When the Mormon concept of eternal progression unto Godhood is exposed (i.e. brought out of relative obscurity to explicit consideration), one common response from Mormons is that it shouldn’t be made such a big deal because common Mormons don’t think about it very often. There are some big problems with this:
1. The issue matters for its own sake. If it is true that we can become Gods, worshiped and prayed to as the Most High Holy of Holies by billions of our own spirit children someday, that in and of itself is a big deal. The issue warrants focus even if it receives none. Let me offer a lame but useful analogy: What if congress had put forth an Affordable Health Care bill that emphasized better cost control measures, better use of technology, efficiency, and regulations on health insurance providers, yet in one footnote in only one of thousands of pages, required that every citizen–while living–donate one of their kidneys? Do you think the excuse, “But that wasn’t the focus of our bill!”, would be a reasonable response to those concerned?
2. It betrays a cringe of conscience, an internal conflict between endorsement and embarrassment. It’s almost like saying, “Look, I believe that this idea is true, beautiful, glorious, and central to the larger plan of salvation and very purpose of life, but I want to assure you that I try NOT to think about it very often.” Consider an analogy on a topic far less important, polygamy: “I believe that polygamy is acceptable, beautiful, righteous, eternal, something that is to be celebrated, something to be anticipated, and something that even the Gods participate in, but *shudder* I can assure you, we do NOT currently practice it!”
3. That it isn’t repudiated speaks to the condition of the heart. I have elsewhere written that in Mormonism there is power seen in ambiguity, strength in ambivalence, solidarity in equivocation, encouragement in non-officiality. But some things are so horrific and evil, that to not willingly and readily repudiate them speaks to a satanic sickness of the heart. We would be rightly aghast if a confessing Christian wasn’t willing to deny the idea that Jesus sinned, or that Jesus did not resurrect from the dead. The same goes for the issues of whether God the Father sinned, or whether sinners can ever be rightly worshiped as Most High Gods. These negative repudiations should be effortless if one positively affirms what every Christian believes: God alone is the true Most High God for all, God the Father never sinned, Jesus never sinned, and Jesus resurrected from the dead. An unwillingness to hate a horrific falsehood can be evidence of a lack of love for a central and beautiful truth.
4. Despite the human tendency to lose sight of the big picture, our view of the big picture still shapes what we believe and do. It is reasonable and right for any religion to consider the small in light of the large, the temporary in light of the eternal. Mormonism gives its people a meta-narrative, a grand, basically coherent, unified worldview with answers to where we came from, who we are, and where we are going. Mormonism frequently encourages to live out the mundane in light of the eternal—in principle, it should. Mormons who are inwardly embarrassed over Mormonism’s big-picture view of where humans are going cannot ultimately take solace in shortsightedness. It isn’t a virtue to mentally disassociate from one’s eternal future. Indeed, I don’t really believe humans are entirely able to.
5. God ultimately matters more than anything. The issue of whether we can become worshiped Gods ultimately relates to our view of who God himself is. Jesus said, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3) God gave his witness and bore his personal testimony, “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) Do you trust him? Do you love this God? Can you sing with the angels in Revelation 4:8, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
Grace and peace in the Most High God,
Aaron
PS. If your spirit-kids try to worship you in the after-life, spank them.
Helen said Then you state the following: “you are following a false god and false religion”. why? do you have evidence
proving us a false religion? or do you only have some serious doubts. Again I ask, if the Book of Mormon
is the Keystone of our Religion and it’s a false stone make of mortar and sand, how hard could it be to easily
pick out that headstone and watch the arch coming tumbling down. As of yet that Keystone is as sold as we
proclaimed it to be and the roof and foundation are still stable, meaning the growth seems to be a frustration
to those who proclaim we are only a cult.
Here is the problem, We can show you problems and we have, You simply ignore the evidence and claim, Thats not evidence, please try again. Give me a break, Thats like saying, If I hit you in the head with a baseball bat I will knock you out, You say prove it, so I knock you out, you wake up and say, I’m waiting for you to knock me out, I say I just did, You reply with, No you did not. If you choose to ignore the evidence, then nothing we say or show you will do any good.
Rick, if you believe that God can harden the heart, then you must also believe God can soften a heart.
You in your own words seem to contradict what a burning in the heart can be. Does God burn the heart of the believer or does man who is deceitful manage to see the scriptures opened to him and either harden his heart or soften his own revelation.
Helen said Rich I know it has been edited many times, corrections made. I did not know that whole verses were added or removed. This is interesting and I’m sure you won’t mind sharing those complete verses that were added or taken out?
I’m sure it was a type-o, but the name is Rick, Not Rich. I’m only sating it so readers do not get confused thinking other people are talking.
1830:
Ether 9:2
“…nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons and to his daughters, which were not, or which did not seek his destruction.”
1981:
Nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons, and to his daughters [. . . . ] who did not seek his destruction.”
1830:
3 Nephi 22:4
“…for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, [. . . . ] and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.”
1981:
“…for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.”
1830:
3 Nephi 16:10
“and thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you at that day, When the Gentiles shall sin against my Gospel, and shall subject the fulness of my Gospel, and shall be lifted up…”
1981:
“And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel,[. . . . ] and shall be lifted up…”
1830:
3 Nephi 10:4
“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen which are a descendant of Jacob; yea which are of the house of Israel; O ye people of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you…”
1981:
“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, [. . . . ] how oft have I gathered you…”
1830:
3 Nephi 3:23
“And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land of Zarahemla and the land Bountiful.”
