...sounds like both of you are steep in vanity!:)
Posted on 06/23/2007 1:28:02 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
(AP) SALT LAKE CITY -- Mitt Romney said Saturday that criticism of his Mormon religion by rival GOP presidential campaigns is happening too frequently.
“Clearly, any derogatory comments about anyone’s faith—those comments are troubling. The fact they keep on coming up is even more troubling,” Romney said during a fundraising trip in the home state of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Mormon church is one of the fastest-growing religions and claims about 12.5 million members worldwide. But many evangelical Christians in crucial primary states such as Iowa and South Carolina consider the faith a cult.
Romney’s remarks follow an apology from GOP rival John McCain’s campaign for comments about the Mormon church allegedly made this year by a volunteer.
Also recently, Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, issued a similar apology for a campaign worker’s e-mail to Iowa Republican leaders that was an apparent attempt to draw unfavorable scrutiny of Romney’s religion. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani apologized after the New York Sun noted that a campaign aide had forwarded to a blogger a story about unofficial Mormon lore. Legend has it that a Mormon would save the Constitution, the story said. The campaign aide passed the story along with a note: “Thought you’d find this interesting.”
Romney said in a large presidential race there always will be some volunteers or workers who cannot be controlled. But he said the difference between derogatory comments that originated from the McCain campaign and others is that the Arizona senator has not personally apologized to him.
“In the case of Senator Brownback and Mayor Giuliani ... they called immediately. They each spoke with me personally. I don’t have any issue with that at all,” Romney said.
He said McCain “can do whatever he feels is the right thing. There’s no need for me to suggest how people respond to things that go on in the campaign.”
Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, said the McCain campaign has already apologized.
“It’s a very sincere apology. There is absolutely no place for those type of comments in our campaign,” he said.
Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, said he had not spoken with McCain since the last presidential debate, on June 5.
Romney used a fundraiser hosted by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller to criticize the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. It banned unregulated, unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to national political parties and federal candidates.
“The bill ought to be repealed,” he said. “It’s been the wrong course for American campaigns.”
Romney said he favors unlimited donations as long as they are immediately disclosed on the Internet.
Romney was attending fundraisers in Salt Lake City and in Logan on Saturday.
The words of Charles Anthon L.L.D. in 1834 was taken and massaged to meet someone's need.
Why?
If truth is truth at the beginning...how can it be un-truth's along the way...and morphed into present truth..IF it's God's truth from the beginning?
I'm a simple man....asking questions.
“You sure it wasn’t the tanning booth origin business?”
LOL, and it’s fast, too!
No, no, no! I like women who, like good hot chocolate, will tend to make -ME- fat!
BWaHahaha ... wise young man; seek ye the woman who loves to cook and knows how to ‘git er dun’!
Oh, okay. Your God is better than my God. So I’ll be going to Hell if I don’t convert to your God. That’s very inspiring.
~”see the Mormon theology of “blood atonement””~
That doctrine has never been sanctioned by the LDS Church. It was ascribed to by a group within the LDS Church called the “Danites” that was denounced by the Church from its formation.
Let me be very clear: The “blood atonement” accusation is a lie.
By throwing that accusation, you demonstrate that you are unwilling to research us for yourself, instead electing to believe the words of our detractors. I hope you choose to find better sources for your information in the future.
For a more complete explanation as to why exactly this accusation is a lie, please refer to the following:
http://www.shields-research.org/General/blood_atonement.htm
~”He is not sufficient to save you from all sin”~
~”We aren’t the judge. Christ is.”~
One of the above doesn’t fit. Will we not both be judged by the same Christ, regardless of which of us is correct as to the exact nature of God? If so, then who are you to judge that Christ’s atonement is not sufficient for me?
~”Or the 1830 and 1837 versions of the Book of Mormon, with thousands of changes.”~
Oh, yeah, right... the Book of Mormon was originally translated without punctuation. In the 1837 edition, they had the -utter gall- to -add- punctuation to the text!
Shocking!
You really, really need to fact-check your accusations, Greg.
I also think he said he was a x church historian unless I am confusing with another poster on this thread!
here a blast from the pass!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/665475/posts?q=1&;page=1751
The changes go way beyond punctuation, tantiboh. Perhaps you should do the research before trying to dismiss the changes as merely punctuation additions. Your scholarship is not so shallow.
It appears I need to follow my own advice.
Punctuation was included in the original printings. It was not included in the original manuscript.
I was wrong. You have my apologies, Greg.
