article:Otterson:Sister Reynolds}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==Why use a public affairs department?==

Elder Quentin L. Cook explained that a Public Affairs department is sometimes the most effect way to disseminate prophetic and apostolic messages. He also emphasized that anything produced by Church Public Affairs is reviewed and approved at the highest levels of Church government:

<blockquote>It’s interesting. People who disagree with anything that is either sent by letter or put in the Newsroom, or however it’s done, can find interesting ways to say that it really doesn’t mean what it says. 

You look back at the history of Wilford Woodruff’s announcement on polygamy in 1890 and there were still people quibbling about that for a long, long time. 

The Church uses, the First Presidency and the Twelve use, whatever means will be most effective depending on what the issue is and who it affects. Most often that will be a letter to stake presidents and bishops, and it will be sent all over the world. But sometimes it’s for a particular area. 

Sometimes we use news releases. Sometimes we use the Newsroom site to put those up, particularly with community issues that are important. When something is put up on the Newsroom or an announcement is made in a different way, that is the Church’s policy. 

It’s interesting to me that the announcement that the priesthood would be available to all worthy male members regardless of race was a news release. Ultimately there was a letter sent out, but it was announced at a press conference with the Managing Director of Public Affairs. Some people have chosen to say they’re not going to believe it unless it’s in a letter. Others have said that the prophet will have to tell them personally. I think that kind of tells you where they are when they make those kinds of statements. 

When something goes up on the Newsroom site, you can be sure that the approval process is such that those official statements have the complete support of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.<ref>Quentin L. Cook, "Understanding Our External Environment," Leadership Enrichment Series (23 February 2011). </ref></blockquote>

</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}


[[en:Question: Does the Church's public affairs department act independently of direction from Church leadership?]]

Pregunta: ¿Las Autoridades Generales guardan silencio sobre algunos temas, permitiendo que las organizaciones académicas o de voluntarios tomen su lugar?

2019-05-24T03:40:40Z

RogerNicholson: Página creada con «{{FairMormon}} <onlyinclude> ==Pregunta: ¿Las Autoridades Generales guardan silencio sobre algunos temas, permitiendo que las organizaciones académicas o de voluntarios t...»

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Las Autoridades Generales guardan silencio sobre algunos temas, permitiendo que las organizaciones académicas o de voluntarios tomen su lugar?==
{{translate}}
===It is not the purpose of a prophet to answer these kind of issues===

It is claimed that General Authorities are very silent about some issues, and that academic or volunteer organizations take their place. <ref>{{CriticalWebsite:MormonThink|title=Testimony & Spiritual Witnesses|accessdate=11 Jun. 2011}}</ref>

Some critics of the Church believe that a prophet must take a position on every single issue, such as stem cell research or organ cloning, or responding to Book of Mormon anachronisms. Ironically, these are the same critics who claim that the Church tells us how to think, and that we must always accept the prophet's opinion on every matter. On many issues, Church members are simply encouraged to form their own conclusions.

It is not the purpose of a prophet to answer these kind of issues. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring people to Christ, not to describe ancient American history or culture. Those questions have nothing to do with our spiritual progression. In the church we can find all the answers that we need, for our salvation. Certainly, General Authorities will address what we need to hear for our progression in the plan of God, and so that we can accomplish the mission of the church, which is: the perfecting of the saints. Latter-Day Saints certainly don't need to know those answers to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially if they have faith.

Asking why believing scholars, groups, and organizations are necessary is like asking why a library is necessary. Such groups attempt to find answers and explore possibilities. Whenever scientists encounter problems, they don't back up and suddenly claim that science is wrong. Instead they attempt to find solutions or think of explanations for those problems.
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}


[[en:Question: Are General Authorities very silent about some issues, allowing academic or volunteer organizations take their place?]]

Pregunta: ¿Los profetas de los Santos de los Últimos Días no son realmente "profetas" porque no predicen eventos desconocidos?

2019-05-24T03:38:42Z

RogerNicholson: Página creada con «{{FairMormon}} <onlyinclude> ==Pregunta: ¿Los profetas de los Santos de los Últimos Días no son realmente "profetas" porque no predicen eventos desconocidos?== {{transla...»

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Los profetas de los Santos de los Últimos Días no son realmente "profetas" porque no predicen eventos desconocidos?==
{{translate}}
===Prophets have many roles, only one of which is to prophesy future events: The key issue is the possession of divine authority, in that they give whatever message(s) God wishes communicated to His children===

Some critics say that Latter-day Saint prophets aren't really "prophets" because they don't prophesy by foretelling unknown events. They commonly issue challenges such as, "If Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet, tell me one event that he's prophesied." Do LDS prophets "prophesy"?

Prophets have many roles, only one of which is to prophesy future events. Most modern LDS prophets have been ''forthtellers'' rather than ''foretellers''. The key issue is the possession of divine authority, in that they give whatever message(s) God wishes communicated to His children.

The LDS Bible Dictionary has a good response to this:

<blockquote>
The work of a Hebrew prophet was to act as God's messenger and make known God's will. The message was usually prefaced with the words "Thus saith Jehovah." He taught men about God's character, showing the full meaning of his dealings with Israel in the past.... It was also the prophet's duty to denounce sin and foretell its punishment, and to redress, so far as he could, both public and private wrongs. He was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the Divine requirement. '''In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a ''forthteller'' rather than a ''foreteller'''''.<ref>{{Book:Church:BD|article=[https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/prophet?lang=eng&letter=p prophet]|pages=754, {{ea}}, {{io}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The ''Anchor Bible Dictionary'' treats prophesy as "inspired speech at the initiative of a divine power"<ref>{{Book:Freedman:Anchor Bible Dictionary|pages=477, s.v. "prophecy"|vol=5}}</ref> and includes the following:

* Predictions or apparent predictions
* Eschatology or apocalyptic
* Social or religious criticism
* Commissioned messages from deities

Furthermore, according to the Bible, the key role of "prophecy" is to testify of Christ, for "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" ({{Bible||Revelation|19|10}}).