1981:
land of Zarahemla and the land Bountiful.” “And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla [ . . . .] and the land Bountiful…”
1830:
Alma 46:40
“…because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared, to remove the cause of diseases which was subsequent to man by the nature of the climate.”
1981:
“…because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to removed the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate.”
1830:
Mosiah 21:28
changed in 1964 ed.
“…king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;…”
1981:
“…king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;…”
1830:
1 Nephi 20:1
changed in 1964 ed.
“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…”
1981:
“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…”
1830:
1 Nephi 19:20
“…for had not the Lord been merciful, to shew unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old; [. . . . ] for he surely…”
1981:
“…for had not the Lord been merciful, to show unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old, I should have perished also.”
1830:
1 Nephi 13:40
“…and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is [. . . . ] the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world…”
1981:
“…and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the World…”
1830:
1 Nephi 11:32
“…And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, [. . . . ] the Everlasting God, was judged of the world…”
1981:
“…And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world…”
1830:
1 Nephi 11:21
“And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the [. . . . ] Eternal Father!…”
1981:
“And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!…”
1830:
1 Nephi 11:18
“And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of [. . . . ] God, after the manner of the flesh
1981:
“And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.”
Some how I suspect this will be no problem for you and you will simply blow it off.
Yes Helen, I do have evidence that the entire LDS religion is false, including the BOM. You see, I have read God’s Holy Word and it tells me to test every spirit. I’m to test everything against the Bible and if it doesn’t line up, it’s to be rejected. NONE of Mormonism lines up with the Bible. In fact, it’s in direct contradiction to God’s Holy Word. Joseph Smith had to con people into believing that the Bible is not reliable so he could introduce his heretical claims. You are following a false god. The Bible clearly teaches Father, Son and Holy Ghost, one eternal God. You follow a god who was once just a man, lived on an earth just like you and went through the same trials as you. That is not Biblical and not at all what God says about himself! It’s a false god and for true Christians, we are to reject it. Jesus is demoted to being nothing but your spirit brother and the spirit brother of Satan, again, this is not what Jesus says about himself. Mormonism teaches another gospel and the Bible says that those who teach another gospel other than the one already given, they are accursed. You need not look anywhere other than God’s Holy Word to find the truth. Yet Mormons discredit the Bible. Making it less than fables given to you by men (which it says in the Bible will happen). Jesus warns us that there will be many false Christs (which Mormonism has) and many false prophets (over 200 different sects of Mormonism all with their own prophet claiming they are the only truth). I think I’ll trust the Lord over you or your men thanks.
Helen,
Honestly I am not going to answer your question any time soon, because you have dodged so many questions that I’m still waiting for replys.
Now onto the issue of the LDS bible.
If you see TV, or book or web ad’s for the LDS offering a BoM or even a Bible, they NEVER offer you a JST of the Bible. And when you speak with them and they quote from the Bible, you will notice they almost never quote from the JST of the Bible. I would really have to Ask and I guess I am going to ask, If JS really is a prophet of God, The lds is the True Church and God really did tell JS to translate the Bible, Why do the LDS not use it or pass it out?
I happen to own a copy of the JST of the Bible, and when you read in the preface of the JST of the Bible, it states, ( “Completion” Possibly not final).
But to be fair, JS did teach the German translation was more accurate, So why don’t the LDS use the German translation instead of the KJV?
Brigham Young said in J.O.D Volume 3 :116
That made us very anxious in the days of Joseph, to get the new translation: but the Bible is good enough just as it is, it will answer my purpose, and it used to answer it very well when I was preaching in the world.
and he goes onto say,
The Bible is good enough as it is, to point out the way we should walk, and to teach us how to come to the Lord of whom we can receive ourselves.
Another question would be, if the Bible is not Correct in what it teaches and cannot fully be trusted to the Point where JS needed to “Correct” or “Retranslate” The Bible, Why does Jesus and the apostles Quote from it? Granted only the Old Testement was around when they Quoted from it, But JS Did “Correct” Portions of the OT. So why did God wait almost 2,000 years for JS to be born to correct the error, when Jesus or the Disciples could have corrected it?
I have NEVER in my life meet one LDS missionary who has come to my house and Bring a JST with them and use only that in place of the “Corrupted” KJV. And the TV ads only offer the KJV, Not the JST. I spent two weeks in SLC taking the entire temple tour and walking the Streets talking to people, toured the book store, looked over the Books and Bibles and BoM laying around at tables throughout the temple area for people to pick up and read, and guess what? Not once did I ever see a JST of the Bible lying around.
About 2 years ago I purposely went through Official LDS books I own, Every time I came across a Scripture that an LDS prophet, President or even Just the average Joe Mormon when they quoted or used a scripture, I looked to see whether it was the “Corrupted” and untrustworthy KJV, Or whether it was the Corrected JST. Guess what? For almost every 10 scriptures I found, maybe one was the JST, The rest were KJV. Why?
Here is something I find funny. LDS claim we must perform “Works” To help in our salvation. I claim Grace alone not works, So in the book Evidences and Reconciliations, pg 353-354 we read
It is not really correct to say that the prophet translated the Bible. Rather, he corrected errors in the Bible, and under revelation added long statements.
So either the LDS author is correct and JS “corrected” the Bible, or the Author is wrong and he must have learned this from the LDS he sits under. Also as an LDS he is simply not able to just write a book and produce it with out first having it examined. Now I point this out for this reason, in the KJV of the Bible, we read in Romans 3:28
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Now we read in the JST in Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith ALONE without the deeds of the law.