As to the substance: The idea that thousands of changes were made to the Book of Mormon is a common accusation of our detractors, who portray this fact as being demonstrative of the LDS Church’s somehow covering up original material, or admitting error, or some such thing.
It must be remembered that, while the Book of Mormon is the word of God, its printing was still the work of men; and there are other various circumstances that explain the many changes made since the original edition, such as a printer that wasn’t particularly friendly to the early Church, and therefore wasn’t keen on fixing many errors.
For a full treatment of this topic, and explanations for the changes cited, the following is an excellent resource:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml
The fact remains, that the changes made to the Book of Mormon have generally been very minor, and have been made with an eye toward reflecting more closely the text of the -original- manuscript and improving readability.
The changes made have been anything but conspiratorial.
It does strike me that those who try to use this factoid to condemn the LDS Church simultaneously ignore the extended evolutionary process undergone by the Bible. Another double standard applied to Mormonism? Perhaps.
[1830 Edition
1837 Edition]
1 Ne. 11:19
the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh
1 Ne. 11:19
the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
1 Ne. 11:21
Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!
1 Ne. 11:21
Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!
1 Ne. 11:32
[the Lamb of God] was taken by the people; yea, the everlasting God was judged of the world.
1 Ne. 11:32
[the Lamb of God] was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world.
1 Ne. 13:40
[these records] shall make known to all … that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world.
1 Ne. 13:40
[these records] shall make known to all … that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world.
The original text of Mosiah 21:28 reads: "And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice."
The problem, of course, is that king Benjamin was dead by this time (Mosiah 6:5). This reference was changed to 'Mosiah' in the 1837 and subsequent editions. However, it appears that this was not the only place where such a change was made. The original text of Ether 4:1 reads: "...and for this cause did king Benjamin keep them, that they should not come unto the world until after Christ shew himself unto his people."
Again, Benjamin was changed to "Mosiah" in subsequent editions. The fact that there are two such changes leads one to speculate that Joseph Smith may possibly have had a slightly different course in mind for the life of King Benjamin and had perhaps killed off Benjamin prematurely while rewriting the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon.
The original text of I Nephi 12:18 reads: "...yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God, and Jesus Christ, which is the Lamb of God..."
The problem here is that the name 'Jesus Christ' was not revealed to the Nephites until II Nephi 10:3. "Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name--should come among the Jews..."
In order to correct this contradiction, the text of I Nephi 12:18 was changed to read 'Messiah' instead of 'Jesus Christ'. How does the church explain that?
The original text of I Nephi 20:1 reads: "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel; yet they swear not in truth, nor righteousness."
In 1840 this verse was changed to read:
"Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism , who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness."
The phrase "or out of the waters of baptism" was inserted in the 1840 edition. Why did it take God ten years to decide to introduce the ordinance of baptism into Old Testament text?
The original text of II Nephi 16:2 reads:
"Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly."
This is a quotation from the King James Version of the Bible, specifically Isaiah 6:2. In a rare grammatical mistake, the KJV has an incorrect plural for 'seraph'. The correct plural, of course, should be 'seraphim', as the later text of II Nephi 16:2 reads. How does one explain that Joseph Smith would make the same exact spelling error in the BofM "translation" that the writers of the KJV of the Bible made centuries before?
These are not simple punctutation errors or changes and they are but a small inkling of the fraud throughout the part of B of M.
I deserved that reprimand.
I love you, tantiboh, as Christ commands me to do and His presence within me humbles me do extend to you. I don’t get joy out of witnessing your conundrum. I humbly pray you, be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind my FRiend. The riches of His glory are not pie in the sky to come, He is here with us even at this moment, His Spirit enlightens if we will but open our heart to Him and take our place in God’s perspective of eternity which includes the now.
~”I don’t get joy out of witnessing your conundrum.”~
No conundrum here, my friend. I am learning new things every day; I am less conflicted about my faith now than I was even three months ago. These criticisms and accusations have forced me to confront new things about my faith; and as I have researched these new things, and found out the answers for myself, my knowledge and my faith have both swelled.
It’s been a valuable experience; I am much more confident that there is no attack against the LDS Church which will prosper; and I am inspired to live my life better. My spiritual studies are more intense, my prayers are more frequent, and my weaknesses are dwindling all the faster.
In large part, I’ve you to thank for this spiritual growth.
~”The riches of His glory are not pie in the sky to come, He is here with us even at this moment, His Spirit enlightens if we will but open our heart to Him and take our place in God’s perspective of eternity which includes the now.”~
There, we are in entire agreement.