Clearly, foretelling future events is only one calling of a prophet; many Biblical and modern prophets have carried out their calling by focusing on other roles. For example, Elijah is considered one of the great prophets of the Old Testament, and yet he didn't prophesy about the future. In a similar way, President Gordon B. Hinckley has made numerous social criticisms on topics such as the ills of pornography, the importance of the role of the family and the need for self reliance. In doing so, he has evoked warnings of previous prophets while not necessarily making a direct declaration of some pending event. At the same time, he has acted as a commissioned messenger for God with statements such as the Proclamation on the Family,<ref>{{Book:Church:Family Proclamation:1995/Full title}}</ref> published in 1995 over the names of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and read by President Hinckley to the sisters of the Church in a General Relief Society talk.

One example of LDS prophets "forthtelling" is Family Home Evening. In 1915 President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors in the First Presidency began a Churchwide effort to strengthen the family. They called on parents in the Church to gather their children once each week for a "Home Evening." Families were to take time to pray and sing together, read the scriptures, teach the gospel to one another, and participate in other activities that would build family unity.

The stated purpose of Family Home Evening was to strengthen families, which may have seemed curious at that time, when families were strong by today's standards. We now live in an age when about half of all marriages end in divorce, and the need for Family Home Evening is readily apparent. LDS prophets implemented a solution that addressed the future weaking of the institution of marriage, something infinitely more valuable than simply prophecying its demise.

</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}


[[en:Question: Are Latter-day Saint prophets not really "prophets" because they don't foretell unknown events?]]

El Mormonismo y los profetas

2019-05-24T02:16:52Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|H=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|S=
|L1=José Smith como profeta
|L2=The characteristics of Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
|L3=Revelación después de que José Smith
|L4=El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo
|L5=Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19
|L6=Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:José Smith/Como profeta}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Caracteristicas}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Revelación después de que José Smith}}
{{:El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos}}

</onlyinclude>


[[de:Mormonismus und Propheten]]
[[en:Mormonism and prophets]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Profetas]]

El Mormonismo y los profetas

2019-05-24T02:16:00Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|H=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|S=
|L1=José Smith como profeta
|L2=The characteristics of Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
|L3=Revelación después de que José Smith
|L4=Mormonism and The Family: A Proclamation to the World
|L5=Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19
|L6=Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:José Smith/Como profeta}}
{{:Mormonism and prophets/Characteristics}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Revelación después de que José Smith}}
{{:Mormonism_and_prophets/Mormonism and The Proclamation on the Family}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos}}

</onlyinclude>


[[de:Mormonismus und Propheten]]
[[en:Mormonism and prophets]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Profetas]]

El Mormonismo y los profetas

2019-05-24T02:15:47Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|H=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|S=
|L1=José Smith como profeta
|L2=The characteristics of Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
|L3=Revelación después de que José Smith
|L4=Mormonism and The Family: A Proclamation to the World
|L5=Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19
|L6=Criticisms related to modern Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:José Smith/Como profeta}}
{{:Mormonism and prophets/Characteristics}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Revelación después de que José Smith}}
{{:Mormonism_and_prophets/Mormonism and The Proclamation on the Family}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos}}

</onlyinclude>


[[de:Mormonismus und Propheten]]
[[en:Mormonism and prophets]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Profetas]]

El Mormonismo y los profetas

2019-05-24T02:15:33Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|H=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|S=
|L1=José Smith como profeta
|L2=The characteristics of Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
|L3=Revelación después de que José Smith
|L4=Mormonism and The Family: A Proclamation to the World
|L5=Criticisms related to 19th-century Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
|L6=Criticisms related to modern Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:José Smith/Como profeta}}
{{:Mormonism and prophets/Characteristics}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Revelación después de que José Smith}}
{{:Mormonism_and_prophets/Mormonism and The Proclamation on the Family}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos}}

</onlyinclude>


[[de:Mormonismus und Propheten]]
[[en:Mormonism and prophets]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Profetas]]

El Mormonismo y los profetas

2019-05-24T02:15:22Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|H=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|S=
|L1=José Smith como profeta
|L2=The characteristics of Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
|L3=Revelation after Joseph Smith
|L4=Mormonism and The Family: A Proclamation to the World
|L5=Criticisms related to 19th-century Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
|L6=Criticisms related to modern Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:José Smith/Como profeta}}
{{:Mormonism and prophets/Characteristics}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Revelación después de que José Smith}}
{{:Mormonism_and_prophets/Mormonism and The Proclamation on the Family}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos}}

</onlyinclude>


[[de:Mormonismus und Propheten]]
[[en:Mormonism and prophets]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Profetas]]

El Mormonismo y los profetas

2019-05-24T02:15:09Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|H=El Mormonismo y los profetas
|S=
|L1=Joseph Smith as a prophet
|L2=The characteristics of Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
|L3=Revelation after Joseph Smith
|L4=Mormonism and The Family: A Proclamation to the World
|L5=Criticisms related to 19th-century Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
|L6=Criticisms related to modern Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:José Smith/Como profeta}}
{{:Mormonism and prophets/Characteristics}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Revelación después de que José Smith}}
{{:Mormonism_and_prophets/Mormonism and The Proclamation on the Family}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas del siglo 19}}
{{:El Mormonismo y los profetas/Las críticas relativas a los profetas modernos}}