We read in the JST of romans, only one word was added to that passage to supposedly correct it, the word ALONE. Houston, we have a problem. Either we are saved by grace alone, or we are saved by grace, AFTER ALL WE CAN DO. Yet God supposedly told JS to correct the Bible
Another problem we have is this, JS claims that the book of Malachi is “correct” yet the angel Moroni quotes it differently. Joseph Smith history 1:36-39. So is the Prophet correct, or the Angel who told JS about the golden plates correct?
We read in the D and C, God Supposedly told JS and Sidney Rigdon to complete the JST of the Bible. But we read in the Preface to the JST it is possibly not complete. LDS over on the Fairlds board will tell you it is not complete. Where are the LDS that feel it is not complete getting there information? We read in the 1993-94 Church Almanac pg 339 under July 2 The prophet Joseph Smith finished the translation of the Bible
Then in the 2003 Church Almanac 536 again under July 2, it states JS finished the New Testament.
But sadly, the Prophet and President Joseph F. Smith feels it was not finished.
The reason that it has not been published by the Church is due to the fact that this revision was not completed…due to persecution and mobbing this opportunity never came, so that the manuscript was left with only a partial version.
Then we read in the JST pg 11
Changes made at some points in the inspired version were not followed consistently…. Some passages were corrected, but the parallel references were not corrected….Mormon authors Sperry and Van Wagoner have pointed out that the Psalms are evidence of the incompleteness of the translation.
We read in Times and Seasons Vol VI pg 802 that the JST was completed.
Why is it if the JST is not really complete, have any of the so called “prophets of god” Corrected it. If it really is fully and truly corrected, why not fully use, promote and endorse it? If as these people and sources are correct, and the JST of the Bible is not complete, then God must be a failure, because not only did he commanded JS to finish the job, but this denies the teaching of 1 Nephi 3:7
7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.
Kind of strange, that the BoM claims God will not command you to do something unless He makes it possible for you to do it. But then Commands JS to COMPLETE the JST of the Bible, then allows JS to fail. Even Bruce M claims in the book Mormon Doctrine pg.383 claims the JST is not complete.
why is it JS simply copied some verses word for word and claimed he correct these verse, when in fact their is not a single change made? below are some examples.
KJV:
Exd 2:11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
JST:
Exd 2:11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
KJV:
Exd 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, [even] to Horeb.
JST:
Exd 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, [even] to Horeb.
KJV:
Lev 7:14 And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation [for] an heave offering unto the LORD, [and] it shall be the priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings.
JST:
Lev 7:14 And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation [for] an heave offering unto the LORD, [and] it shall be the priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings.
KJV:
Lev 7:32 And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest [for] an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings.
JST:
Lev 7:32 And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest [for] an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings.
I could go on with a ton more verses, But it even states in the JST on Page 11, Psalms 1-11 and 18-32 are exactly word for word as the KJV? How is this Correct or inspired as JS claims?
Then their are some verses in the JST where their is only one single letter added or on single word changed, and it still works out to saying the same exact thing. Examples are below. the word(s) in the JST that differ from the KJV will be put in ().
KJV:
Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
JST:
Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down (out of ) heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
KJV:
Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred [and] forty [and] four cubits, [according to] the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
JST:
Rev 21:17 And he measured the wall thereof, (a) hundred [and] forty [and] four cubits, [according to] the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
Notice in the verse 21:17 the word (AN) has the single letter (N) dropped. this really makes no change to the word. anyone simply could argue in favor of either version that the single letter added or removed is nothing more than a typo.
Here is another verse that I simply do not see how it could be “corrected” or “inspired”
KJV:
1Timothy 3:8 Likewise [must] the deacons [be] grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre.
1Timothy 3:8 Likewise the deacons must [be] grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre.
Notice that the only change between the verses are simply the movement of the word (MUST). How is this a correction? The JST is so full of stuff like this it is not even funny.
Then we read in KJV of the Book of Revelation 22:18-19
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Now my point on these verses is this, JS did not touch these verses, so he must have felt they were translated correctly, or God must have felt they were fine. Anyway, If these verses are correct to the point they were not changed in anyway, then this poses a problem, even if LDS feel these verses only apply to the Book of Revelation and no other book, then JS did make changes to the book of Revelation. So why would God put these verses in the Book, only to later have JS turn around and “correct” the Book.
If God is really all knowing, and if He is not the author of confusion, it would stand to reason, He would have foreseen the changes that needed to be made to the book of revelation, so why would God put these two verses in the book in the first place?
Then there are 9 books JS felt were correct and never changed, both in the Old and New testemants.
If we add to that, all the verses that were not changed, all the verses that were altered, but those mean nothing in the sence of, one single letter was added or removed like with the example of (A) verses (AN), then the more serious changes that were made are really so few, it would stand to reason that the majorty of the Bible is accurate. And seeing as how the LDS feel it is not Accurate, who is correct. The Bible or JS?
Here are a few Examples of what I mean by, some books have very few to almost no changes.
The Book of 2 Corinthians is 13 Chapters long, JS only changed 9 chapters. but out of those 9 chapters 6 of those Chapters only have 1-2 verses changed, and 2 more chapters have 3 verses changed.
Then in 1st Thessalonians is 5 Chapters. JS only changed 4 chapters, but 2 chapters only have 1 verse changed, 2 Chapters have 2 verses changed, and 1 Chapter has 3 verses changed.