There are punctuation problems in the Greek manuscripts of the Bible which are significant. We ran across one such in James 2: 14 -26, where there is one reading with commas but another if the commas are removed. The Greek had no punctuation commas. Meanings can vary based upon commas or no commas. But to change texts in order to remove false passages or change entire chronologies is much more than mere punctuation difficulties. Authors writing daventure novels occasionally make such errors (I write them so I know of what I speak!). God does not make such mistakes.
I hate copying and pasting large volumes of text; I generally find it tacky. But this passage bears directly on the topic. It is from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
Source: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/book_of_mormon/manuscripts.html
****
by Royal Skousen
The printed versions of the Book of Mormon derive from two manuscripts. The first, called the original manuscript (O), was written by at least three scribes as Joseph Smith translated and dictated. The most important scribe was Oliver Cowdery. This manuscript was begun no later than April 1829 and finished in June 1829.
A copy of the original was then made by Oliver Cowdery and two other scribes. This copy is called the printer’s manuscript (P), since it was the one normally used to set the type for the first (1830) edition of the Book of Mormon. It was begun in July 1829 and finished early in 1830.
The printer’s manuscript is not an exact copy of the original manuscript. There are on the average three changes per original manuscript page. These changes appear to be natural scribal errors; there is little or no evidence of conscious editing. Most of the changes are minor, and about one in five produca a discernible difference in meaning. Because they were all relatively minor, most of the errors thus introduced into the text have remained in the printed editions of the Book of Mormon and have not been detected and corrected except by reference to the original manuscript. About twenty of these errors were corrected in the 1981 edition.
The compositor for the 1830 edition added punctuation, paragraphing, and other printing marks to about one-third of the pages of the printer’s manuscript. These same marks appear on one fragment of the original, indicating that it was used at least once in typesetting the 1830 edition.
In preparation for the second (1837) edition, hundreds of grammatical changes and a few textual emendations were made in P. After the publication of this edition, P was retained by Oliver Cowdery. After his death in 1850, his brother-in-law, David Whitmer, kept P until his death in 1888. In 1903 Whitmer’s grandson sold P to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which owns it today. It is wholly extant except for two lines at the bottom of the first leaf.
The original manuscript was not consulted for the editing of the 1837 edition. However, in producing the 1840 edition, Joseph Smith used O to restore some of its original readings. In October 1841, Joseph Smith placed O in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. Over forty years later, Lewis Bidamon, Emma Smith’s second husband, opened the cornerstone and found that water seepage had destroyed most of O. The surviving pages were handed out to various individuals during the 1880s.
Today approximately 25 percent of the text of O survives: 1 Nephi 2 through 2 Nephi 1, with gaps; Alma 22 through Helaman 3, with gaps; and a few other fragments. All but one of the authentic pages and fragments of O are housed in the archives of the LDS Historical Department; one-half of a sheet (from 1 Nephi 14) is owned by the University of Utah.
Perhaps God doesn’t make such a mistake, but man certainly can.
How many translations into English of the Bible are there? How many doctrinal disagreements could be derived thereby? How many of said translations should be considered “valid” scripture?
In my opinion, God is worried much more about the essence of the doctrine being presented in the text, than He is about the precise wording, spelling, or grammatical errors in the text.
I find that a genuine seeker of truth will normally disregard errors of man and search after the truths outlined in the text. It is the fault-finder who reads a holy text with an eye toward disproving it.
One must be very careful in trying to disprove the Book of Mormon with this category of criticism. The Bible would have to be discarded on the basis of many of these same questions.
Personally, I don’t wish to see either discarded. But, if this discussion continues, I will make it a practice to ask the same questions of the Bible; if the Bible fails by the given standard, then consistency demands that the question be disregarded.
Here is an example of what I’m talking about:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1197
In the above article, the author is defending the Bible against the charge that it has suffered more than 100,000 changes. I agree with the author. I accept his explanations.
Interestingly, the same breed of explanations are being used to justify the changes in the Book of Mormon. If you do not accept the explanations in the case of the Book of Mormon, and reject as a result the Book of Mormon’s divine origination, than it is therefore impossible to accept the Bible as divine.
Many of the changes of the type you cite in your previous post, MHG, are quite possibly resulting from the fact that the Book of Mormon had to go through a layer of interpretation that, to the best of our knowledge, the Bible never faced - that being a hostile printer. The 1837 edition was the first time that there was an opportunity to correct the inconsistencies of this category. I’m looking for better evidence of this, but I think it is plausible.
Given this information, this argument against the Book of Mormon would be much more convincing were there to be serious changes between the 1837 and later editions. I have not found evidence of such.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.