</onlyinclude>


[[de:Mormonismus und Propheten]]
[[en:Mormonism and prophets]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Profetas]]

El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo

2019-05-24T01:39:40Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo
|H=El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo
|S=
|L1=Pregunta: ¿Es el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" la doctrina oficial?
|L2=Pregunta: ¿Las doctrinas en el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" han sido enseñadas durante mucho tiempo en la Iglesia?
|L3=Pregunta: ¿Se ha enseñado con frecuencia la "Proclamación sobre la Familia" del Santo de los Últimos Días ("Mormón")?
|L4=Pregunta: Ya que hay personas que nacen intersexuales, ¿esto invalida la doctrina del género eterno de los Santos de los Últimos Días ("Mormón")?
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Pregunta: ¿Es el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" la doctrina oficial?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Las doctrinas en el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" han sido enseñadas durante mucho tiempo en la Iglesia?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Se ha enseñado con frecuencia la "Proclamación sobre la Familia" del Santo de los Últimos Días ("Mormón")?}}
{{:Pregunta: Ya que hay personas que nacen intersexuales, ¿esto invalida la doctrina del género eterno de los Santos de los Últimos Días ("Mormón")?}}
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}


[[en:Mormonism and prophets/Mormonism and The Family: A Proclamation to the World]]

Pregunta: Ya que hay personas que nacen intersexuales, ¿esto invalida la doctrina del género eterno de los Santos de los Últimos Días ("Mormón")?

2019-05-24T01:39:30Z

RogerNicholson: Página creada con «{{FairMormon}} <onlyinclude> ==Pregunta: Ya que hay personas que nacen intersexuales, ¿esto invalida la doctrina del género eterno de los Santos de los Últimos Días ("M...»

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: Ya que hay personas que nacen intersexuales, ¿esto invalida la doctrina del género eterno de los Santos de los Últimos Días ("Mormón")?==
{{translate}}
===This is one of the effects of the Fall and aberrational to the human species in general===
Some secularist critics of the Church have pointed to the existence of intersex humans in order to invalidate the doctrine of eternal gender. Intersex people are defined as those that:

<blockquote>are born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies"<ref>Wikipedia "Intersex" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex> (accessed 4 January 2019)</ref></blockquote>

It is claimed that this invalidates the doctrine of gender as outlined by "The Family: A Proclamation to the World":

<blockquote>
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.<ref>The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" <https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true> (accessed 4 January 2019)</ref></blockquote>

It should be noted here that "gender" is used synonymously with "biological sex". There are [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/spirit-creation?lang=eng many] [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/spirit-body?lang=eng scriptures] that bear this doctrine out as well (see also Genesis 1:26; Mosiah 7:27, Ether 3:15, Doctrine 20:18, Moses 1:6; 2:26, 6:9, Abraham 4:26).

It should be first noted that those who make this argument commit the [https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Logical_fallacies/Page_3 naturalistic fallacy] in logic. Just because it occurs in nature, that does not, by necessity, make the phenomenon the inherent ideal.

The second point of refutation for this argument does require an explicitly religious assumption (and conversely, the only strength in this argument comes from an explicit secularist/naturalist assumption) but it is one that explains this phenomenon within the context of our theology well. The Fall brought a lot of effects that we are to overcome. Thorns, thistles. and noxious weeds now become part of our nature (Moses 4:24). Nature is now inherently orderly and chaotic. To those parts of nature that are chaotic, God has revealed a proper order--an ideal that contrasts what we find in nature. This is what we find in the doctrine of gender. Indeed, there is a significant majority of people that are not born intersex and current numbers of people born intersex are estimated at 1.7% of the world's population.<ref>Wikipedia, "Intersex". See references 134 and 135. The Intersex Human Rights Australia maintains the 1.7% figure "despite its flaws".</ref>. This is aberrational compared to the majority of people that are not born this way. This, however, should not be taken as any sort of endorsement for the treatment of such individuals as aberrational.

In summary the argument:
#Is based on the naturalistic fallacy
#Requires an arbitrary epistemological and axiological assumption.
#Can easily be refuted by pointing out the fallacy and the arbitrary assumptions.

FairMormon unequivocally condemns the discrimination of any of God's children based upon gender, race, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc..
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}

[[en:Question: Since there are people that are born intersex, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") doctrine of eternal gender?]]

Pregunta: ¿Se ha enseñado con frecuencia la "Proclamación sobre la Familia" del Santo de los Últimos Días ("Mormón")?

2019-05-24T01:37:08Z

RogerNicholson: Página creada con «{{FairMormon}} <onlyinclude> ==Pregunta: ¿Se ha enseñado con frecuencia la "Proclamación sobre la Familia" del Santo de los Últimos Días ("Mormón")?== {{translate}} =...»