The one page book of Philemon has only one verse changed. And the same with the book of Jude, only one verse changed. My point on this is simply this, These changes are major enough, that JS altered the Word of God, yet most Changes are minor enough that you really have to ask, how can you say, these are corrections?
Now here are some more questions.
Brigham Young said
In the Bible are the words of life and salvation . We are believers in the Bible…its precepts, doctrine, and prophecy…We take this book, the Bible…for our guide, for our rule of action; we take it as the foundation of our faith.
Discourses of BY, PG 124-125.
I think it is really confusing for BY to say what he did, Knowing that the Bible was “Corrected” by JS from a revelation of God.
Then again, BY on pg 126, goes onto say,
With us the Bible is the first book, then the book of mormon comes next.
Then many years later we read,
The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints accepts the Holy Bible as the foremost of her standerd works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and Doctrine. (A of F , Talmage p.236)
Now, According to A of F number 8, the Bible not translated correctly. If this is true, then can you tell me what part is NOT TRANSLATTED Corectly?
How do you come to the conclusion you did, if you even answerd the question?
Can you give me a list of ten inaccurate translations?
Can you list any errors that are now in the Bible? if so, how did you come to that conclusion?
If God really did tell JS to “correct error” in the Bible, why are you still using a corrput version?
According to D and C 124:89
89 If he will do my will let him from henceforth hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph, and with his interest support the cause of the poor, and publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth.
God says, the JST is His Holy Word. so why all the problems that are both found in the JST and the fact that BY and others (talmage), For one, seem to teach the Bible is Superior, why?
Now here are some things that the Bible teaches.
John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Hbr 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
If the Bible, Gods Holy Word, says this stuff about it, and it is incorrect, then first off, how can I trust anyone, if God allows His word to be corrputed? Then if it really is Gods word, and it is useful for correcting Error, and I cannot trust it, then how can I trust JS. If he really heard from God, to correct error, but had much error himself, both in the JST and the BoM, with the 4,000 plus changes, Who can I trust? Rick b
Now onto the issue of saying you a christian. NO YOUR NOT, According to Gal 1:8-9 you preach a different Gospel and are not a brother or Sister. Then Many Mods and fellow non-LDS Christians will if they choose back up what I’m about to say.
Over the years Many TBM have come here and openly admitted they have a different Gospel than what we teach and believe. They claim their gospel is the true and correct one and mine is wrong, but they have admitted we have different gospels. Now seeing as how you believe your a Christian, we have a problem since as I said Gal 1:8-9 say otherwise. Also I have posed this question before to LDS members and have had many LDS members go off on me and say, I could never do this because it would be lying and wrong for me to do it. But this is my question.
If I were to dress just like a Mormon Missionary, Carry my bible and knock on doors, claiming I was a member of the Latter day Saints, But preached My Gospel, Grace Alone, Bible only, The Trinity, One God Only not Many ETC. How would Mormons react to this?
Would you if you could, confront me and tell me I cannot do this? If not, then why not?
Also even though Kate addressed it, let me add more, You said the Burning in the Bosom is taught in the Bible. Luke 24:32 Sadly your believing what you want, If you go back and read the Verse, and the Bible as a whole, Jesus is only talking to, two people. No place, including that verse does it say, a burning in the Bosom is evidence something is true. Also you only have that one verse that your clearly reading into and verses a plenty that people prayed about something, not had a burning in the bosom.
Then you said, No where in the Bible does it say we can’t trust our heart.
Now, Again, Kate said it but I will add to it. The Bible is clear, Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Proverbs 28:26He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
You mean I should trust something that is wicked and deceitful? God says He that trusts his own heart is a fool, so you mean I should ignore what God said and trust you instead?
I mentioned LDS claiming RLDS and FLDS are not believers, You did not address that question, But before you do, let me add this, Again, Many people on this blog can attest to this, a few LDS have passed through this board and openly admitted RLDS nad FLDS are Not Mormons, Nor are they Christians.
If LDS are saying this, and you say otherwise, Your not agreeing with your fellow brothers, and your saying they are Mormons, Yet they clearly teach a different gospel than you believe. I will add more in another post so this is not to long.
Great posts Rick. I think that all the effort we are putting out there is going to be wasted on Helen. It’s really hard to reason with someone using the Bible, facts and logic when they are all wrapped up in their feelings.
Hello Kate,
If at any time you want to talk in private you can write me at [email protected]
I have no problems posting my email for everyone to write, I have nothing to hide and if someone writes me, I will talk. That aside, I dont view my posts as being wasted on Helen. She might go to her grave rejecting the evidence, and she will have to tell God, and not be able to side step issues with Him on judgment day as to why she rejected all the evidence.
But in my experience, Their is a slim chance that she might get saved. Sadly some people blow of Mormons as not being able to come to the truth, not saying this is you, But I know personally people like that. They figure if they speak to a Mormon once or twice, they reject the evidence then all hope is lost.
But it gives me hope from hearing stories about LDS people leaving a false religion after 20 plus years. Also all the people that either never post and just read, or people that might post benefit from everything we do and say. So I will continue to speak as long as LDS are here. I just hate how some situations are handled, But those issues are for private talks.
Respectfully Rick, I asked a different question then what you provided as a answer.
I pointe out the following:
“I did not know that whole verses were added or removed.”
Please show me whole verses that were added or removed. I not being picky since what you already provide is a well know correction of some sentence text and structure.
I’m not here to be contentious; but accuracy is everything to me, that is why I stated I love to come to different FORUM and make corrections. It makes a difference to any guest and visitors who might have expected to find that the Book of Mormon added sentences and took out sentences, when in fact only corrections to text and structure where pointed out by you.
