Free Republic

I want to know why, it delivered straight from the source, a source that obviously approved of the translation page by page via not allowing Joey to proceed until perfect, that the BOM required over 3000 edits in just 180 years.

Of course it could be the source, after all by the reckoning of the LDS god is only human.

I thought your post was quite tame and reasonable.

applause.

urroneous

I like the nickname. It fits.

Still laughing, but BTW...

I wonder how one divines from what I wrote that I am a fanatical Christian?

I mean, I did not label anyone in particular as a fanatical mormon...

did I? I’ll have to ask my wife

And had what I wrote been an actual ad hominem argument (let alone “attack”), skin would still be red from the smackdown, and ears still ringing from bringing the thunder down.

I know if I had so fully engaged I would be in the estimable company of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and numerous other flaming orators, skilled at nothing so much as baseless, inaccurate, and poorly informed invective.

People who follow these threads know well that my initial post to this one was very mild and restrained treatment, compared to the full frontal factual assault (featuring air and ground sarcasm) that I can employ at will and as needed.

It isn’t bragging if one can back it up, and I often do it with a smile, as many of the “inmans” can verify.

Then how do you reconcile the fact you do not believe the BoM translation to be perfect with these statements:

“By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say ‘written;’ and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used” (CHC 1:29).

H On page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer wrote,

“I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”

If it is not complete, or accurate then why do you accept it as “scripture”?

LM*AO!!

SO it is now considered an ad hominem attack to identify a particular tactic (frequently employed, I might add!) as it is utilized by a wide spectrum of critics, and associate the specific use of that tactic with a group the regularly employs it.

I had a pair of local mishies over to my home for dinner (my wife is LDS, I am definitively not), and the limited discussion gave an airing to the usual “...the Bible, ‘insofar as it is correctly translated’” excrement.

Quite frankly, that one has grown a lot shopworn don’t you think? I mean, for crying out loud, it is well documented that there have been fewer substantive corrections to the Bible over the course of the last 1000 plus years than there have been to the bom just since 1834-ish.

Unless of course one wishes to honestly count the revisions that many cults have made in order that the Bible align more closely with their preferences

(ahem *cough* “Joseph Smith Translation” - from an undereducated twit who was never in his life worthy to hold the pen of a single scribe to a single translator from the Court of King James - with or without the phony, never- produced “urim and thummim” to facilitate his antibiblical divination with a spirit medium)

What was that count on substantive revisions of text, grammar, spelling, colloquy, fundamental theology etc..., godzilla?

I mean, the bom no longer specifically excludes indians or blacks or pacific islanders on the basis of their lack of “white and delightsome” skin colour

Somewhere north of 2,000 meaningful changes, isn’t it?

The day mormons cease and desist talking out of both sides of their collective mouths - , in one breath citing at convenience the passages and portions thereof which suit them and which (they believe) lend credence to their sorely unsupported theological positions, and in the other breath, chipping away at all of Christendom

(”Apostates”, “whoremongers”, “harlots”, “whores of Babylon” I believe were some of the terms used by Joey-boy and Bring’em Young - but since they were Prophets of G_d and KNEW it was really, really true, it was okay and not to be considered ‘ad hominem’ attack, or something like that...)

...is the day that we who ARE and have long been Christians (despite all the baseless Smithian accusations to the contrary) will dial it back a little.

Until then, I (and others like me) will attack Joseph the lying glass-looker, Joseph the drunk, Joseph the wife-beater and philanderer, Joseph the perpetrator of many frauds - with controlled abandon.

Until it can be established that 100% of all of his prophetic utterances actually did come true (they didn’t and several have expired), we will continue to adhere to the standard established (and never revoked, diminished, or altered) by the Lord in Deuteronomy, which conclusively denies Joseph Smith of ever rightfully assuming the mantle of an anointed Prophet of the most high G_d.

It is no ego boost to engage such attacks - for the simple reason that I do not claim to be an anointed Prophet of G-d, and am therefore not in competition for such stature.

I guess if an ad hominem attack is in general terms, an ego boost, that would explain a lot of the words and actions of those who speak against all non mormon Christian churches in behalf of the mormon church in general, and the words of Joseph Smith, roving false prophet, and Brigham Young, ditto - quite well.

See in spite of yourself you have managed to shed some understanding onto a subject.

Careful, they might revoke your temple recommend if word gets out about that.

Fundamentally, the issue is: was Joseph Smith a truth-teller, a leader, and an anointed prophet with the authority to speak for Christ, and/or the Most High G_d - in accordance with established standards of scripture, or was he not.

He was not the “husband of but one wife” so he ought not have been a deacon, elder, bishop, or any other type of leader in any organized denomination that truly was Christian,

and he prophesied things in the name of the Most High which did NOT come to pass, and prophesied things which were contrary to established principles of godly faith -

Therefore he was patently a false prophet, and no man has anything to fear from him.

I would also add that no man or woman really has much to learn from Smith’s example - except many things NOT to do and/or be!

A.A.C.

(crickets)

If the Apocrypha should be included in the KJV, why does your Church reject it?

It’s not in the JST - I wonder why?

- - - - -
Smith got bored?

I know of no friends who are “sola” who believe God “dictated” scripture. Only that all is inspired.

- - - - - -
I am one of them. :)

Excellent post.

np. I am here to serve. lol.

Hey elsie, do you have the quote from HoC handy that states JS FINISHED the translation?

Thanks for the links..interesting.

I believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is plagiarized correctly.

;)

The Council of Laodicea, A.D.364’

- - - - - —

Canon 60 of the council is debated as to the date. It only appears a some manuscripts so many think it is a later addition. So, for source purposes, I do not use it either personally or professionally.

However, my opinion is that while 367 is the earliest MSS evidence of the complete canon, there are hints, references, and other sources that lead to the conclusion that the canon as we know it, was formed for the most part, much earlier, probably by about 225-250 AD.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm

http://www.bible-researcher.com/laodicea.html

Thanks.

I wasn’t real clear on how the term had entered the caucus discussion anyway.

Just wanted to make the point because it had come up on the thread.

Certainly Roman Catholic Charismatics should be welcome on such a thread. Some of us Protestants would just like them labeled that way or some similar way if the label is to appear in a title.

Thanks tons for all you do to keep this herd of cats somewhat sane and civil.

“Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria ... in 367” On earliest lists of the books??

I thought their was a corporate witness dated from the Council of Laodicea, A.D.364’ where once the whole church was able to bear its witness it was seen to be justified then??? HUmmm

The point was that a Freeper who wears a Catholic or whatever label could also be Charismatic and therefore be a member of this caucus. It’s like a Rapture Caucus - Freepers from various religious groups may believe in the Rapture.

tar baby time

- - - - -

you are probably correct. It is pointless to argue with someone who believes in fairy tales.