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Se ha enseñado con frecuencia la "Proclamación sobre la Familia" del Santo de los Últimos Días ("Mormón")?==
{{translate}}
===Yes. This is an important point for judging the importance that Church leaders attach to it===

Elder Neal L. Anderson taught:

<blockquote>
There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is '''taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve'''. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many {{ea}}. Our doctrine is not difficult to find {{ea}}.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Neal A. Anderson|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng Trial of Your Faith]|date=November 2012}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==Repeated Publication of the ''Proclamation''==
* {{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World|date=November 1995|pages=100}}
* Separate pamphlet published: The First Presidency, The Family: ''A Proclamation To The World'' (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, December 1, 1995).
* {{Ensign|date=October 1998|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/1998/10/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng The Family: A Proclamation to the World]}}
* "[https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-student-study-guide/the-worldwide-church/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng The Family: A Proclamation to the World]," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Student Study Guide, (2005), 223.
* {{Liahona|date=June 2006|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2006/06/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng The Family: A Proclamation to the World]}}

==Reference to the ''Proclamation'' as event of historical significance==
* {{Liahona|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/11/news-of-the-church/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world-reaches-10-year-milestone?lang=engThe Family: A Proclamation to the World reaches 10 year milestone]|date=November 2005}}
* "[http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/58765/Historical-chronology-of-The-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints.html Historical chronology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]," ldschurchnews.com (8 February 2010).

=Teaching=
* {{Newera|article=[https://www.lds.org/new-era/2006/08/line-upon-line-the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world-paragraph-3?lang=eng Line upon Line: The Family: A Proclamation to the World, Paragraph 3]|date=August 2006}}

==Educational series (also ran in ''Ensign'')==
* {{Liahona|date=October 2004|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2004/10/strengthening-the-family-what-is-a-family?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: What Is a Family?]}}
* {{Liahona|date=December 2004|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2004/12/strengthening-the-family-the-family-is-central-to-the-creators-plan?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: The Family Is Central to the Creator’s Plan]}}
* {{Liahona|date=January 2006|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/01/strengthening-the-family-created-in-the-image-of-god-male-and-female?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female]}}
* {{Liahona|date=February 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/02/strengthening-the-family-our-progress-toward-perfection?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Our Progress toward Perfection]}}
* {{Liahona|date=April 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/04/strengthening-the-family-multiply-and-replenish-the-earth?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Multiply and Replenish the Earth]}}
* {{Liahona|date=June 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/06/strengthening-the-family-the-sacred-powers-of-procreation?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: The Sacred Powers of Procreation]}}
* {{Liahona|date=July 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/07/strengthening-the-family-a-solemn-responsibility-to-love-and-care?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: A Solemn Responsibility to Love and Care]}}
* {{Liahona|date=July 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/08/strengthening-the-family-within-the-bonds-of-matrimony?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Within the Bonds of Matrimony]}}
* {{Liahona|date=September 2005|article= [https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/09/strengthening-the-family-happiness-in-family-life?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Happiness in Family Life]}}
* {{Liahona|date=October 2005|article= [https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/10/strengthening-the-family-as-equal-partners?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: As Equal Partners]}}
* {{Liahona|date=December 2005|article=[https://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/12/strengthening-the-family-adapting-to-circumstances?lang=eng Strengthening the Family: Adapting to Circumstances]}}

</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}


[[en:Question: Has the Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") ''Proclamation on the Family'' been taught frequently?]]

El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo

2019-05-23T02:58:27Z

RogerNicholson:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo
|H=El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo
|S=
|L1=Pregunta: ¿Es el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" la doctrina oficial?
|L2=Pregunta: ¿Las doctrinas en el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" han sido enseñadas durante mucho tiempo en la Iglesia?
|L3=Question: Has the Mormon Proclamation on the Family been taught frequently?
|L4=Question: Since there are people that are born intersex, does this invalidate the doctrine of eternal gender?
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Pregunta: ¿Es el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" la doctrina oficial?}}
{{:Pregunta: ¿Las doctrinas en el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" han sido enseñadas durante mucho tiempo en la Iglesia?}}
{{:Question: Has the Mormon ''Proclamation on the Family'' been taught frequently?}}
{{:Question: Since there are people that are born intersex, does this invalidate the doctrine of eternal gender?}}
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}


[[en:Mormonism and prophets/Mormonism and The Family: A Proclamation to the World]]

Pregunta: ¿Las doctrinas en el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" han sido enseñadas durante mucho tiempo en la Iglesia?

2019-05-23T02:58:07Z

RogerNicholson: Página creada con «{{FairMormon}} <onlyinclude> ==Pregunta: ¿Las doctrinas en el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" han sido enseñadas durante mucho tiempo en l...»

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Pregunta: ¿Las doctrinas en el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" han sido enseñadas durante mucho tiempo en la Iglesia?==
{{translate}}
===Yes, the doctrines contained within the "Proclamation" are longstanding doctrines within the Church===

President Hinckley observed, on introducing the ''Proclamation'':

<blockquote>
With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation....<ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World]|date=November 1995|pages=98}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The doctrines taught are, then, longstanding ones in the Church.

This article reviews each line of the ''Proclamation'' and presents a sample of past teachings on the same subject.

==="marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God"===
* "Marriage is ordained of God. It is a necessary and delightful condition. It is the only true state, and the failure of many marriages does not change the rightness of marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>
* "It is my purpose to endorse and to favor, to encourage and defend marriage. Many regard it nowadays as being, at best, semiprecious, and by some it is thought to be worth nothing at all. I have seen and heard, as you have seen and heard, the signals all about us, carefully orchestrated to convince us that marriage is out of date and in the way."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

==="the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."===
* Many of the social restraints which in the past have helped to reinforce and to shore up the family are dissolving and disappearing. The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us....There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define it out of existence....We of all people, brothers and sisters, should not be taken in by the specious arguments that the family unit is somehow tied to a particular phase of development a moral society is going through. We are free to resist those moves which downplay the significance of the family and which play up the significance of selfish individualism. We know the family to be eternal."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