Rick,
I see what you mean. I just get really frustrated at times because this sort of thing has pretty much been the norm for me in my personal life since I resigned. Thanks for reminding me that there are probably others lurking about that may benefit from our discussions. Hopefully you are right and something said here might get Helen questioning. I haven’t had too much experience with someone getting saved just yet, I’ve only been out for 6 months. Being a new Christian, I just want to shake everyone around me and tell them to wake up! Maybe not the best approach LOL!
Helen said, I pointe out the following:
“I did not know that whole verses were added or removed.”
Please show me whole verses that were added or removed. I not being picky since what you already provide is a well know correction of some sentence text and structure.
Give me a break. I said sentences and it was a word or two changed. Changes are changes regardless of it being a word or an entire sentience. Lets be honest here, Some of those changes were/are doctrinal and they go from saying that Jesus is the eternal father, (Trinity) to Jesus is now separate and no longer the tribune God, but now a separate God.
Then another change completely changes the name of the king, so we now go from King Benjamin to king Mosiah. Those are two different people. I knew you would find a way to simply dismiss this as none evidence.
Plus you say your church is aware of all this, yet the BoM does not include a single piece of evidence telling possible converts this info and neither do LDS while trying to share their version of things with them. So thats not being up front and fair with people.
You said but accuracy is everything to me
Really? Do you share all this info with people when telling them about the BoM? Or do you feel that it would confuse them and you dont want that, so you dont share accurate information with them.
Kate send me an email so I can send you some info I put together, If you dont want your email sent out to just anyone, let me know and I can pass the info onto the Mods and they can forward it onto you. I wont be offended at all. Rick
Helen,
Let me add, According to your Prophet JS, Not just some mere man but your prophet, He stuck his face in a hat and their should be no changes made according to how he did it. So why are their doctrinal changes and name changes like I pointed out? And why is it your church does not ever mention this in any foot note or preface in the BoM?
Thats not very loving to leave out all these changes and act like they never happened.
Interesting that you go happily after the peripheral and irrelevant issues mostly generated by others into talking points, yet time and time again fail to address the Keystone of our Religion and how you are going to convince new members, investigators and others that you Rick B. can be the one that brings down this Church and show the Keystone to be made of mortar and sand.
The sentences you hoped would fool guests were honestly only word changes, so what you did was tell everyone you had the evidence of whole sentences both added and taken out but in reality you had nothing of the kind. Twist is anyway you want and it still reveals how far you will take your agenda of misrepresenting facts and in doing so the respect of your peers.
Next time be more specific and tell us that you can produce verses that have word text changes, name changes, and context changes. The last thing I would ever call you is a liar since you really believe in trying to tell the truth, but you need to be at least a little more clear and subtle about posting material that plainly destroys criticisms worded and present incorrectly.
Kate, you stated the following: I’m to test everything against the Bible and if it doesn’t line up, it’s to be rejected.
Sorry but there was not a Bible when that verse was given, and what you’re trying to prove is nothing more then scripture stating that the Gospel of Christ, the Word of God and all scripture revealed by His prophets even unto now are to be tested. I see nothing in the doctrine of Mormonism that scream out loudly enough for you to make such a claim. The only problem you fail to recognize is that corrupt men have either eliminated scripture, changed the meaning, and thrown the Covenants and Ordinances under the buss, that is why Grace is misunderstood and truth be told the phrase “after all we can do, Christ will make up the rest”.
Additionally you also throw the doctrine of the Preexistence under the bus and deny that Christ is your brother and Lucifer was also family to Christ and us. You have succeeded in believing in a apostate doctrine with lots of truths but no authority or priesthood. Peter had the keys of the Kingdom and now I assume that you believe those keys are now M.I.A. Why give the Keys of the Kingdom and then just dismiss them?
Helen, I’m guessing here since I cannot speak for others.
But you avoid serious discussion, give vague replies, and when presented with evidence you simply blow it off as nothing and claim we cannot give proper response.
So until you choose to get serious and answer my questions I have addressed, stop replying with things like, yet time and time again fail to address the Keystone of our Religion
I will state for the record, I hope all other posters simply treat you as you treat them and ignore you and if you reply they simply dont. I will still talk with others and get info out, but as for you, take this how ever you want, but I figure their is not point going on, your not serious, why should I bother. Rick
Helen,
Let me add one last thing.
You said So lets try again, you ask the question and I will do my best to answer.
I have asked over and over even after I stated a case as to why you should be asked to leave and asked why your here? What do you contribute and why you should stay. Sadly since you said So lets try again, you ask the question and I will do my best to answer.
Not one thing has changed with you. You know I have a word for that, Sadly I cannot say what I think or I will get in trouble, Yet you can continue to act as you do and be what I think you are and nothing is done. So I guess I am done with you because you refuse to change and nothing will change.
Helen,
All you are doing is spewing out stuff that you have learned at church. I was taught those same things. Seriously, the doctrine of the preexistence? That comes from the Book of Abraham and if you had done your research on that, you would know that those Egyptian scrolls were nothing but ordinary funeral scrolls. Those scrolls are in the hands of the LDS church and unlike the golden plates, they are real and have been seen and translated by Egyptologists. They have been debunked. The RLDS church denounced them as a story of Joseph Smith’s imagination in the 1960’s and your church should have done the same. I can’t help but smile as you tell me I belong to an apostate church (True Christianity). I could easily say the same to you. Why do you think the FLDS broke away from the mainstream church? May I suggest that you read D&C 132. It’s still in your Mormon scriptures. The FLDS are living the pure form of Mormonism. Why? Because Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said that is how a man gets to the CK and becomes a god. You my friend, belong to an apostate church.
