[JRochelle]

If this is turning into a Bill Clinton deposition, it is because you are trying to redefine the word ‘at.’

Words mean things.

Smith made a simple mistake. Why doesn’t your church just fix it like the thousands of other little mistakes that have been fixed in the BOM?

You claim your Prophet was not perfect. Yet you will deny a clear imperfection!

[MHGinTN]

!

[DelphiUser]

If this is turning into a Bill Clinton deposition, it is because you are trying to redefine the word ‘at.’

The word at means what it means, and it is fine, you are trying to redefine at to mean in it does not.

Words mean things.

That is what I said. Smith made a simple mistake.

No, in this case, he did not, he was and is correct.

Why doesn’t your church just fix it like the thousands of other little mistakes that have been fixed in the BOM?

If adding punctuation invalidates the BOM then the Bible was invalid long before the BOM was translated. As for why doesn't the church just fix it...

Let's see, in an alternate reality, the church decides to take revelation from you on this, would that end the controversy? (ROTFLOL) yeah, I thought so, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. He said at, he meant at, at is the correct way to describe it, get over it.

You claim your Prophet was not perfect. Yet you will deny a clear imperfection!

I said I did not claim he was perfect, I did not claim he was imperfect, sheesh!

If this is an example of the accuracy of your reading skills I see why we are having a problem with a written record. I am not denying a "clear imperfection" I am telling you I don't think it's an imperfection, I think It was supposed to be that way (IMHO).