* "The work of the adversary may be likened to loading guns in opposition to the work of God. Salvos containing germs of contention are aimed and fired at strategic targets essential to that holy work. These vital targets include—in addition to the individual—the family, leaders of the Church, and divine doctrine."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/the-canker-of-contention?lang=eng The Canker of Contention]|date=May 1989}}</ref>

* "In this marriage relationship comes the greatest of exaltation and the greatest experiences of life. You will come to know that most of what you know that is worth knowing you learn from your children."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, ''The Things of the Soul'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 228 [Address given to Brigham Young University student body 14 April 1970.]</ref>

* "I desire to emphasize this. I want the young men of Zion to realize that this institution of marriage is not a man-made institution. It is of God. It is honorable, and no man who is of marriageable age is living his religion who remains single. It is not simply devised for the convenience alone of man, to suit his own notions, and his own ideas; to marry and then divorce, to adopt and then to discard, just as he pleases. There are great consequences connected with it, consequences which reach beyond this present time, into all eternity, for thereby souls are begotten into the world, and men and women obtain their being in the world. Marriage is the preserver of the human race. Without it, the purposes of God would be frustrated; virtue would be destroyed to give place to vice and corruption, and the earth would be void and empty."<ref>{{Book:Smith:Gospel Doctrine|pages=272}}</ref>

* "the greatest responsibility and the greatest joys in life are centered in the family, honorable marriage, and rearing a righteous posterity."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Ezra Taft Benson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/05/to-the-single-adult-brethren-of-the-church?lang=eng To the Single Adult Brethren of the Church]|date=May 1988|page=52}}</ref>

* "Alas, it may be true that those who do not believe in God, who is a loving parent and who is the Father of the human family, will also never be able to accept the eternal importance of the institution of the family, except as something that is socially useful—little wonder we arrive at different conclusions or that we have different priorities."<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=906 Family Perspectives]," BYU Devotional, 15 January 1974</ref>

==="All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God."===

* "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" ({{b||Genesis|1|27}}).
* "Seest thou that ye are created after mine [Christ's] own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh ({{s||Ether|3|15-16}}).
* "And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all" ({{s||Moses|1|6}}).
* "God instituted marriage in the beginning. He made man in his own image and likeness, male and female, and in their creation it was designed that they should be united together in sacred bonds of marriage, and one is not perfect without the other."<ref>{{Book:Smith:Gospel Doctrine|pages=272}}</ref>

==="Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny."===
* "We are begotten in the similitude of Christ himself. We dwelt with the Father and with the Son in the beginning, as the sons and daughters of God; and at the time appointed, we came to this earth to take upon ourselves tabernacles, that we might become conformed to the likeness and image of Jesus Christ and become like him; that we might have a tabernacle, that we might pass through death as he has passed through death, that we might rise again from the dead as he has risen from the dead."<ref>{{Book:Smith:Gospel Doctrine|pages=428}}</ref>
* "The gospel teaches us that we are the spirit children of heavenly parents. Before our mortal birth we had “a pre-existent, spiritual personality, as the sons and daughters of the Eternal Father” (statement of the First Presidency, ''Improvement Era'', Mar. 1912, p. 417; also see Jer. 1:5). We were placed here on earth to progress toward our destiny of eternal life. These truths give us a unique perspective and different values to guide our decisions from those who doubt the existence of God and believe that life is the result of random processes."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness.p2?lang=eng The Great Plan of Happiness]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

==="Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."===
* "When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind, in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and co–operating to the full in the government of their family kingdom. Then shall woman be recompensed in rich measure for all the injustice that womanhood has endured in mortality. Then shall woman reign by Divine right, a queen in the resplendent realm of her glorified state, even as exalted man shall stand, priest and king unto the Most High God. Mortal eye cannot see nor mind comprehend the beauty, glory, and majesty of a righteous woman made perfect in the celestial kingdom of God."<ref>James E. Talmage, "The Eternity of Sex," ''Young Woman's Journal'' 25 (October 1914), 602–3 as found in Joseph Smith, ''The Words of Joseph Smith'', comp. and ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), 137 n. 4.</ref>
* "Some people are ignorant or vicious and apparently attempting to destroy the concept of masculinity and femininity. More and more girls dress, groom, and act like men. More and more men dress, groom, and act like women. The high purposes of life are damaged and destroyed by the growing unisex theory. God made man in his own image, male and female made he them. With relatively few accidents of nature, we are born male or female. The Lord knew best. Certainly, men and women who would change their sex status will answer to their Maker...."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "Dear brethren and sisters, the scriptures and the teachings of the Apostles and prophets speak of us in premortal life as sons and daughters, spirit children of God. Gender existed before, and did not begin at mortal birth."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=November 1993|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/for-time-and-all-eternity.p1 For Time and All Eternty]}}</ref>

==="In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father"===
* "The spirits of men and women are eternal (see D&C 93:29-31; see also Joseph Smith, Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 158, 208). All are sons and daughters of God and lived in a premortal life as his spirit children (see Numbers 16:22; Hebrews 12:9, D&C 76:24). The spirit of each individual is in the likeness of the person in mortality, male and female (see D&C 77:2; 132:63; Moses 6:9-10; Abraham 4:27). All are in the image of heavenly parents."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "[https://si.lds.org/library/talks/general/the-play-and-the-plan?lang=eng The Play and the Plan]," CES Fireside, 7 May 1995, Kirkland, Washington.</ref>

==="accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life."===

* And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he [Jesus Christ] said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever ({{s||Abraham|3|24-26}}).