You said: Kate, you stated the following: I’m to test everything against the Bible and if it doesn’t line up, it’s to be rejected.
Sorry but there was not a Bible when that verse was given.
Sorry, but God and the apostles did not have to have their words written down for them to be scripture. What I find so horrible with you is that you discredit the Bible at every turn in favor of the fables given to you by men.
2 Timothy 4:3-4
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
There is no proof of the BOM. NONE. No archeological, DNA or linguistic evidence. Let’s go to Zerahemla for lunch. We could easily go to Bethlehem for lunch.
You said: “The only problem you fail to recognize is that corrupt men have either eliminated scripture, changed the meaning, and thrown the Covenants and Ordinances under the buss, that is why Grace is misunderstood and truth be told the phrase “after all we can do, Christ will make up the rest.”
No Helen, I didn’t fail to recognize this. This is exactly what led me to the saving Grace of Jesus. The men that I had been following for 40 years were corrupt and had not only eliminated scripture but added to it, they changed the meaning of God’s Holy Word and have thrown The True and Living Christ under the bus. Grace is so misunderstood by them and all who follow them, and the “after all we can do” is one of those things added that completely takes away from all Jesus did for us on the Cross.
I agree with Rick, you aren’t here to have a serious discussion. I don’t need those same untruths spewed at me that I learned in my Mormon meeting house. If you would seriously like to discuss a subject, please let me know, otherwise I will be ignoring your comments.
Kate said Let’s go to Zerahemla for lunch. We could easily go to Bethlehem for lunch.
The Funny thing about this is, This November Me and My wife are going to Israel for almost 3 weeks, I will be talking pictures of the place and eating the food. I dont know of any LDS members who will be going on a trip to Zerahemla any time soon.
Also Kate as you know, The BoM claims their was a battle where two million plus people died, It is believed that took place in now what is know as New York. Sadly the lack of evidence of two million plus people dying does not exist, you would think, gee, 2 million people, maybe I could find a sword, or shield, or even a coin. Nope not even a single little coin.
It is so bad, LDS are thinking it really took place some place else. That help proves the BoM to be false. Yet thats not really a problem for our friend Helen. She simply believes what her church tells her to believe.
Rick,
I know about the battle and the hill comorah. I wonder if Helen knows that Mormon apologists are now saying that there was a second hill comorah or even a third, and that is where the battle happened. The lies never cease. In my mind, if things have to be changed over and over to try and make it true, it’ s probably a lie. I just came back from Italy and I toured some pretty old Roman ruins. There is so much that still remains. You would think that civilizations of up to 2 million people would have left some sort of ruins, foundations, coins, weapons, pots ANYTHING at all. I don’t understand why the LDS church doesn’t just excavate the area in New York, after all, they own it. I understand that they have done a little excavation but have found absolutely nothing.
One thing that I find amusing with the LDS is that when testifying of the truthfulness of the BOM, they always say there were 3 witnesses who saw the plates, what they don’t say or may not even know is that all of those witnesses later recanted and said they lied. Weren’t one or two of them excommunicated as well? Gee some witnesses. They said they saw the plates and then later said they saw them with their “mind’s eye”! So much for the keystone of the religion huh?
That is awesome that you two are going to Israel! That would be such an amazing place to see. Maybe one day I will be going there myself!
CFR, the witness lied?
Rick B. claimed that he could provide us with FULL SENTENCES taken out of the BOM or added to it.
I challenged and Rick only provided word changes. Is this a small issue apparently to Rick B.; we are suppose to just go along with anything he chooses to state and not question or correct? Sorry but I pointed out already that my mission is to be sure context is stated correctly or one should at least admit they submitted the wrong assumption.
Both Kate and Rick B. state I’m not here for a serious debate, yet when I correct them I am disregarded as only spewing untruths.
Kate, I respect the fact you have found a better Religion at least for you. Good luck and hopefully your continued investigation of Orthodoxy Christianity will complete you.
Kate I stand by my claim, that the word of God needs to be tested, the difference is that christians say God ended His word with the Bible. LDS says that God is in charge and if revelation to His prophets mean more scripture, then those ought to be tested also. I think the test you are talking about means test everything, BIBLE ,to what God told the Jews, and we are stating that God told His disciples that other sheep I have and I go to them now:
King James Bible
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.
In 3 Nephi 15:21-24, the Savior tells his Nephite disciples that they are the “other sheep” of which he spoke in Jerusalem.
Kate states: ” If you would seriously like to discuss a subject, please let me know, otherwise I will be ignoring your comments.
Ignoring is the same as running from a frank discussion, one that is honest. If correcting people such as Rick B. means that this is end of discussion, I agree there cannot be a open discourse since one side quit.
Helen said
Rick B. claimed that he could provide us with FULL SENTENCES taken out of the BOM or added to it.
You said, I said FULL SENTENCES, But in fact this is what I said.
Your quick to point out how you feel there are problems with the Bible, But I suspect you never mentioned that their were doctrinal changes to the BoM, or that it has been revised, and edited at least 4 times maybe more, and how verses are added or removed with no foot notes ever mentioning that.
I said verses were add or removed, Thats different than full sentences. This tells me you dont really read what I wrote, then you also never answered the question about why their were these doctrinal changes and repeated editing.
Helen said I challenged and Rick only provided word changes.