==="The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave."===
* "There is another dimension to marriage that we know of in the Church. It came by revelation. This glorious, supernal truth teaches us that marriage is meant to be eternal. There are covenants we can make if we are willing, and bounds we can seal if we are worthy, that will keep marriage safe and intact beyond the veil of death."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

==="Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God"===

==="and for families to be united eternally."===
* "Oh, brothers and sisters, ''families can be forever''! Do not let the lures of the moment draw you away from them! ''Divinity, eternity,'' and ''family''—they go together, hand in hand, and so must we! {{io}}<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

==="The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife."===
* "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...." ({{b||Genesis|1|28}}).
* "Before leaving our discussion of unchanging plans, however, we need to remember that the adversary sponsors a cunning plan of his own. 34 It invariably attacks God’s first commandment for husband and wife to beget children. It tempts with tactics that include infidelity, unchastity, and other abuses of procreative power. Satan’s band would trumpet choice, but mute accountability. Nevertheless, his capacity has long been limited, “for he knew not the mind of God” (Moses 4:6)."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/constancy-amid-change.p32 Constancy Amid Change]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

==="We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."===
* "There seems to be a growing trend against marriage from degenerate areas of the world and a very strong trend toward marriage without children. Naturally the next question is, “Why marry?” And the “antimarriage revolution” comes into focus. Arguments are given that children are a burden, a tie, a responsibility. Many have convinced themselves that education, freedom from restraint and responsibility—that is the life. And unfortunately this benighted and destructive idea is taking hold of some of our own people."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>

==="the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."===

====General statements====
* The voice of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unmistakable terms warns:

:“… sexual sin—the illicit sexual relations of men and women—stands, in its enormity, next to murder. The Lord has drawn no essential distinctions between fornication, adultery, and harlotry or prostitution. Each has fallen under his solemn and awful condemnation. … [Such cannot] … escape the punishments and the judgments which the Lord has declared against this sin. The day of reckoning will come just as certainly as night follows day.”

:Then speaking of those who condone and justify evil whether from press or microphone or pulpit, they continue:

::“They who would palliate this crime and say that such indulgence is but a sinless gratification of a normal desire, like appeasing hunger and thirst, speak filthiness with their lips. Their counsel leads to destruction; their wisdom comes from the father of lies.” (Message of the First Presidency to the Church, ''Improvement Era'', November 1942, page 686.)<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|date=May 1971|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/04/voices-of-the-past-of-the-present-of-the-future.p71 Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future]}}</ref>

* "As we have said on previous occasions, certainly our Heavenly Father is distressed with the increasing inroads among his children of such insidious sins as adultery and fornication and homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, alcoholism, dishonesty, and crime generally, which threaten the total breakdown of the family and the home…"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>
* "There is a practice, now quite prevalent, for unmarried couples to live together, a counterfeit of marriage. They suppose that they shall have all that marriage can offer without the obligations connected with it. They are wrong! However much they hope to find in a relationship of that kind, they will lose more. Living together without marriage destroys something inside all who participate. Virtue, self-esteem, and refinement of character wither away. Claiming that it will not happen does not prevent the loss; and these virtues, once lost, are not easily reclaimed."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>
* "God Himself decreed that the physical expression of love, that union of male and female which has power to generate life, is authorized only in marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>
* "Whether we like it or not, so many of the difficulties which beset the family today stem from the breaking of the seventh commandment (see Ex. 20:14). Total chastity before marriage and total fidelity after are still the standard from which there can be no deviation without sin, misery, and unhappiness. The breaking of the seventh commandment usually means the breaking of one or more homes."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

====Premarital sexual relations forbidden====
* "Let every youth keep himself from the compromising approaches and then with great control save himself from the degrading and life-damaging experience of sexual impurity."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

====Adulterous sexual relations forbidden====
* "Now the lust of the heart and the lust of the eyes and the lust of the body bring us to the major sin. Let every man remain at home with his affections. Let every woman sustain her husband and keep her heart where it belongs—at home with her family."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "And now a word of warning. One who destroys a marriage takes upon himself a very great responsibility indeed. Marriage is sacred! To willfully destroy a marriage, either your own or that of another couple, is to offend our God. Such a thing will not be lightly considered in the judgments of the Almighty and in the eternal scheme of things will not easily be forgiven. Do not threaten nor break up a marriage. Do not translate some disenchantment with your own marriage partner or an attraction for someone else into justification for any conduct that would destroy a marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

====Homosexual relations forbidden====
* "Every form of homosexuality is sin....May we repeat: Sex perversions of men and women can never replenish the earth and are definitely sin without excuse, and rationalizations are very weak; God will not tolerate it."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

* "A modern prophet, President Spencer W. Kimball, has warned us:... . when toleration for sin increases, the outlook is bleak and Sodom and Gomorrah days are certain to return." His predecessor, President Harold B. Lee, warned of the growing social acceptance of "that great sin of Sodom and Gomorrah... adultery: and beside this, the equally grievous sin of homosexuality, which seems to be gaining momentum with social acceptance in the Babylon of the world... " Many today are as indecisive about the evils emerging around us—are as reluctant to renounce fully a wrong way of life—as was Lot's wife. Perhaps in this respect, as well as in the indicators of corruption of which sexual immorality is but one indicator, our present parallels are most poignant and disturbing. It was Jesus himself who said, "Remember Lot's wife." Indeed we should—and remember too all that the Savior implied with those three powerful words."<ref>{{Book:Maxwell:Look Back At Sodom}}</ref>

*In this day of the “new morality” as sex permissiveness is sometimes called, we should be made aware of the Lord’s concern about immorality and the seriousness of sex sins of all kinds.

:We have come far in material progress in this century, but the sins of the ancients increasingly afflict the hearts of men today. Can we not learn by the experiences of others? Must we also defile our bodies, corrupt our souls, and reap destruction as have peoples and nations before us?

:God will not be mocked. His laws are immutable. True repentance is rewarded by forgiveness, but sin brings the sting of death.

:We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open.

:It is the sin of the ages. It was present in Israel’s wandering as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot’s visitors indicates.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/10/the-foundations-of-righteousness.p36 The Foundations of Righteousness]|date=November 1977}}</ref>

==="We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed."===
* We are appalled at the conscious effort of many of the people in this world to take it upon themselves, presumptive, to change the properly established patterns of social behavior established by the Lord, especially with regard to marriage, sex life, family life. We must say: “The wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.” (See Isa. 29:14.)<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/why-call-me-lord-lord-and-do-not-the-things-which-i-say.p75 Why Call Me Lord, Lord and Do Not the Things Which I Say?]|date=May 1975}}</ref>
* "The expression of our procreative powers is pleasing to God, but he has commanded that this be confined within the relationship of marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness.p22?lang=eng The Great Plan of Happiness]|date=November 1993}}</ref>
* "...in the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process of creation and in an expression of love."<ref>{{Book:Kimball:Teachings|pages=311}}</ref>

==="We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan."===
* “Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation.” ({{s||D&C|49|15–16}})<ref>Cited in this context, for example, in {{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "Eternal love, eternal marriage, eternal increase! This ideal, which is new to many, when thoughtfully considered, can keep a marriage strong and safe. No relationship has more potential to exalt a man and a woman than the marriage covenant. No obligation in society or in the Church supersedes it in importance."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

==="Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children."===
* "Make sure, young man, that you treat your wife with reverence and with respect. Treat her as your sweetheart, your loving companion, the mother of your children."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, ''The Things of the Soul'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 228 [Address given to Brigham Young University student body 14 April 1970.]</ref>

==="Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness"===

==="to provide for their physical and spiritual needs...to teach them...to observe the commandments of God"===
* And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents ({{s||D&C|68|25}}).

==="to teach them to love and serve one another"===
* And ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the evil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness. But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another ({{s||Mosiah|4|14-15}}).

==="to teach them...to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live"===
* "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" ({{s||Articles of Faith|1|12}}).

* "The desirability of this country will persist so long as its citizenry are a God–fearing people with the integrity to obey the law of the land. This includes the laws we do not like as well as the laws we do like."<ref>James E. Faust, "The Integrity of Obeying the Law," Freedom Festival Fireside, Provo, Utah, 2 July 1995; cited in James P. Bell and James E. Faust, "Citizenship" in In The Strength Of the Lord: The Life and Teachings of James E. Faust (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1999), 274.</ref>

* "Let our citizenship be spirited but always appropriate and befitting who we are."<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1050 All Hell Is Moved]," BYU Devotional (8 November 1977).</ref>

* "Discipleship includes good citizenship. In this connection, if you are a careful student of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions—especially when the First Presidency has spoken out—the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people; and causes, not candidates."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship.p6 A More Determined Discipleship]|date=February 1979}}</ref>

==="Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony"===
* A higher and higher percentage of children grow up with only one parent. This is certainly not the way of the Lord. He expected for a father and a mother to rear their children. Certainly any who deprive their children of a parent will have some very stiff questions to answer. The Lord used parents in the plural and said if children were not properly trained “the sin be upon the heads of the parents.” (D&C 68:25.) That makes it a bit hard to justify broken homes. Numerous of the divorces are the result of selfishness. The day of judgment is approaching, and parents who abandon their families will find that excuses and rationalizations will hardly satisfy the Great Judge.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

==="and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity"===
* "Once marriage vows are taken, absolute fidelity is essential—to the Lord and to one’s companion."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/04/children-of-the-covenant?lang=eng Children of the Covenant]|date=May 1995}{</ref>

==="Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ"===
* "The ultimate end of all activity in the Church is that a man and his wife and their children can be happy at home and that the family can continue through eternity. All Christian doctrine is formulated to protect the individual, the home, and the family."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

==="Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities."===

* "... the home and family have been the center of true civilization. Any distortion of the God-given program will bring dire consequences. The families worked together, played together, and worshiped God together."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "We hope our parents are using the added time that has come from the consolidated schedule in order to be with, teach, love, and nurture their children. We hope you have not forgotten the need for family activity and recreation, for which time is also provided. Let your love of each member of your family be unconditional. Where there are challenges, you fail only if you fail to keep trying!"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

==="By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness"===
* "Brethren, as patriarchs in your homes, be worthy watchmen."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/04/strengthening-the-family-the-basic-unit-of-the-church?lang=eng Strengthening the Family, the Basic Unit of the Church]|date=May 1978}}</ref>
* "It is the will of the Lord to strengthen and preserve the family unit. We plead with fathers to take their rightful place as the head of the house. We ask mothers to sustain and support their husbands and to be lights to their children."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Joseph Fielding Smith|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/07/counsel-to-the-saints-and-to-the-world?lang=eng Counsel to the Saints and to the World]|date=July 1972|pages=27}}</ref>

==="and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families"===
* "Both men and women are to serve their families and others, but the specific ways in which they do so are sometimes different. For example, God has revealed through his prophets that men are to receive the priesthood, become fathers, and with gentleness and pure, unfeigned love they are to lead and nurture their families in righteousness as the Savior leads the Church (see Eph. 5:23 ). They have been given the primary responsibility for the temporal and physical needs of the family (see DNC 83:2)."<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10 Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