You challenged me on an issue you claimed I said, when I showed you what I really said, and I proved with quotes those changes and you blew them off.
Helen said Sorry but I pointed out already that my mission is to be sure context is stated correctly or one should at least admit they submitted the wrong assumption.
Prior to revising your position you said So lets try again, you ask the question and I will do my best to answer.
And I can add more quotes if you like showing you claiming you will answer, then you say, I am not informed well enough to reply. I also can recap the questions I asked that you either ignored or did not “Correct me” me on if you wish. I wont bother now as it would do no good. So no Helen, no one is buying your smoke and mirrors act.
Helen said Both Kate and Rick B. state I’m not here for a serious debate, yet when I correct them I am disregarded as only spewing untruths.
As I pointed out, I’m waiting for “Correction” On many issues. Need I recap them as I stated already?
Helen said Ignoring is the same as running from a frank discussion, one that is honest. If correcting people such as Rick B. means that this is end of discussion,
Their are other people on this board That I know agree that you avoid answering, I would appreciate if they would verify this, Yet in some ways I suspect they wont because honestly Helen I think you would simply say they are siding with me just to make you look bad. Your the one that is running, I for the 3rd time can prove this by recapping everything you dodged, then asking you to provided quotes of your answers. That we both know dont exist, so you could not do it.
I will ask for quotes of said corrections by you, please provide them, where did you “correct me”?
Helen,
No, the test I am talking about is everything Christian. Christianity has been around for nearly 2 thousand years and from the beginning there are those who have come against it. Mormonism claims that it is true Christianity and all Christians for 2 thousand years are wrong. Those claims are to be tested against God’s Holy Word and if found lacking, rejected. It is up to Mormonism to prove it’s doctrines not the other way around.
Where’s the new continuing scripture? Almost all scripture spoken by Brigham Young and other Mormon prophets are put into the “doesn’t count file” by the LDS, why? Because it is all false doctrine and false information and an embarrassment to modern day LDS leaders and followers. LDS can’t even determine what their true scripture is. Where is the scripture from pres. Hinkley? pres. Monson? Where? Did your god stop talking to his prophets? There hasn’t been anything added to the D&C since 1978. How long was it before that? You see Helen, true Christians don’t live by prophets, why? Because in the beginning God gave us his prophets and in the latter days he gave us his Son. True Christians live by the Son. That is how it is supposed to be. Why would I ever follow a man claiming he is a prophet when I have something so much better (Jesus) ??? I have asked you so many questions Helen, and you have ignored them all. I’m done with this thread and moving on to the next one. May God soften your heart to his Holy Word and open your eyes to the True and Living Christ, the traditional Christ of the Bible that your own pres. Hinkley said he didn’t believe in.
Kate, I will give you the last word, so good-bye and hope you find some good conversation with Rick B. and others. I don’t see any other LDS here, guess they got tired a left. 🙂
Helen,
One last word from me.
It’s just as I said, I showed you what I said and I was honest and provide the information I said I would and could. I said that no amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you and you could not back up your statements. Now since you cannot you are leaving.
It seems even though some Christians tolerate how you spin the truth for lack of a better term, it seems my calling you out and asking for evidence exposed you for the (You know the word) you really are. Good bye
I don’t think playing with semantics on this is at all helpful. Rick produced a lengthy list of changes that have been made to the Book of Mormon. Whether the verses were taken out, rewritten, and stuck back in in their new form, or whether they were edited in place, the fact remains that the text was heavily altered. This focus on “complete verses” (etc) looks a lot like a red herring to me.
I apologized to anyone if they felt I was only trying to divert attention away from Rick B. claim
“their were doctrinal changes to the BoM, or that it has been revised, and edited at least 4 times maybe more, and how verses are added or removed with no foot notes ever mentioning that.”
Respectfully I was only pointing out the following, That the historical record shows that these changes were made to clarify the meaning of the text, not to alter it. I would be the fist to seriously consider my membership in the LDS Church if proven that these changes in any way altered significantly a single verse, knowing that major doctrinal changes where taking place. None of the verses Rick B. posted show to any degree at all Doctrinal changes.
Sharon Lindbloom, I thank you for your added comments and will be more specific when corrupting what I perceived as a error and carelessly corrected in what played out as word semantics. Exaggeration makes matters worse, and I can see that exaggerations played a part in making light of Rick B. maybe poorly written criticism, I’m sure that he meant words were added or removed which he felt changed our doctrine. I guess that could be debated and maybe Rick could be more clear on exactly what doctrinal changes were made.
Sincerely, Helen and Louis.
LOL at my self, after reading my own post I see I meant to say Correcting myself instead of corrupting myself. I should re-read my post for editing purposes, embarrassed. Sorry for the spelling and text errors.
Helen said None of the verses Rick B. posted show to any degree at all Doctrinal changes.
You are so lucky the Mods wont let me speak my mind and they put up with your crap. You know I have a word for you and would love to say it. I did point out and even sated these are doctrinal changes.
I gave these verses,
1830:
1 Nephi 11:32
“…And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, [. . . . ] the Everlasting God, was judged of the world…”
1981:
“…And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world…”
1830:
1 Nephi 11:21
“And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the [. . . . ] Eternal Father!…”
1981:
“And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!…”
1830:
1 Nephi 11:18
“And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of [. . . . ] God, after the manner of the flesh
1981:
“And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.”
These changes go from showing One God and Jesus is the eternal God in the Form of the trinity unto making Him a God in the goodhead and this changes it greatly.