==="Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children"===
* "Women have the power to bring children into the world and have been given the primary duty and opportunity as mothers to lead, nurture, and teach them in a loving, spiritual environment."<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10 Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

==="fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners"===
* Most of what men and women must do to qualify for an exalted family life together is based on shared responsibilities and objectives. Many of the requirements are exactly the same for men and women. For example, obedience to the laws of God should be the same for men and women. Men and women should pray in the same way. They both have the same privilege of receiving answers to their prayers and thereby obtaining personal revelation for their own spiritual development....In this divine partnership, husbands and wives support one another in their God-given capacities. By appointing different accountabilities to men and women, Heavenly Father provides the greatest opportunity for growth, service, and progress. He did not give different tasks to men and women simply to perpetuate the idea of a family; rather, He did so to ensure that the family can continue forever, the ultimate goal of our Heavenly Father’s eternal plan.<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10 Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

* "The secret of a happy marriage is to serve God and each other. The goal of marriage is unity and oneness, as well as self-development. Paradoxically, the more we serve one another, the greater is our spiritual and emotional growth. The first fundamental, then, is to work toward righteous unity."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Ezra Taft Benson|article=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/10/fundamentals-of-enduring-family-relationships.p32 Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships]|date=November 1982}}</ref>

==="Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."===
* "We need to recognize the hard mortal realities in all of this and must use common sense and guidance by personal revelation. Some will not marry in this life. Some marriages will fail. Some will not have children. Some children will choose not to respond to even the most devoted and careful nurturing by loving parents. In some cases, health and faith may falter. Some who would rather remain at home may have to work. Let us not judge others, because we do not know their situation nor do we know what common sense and personal revelation have led them to do. We do know that throughout mortality, women and men will face challenges and tests of their commitment to God’s plan for them. We need to remember that trials and temptations are an important part of our lives. We should not criticize others for the way they choose to exercise their moral agency when faced with adversity or affliction."<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10 Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>
==="Extended families should lend support when needed."===

==="We warn that individuals...will one day stand accountable before God" [if they]===

* "God bless you, our beloved people. Listen to the words of heaven. God is true. He is just. He is a righteous judge, but justice must come before sympathy and forgiveness and mercy. Remember, God is in his heavens. He knew what he was doing when he organized the earth. He knows what he is doing now. Those of us who break his commandments will regret and suffer in remorse and pain. God will not be mocked. Man has his free agency, it is sure, but remember, GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED. (See {{s||D&C|63|58}}.)"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

* "That society which puts low value on marriage sows the wind and, in time, will reap the whirlwind—and thereafter, unless they repent, bring upon themselves a holocaust!"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>
===="violate covenants of chastity"====

See [[#"the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."|above]].

===="abuse spouse or offspring"====

* Spouse abuse
** CITE
** CITE

* Child abuse
** Cite
** CITE

===="fail to fulfill family responsibilities"====
* "There is no lack of clarity in what the Lord has told us. We cannot shirk. He has placed the responsibility directly where it belongs, and he holds us accountable with regard to the duties of parents to teach their children correct principles and of the need to walk uprightly before the Lord—and there is no substitute for teaching our children by the eloquence of example."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

==="the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets"===

* Why do we take our destiny in our own hands? From the building of the first colonial cabin, the home and family have been the center of true civilization. Any distortion of the God-given program will bring dire consequences....Could it be possible that many of us, like a cork in a stream, have been swept off our destiny line by false concepts, perilous ways, and doctrines of devils? By whom are we enticed? Have we accepted the easy way and veered off from the “strait and narrow” way to the easy and comfortable way and the broad way which leads to sorrowful ends?<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

* "As we have said on previous occasions, certainly our Heavenly Father is distressed with the increasing inroads among his children of such insidious sins as adultery and fornication and homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, alcoholism, dishonesty, and crime generally, which threaten the total breakdown of the family and the home…"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>

* "Society without basic family life is without foundation and will disintegrate into nothingness."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

==="We call upon" all "to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family"===
* "Furthermore, many of the social restraints which in the past have helped to reinforce and to shore up the family are dissolving and disappearing. The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us. Whether from inadvertence, ignorance, or other causes, the efforts governments often make (ostensibly to help the family) sometimes only hurt the family more. There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define it out of existence. The more governments try in vain to take the place of the family, the less effective governments will be in performing the traditional and basic roles for which governments are formed in the first place."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}


[[en:Question: Have the doctrines in the Mormon document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught in the Church?]]

El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo

2019-05-22T23:13:16Z

RogerNicholson: Página creada con «{{FairMormon}} <onlyinclude> {{H1 |L=El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo |H=El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo |S= |L1=Pr...»

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo
|H=El mormonismo y La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo
|S=
|L1=Pregunta: ¿Es el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" la doctrina oficial?
|L2=Question: Have the doctrines in the Mormon Proclamation on the Family long been taught in the Church?
|L3=Question: Has the Mormon Proclamation on the Family been taught frequently?
|L4=Question: Since there are people that are born intersex, does this invalidate the doctrine of eternal gender?
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Pregunta: ¿Es el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" la doctrina oficial?}}
{{:Question: Have the doctrines in the Mormon ''Proclamation on the Family'' long been taught in the Church?}}
{{:Question: Has the Mormon ''Proclamation on the Family'' been taught frequently?}}
{{:Question: Since there are people that are born intersex, does this invalidate the doctrine of eternal gender?}}
</onlyinclude>
{{notas finales}}


[[en:Mormonism and prophets/Mormonism and The Family: A Proclamation to the World]]