Then we take Mother of God unto the Mother of the Son of God. These are doctrinal changes, and I know you really dont want to believe that, so you will not take it seriously and simply blow it off.
Helen,
Years ago when I first started sharing with Mormons about how you have a false gospel, one thing I would mention is changes made to the BoM.
Every Mormon I spoke with always said, their is not a single change. This was at best 15 years ago. Computers were not openly available to all like they are now. So with all the LDS telling me their were no changes made ever, this tells me your church did not teach or were not openly sharing they did exist.
Once I was able to start showing LDS they existed, they simply did as you, say stuff like, They are minor punctuation and grammar changes. What I showed are not minor grammar and punctuation changes.
Also the Founder of MRM, Bill Mc, once told me over the phone, he owns the original 1830 BoM. Must be nice. Anyway, he told me that many times he has offered to show MM’s the changes in it compared the the BoM they have. All of them refuse to look.
I have also heard testimony of ex-LDS who left the church, they left for many reasons, but one reason is, The Doctrinal changes in the BoM. You might blow them off as not serious, but many LDS did not.
According to some LDS, as I have stated before, JS translated the golden plates by sticking his head in a hat. If this is true, and some LDS believe it, then the changes I showed showed have never happened.
This Is Really How He Came Up With His Book Of Mormon ! By Putting His Head In His Hat ! And Using His Seer Stone. The same one he used for treasure digging .
Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, Jul 1993, 61
Adapted from an address given 25 June 1992 at a seminar for new mission presidents, Missionary Training Center, Provo, Utah.
“The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:
“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 on that appeared the writing. One character at a time 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.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)”
This is just a small transcript from the John Dehlin Interview with Richard Lyman Bushman about Joseph Smith Dictating or Reading from his peepstone with his head in his hat.
The LDS church is knowingly misleading members and investigators as it has done from its very inception .
John Dehlin so that’s , you know most people would be just stunned to know that there’s no real evidence that the plates were used materially in the translation and that the Urim and Thumin meaning the crystals in the breastplate weren’t used either . That’s real different from the accounts that we kind of grew up with in Primary and Sunday school and seminary .
Richard Bushman Yea well that’s the account that’s in the historical records though so we just have to live with it .
John Dehlin so we have to live with it ……erm and you know this really does bring up the question or two questions err one is Isn’t it completely dishonest or disingenuous to ever use the word translate or translation . Aren’t those just the wrong words first of all and then I’ll ask you the second question later so lets start there , why do we even call it a translation .
Richard Bushman Well Nibley’s discoursed on that subject , what does it mean to translate or carry over from one , one culture or one time to another err you know errr use the word translated to talk about bodies being resurrected or carried about one way or another . So I don’t think you could call it dishonest it certainly has misled us into thinking that you know I used to speculate that Joseph Smith learned Reformed Egyptian pearing at those plates and coming up with the words and that of course is besides the point as you see it this way, erm so maybe we do need to have another word, I think we certainly need to make clear to our children as we teach them or whoever that we refer to a translation is carrying a message from one culture into the language of another not necessarily using a dictionary so you do have to generalise or change the meaning of the translation from ordinary usage .
John Dehlin Ok err and do you think we need to change the art and the pictures and the graphics in the motion pictures that we are using to depict the process , do you think its disingenuous to continue having the curtain and using some type of spectacles and showing Joseph staring at the plates thinking earnestly and then you know dictating , Do you think that that’s something we need to change maybe ?
Richard Bushman Yea I definitely think we need to change it . Its not because erm you know it’s a horrible mistake you know because the guys who do those pictures are not trying to deceive anyone that’s what they think actually happened .It’s just a matter of accuracy and the problem is if that if you’re not accurate then you down the line you put your own erm credibility in jeopardy and I don’t , I just want to think all of our young people should think that they’re really getting the straight story on Joseph Smith or they’re going to go through the experience you’ve had , disillusionment , anger ,it’s a very sad thing and it’s unnecessary , so we do need to avoid that .
How does Rick B. explain the original and printer copies.
1 Nephi 11:18
behold the virgin which thou seest is the Mother of god after the manner of the flesh
behold the virgin which thou seest is the Mother of God after the manner of the flesh
1 Nephi 11:21 & the angel said unto me behold the lam of god yea even the eternal father knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw
& the Angel said unto me behold the Lamb of God yea even the Father knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw
1 Nephi 13:40
The printers copy. Which you did not list.
& the Angel spake unto me saying these last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles shall establish the truth of the first which is of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb & shall make known the plain & precious things which have been taken away from them & shall make known unto all Kindreds Tongues & People that the Lamb of God is the eternal Father & the saviour of the world & that all men must Come unto him or they cannot be saved
Disregard the above since it did not paste correctly. Here is the Original and Printers Manuscript.
1 Nephi 11:18
Original: behold the virgin which thou seest is the Mother of god after the manner of the flesh
Printers Manuscript: behold the virgin which thou seest is the Mother of God after the manner of the flesh
1 Nephi 11:21
Original: & the angel said unto me behold the lam of god yea even the eternal father knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw
Printers Manuscript: & the Angel said unto me behold the Lamb of God yea even the Father knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw
1 Nephi 13:40
Printers Manuscript: & the Angel spake unto me saying these last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles shall establish the truth of the first which is of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb & shall make known the plain & precious things which have been taken away from them & shall make known unto all Kindreds Tongues & People that the Lamb of God is the eternal Father & the saviour of the world & that all men must Come unto him or they cannot be saved
Both show that Joseph Smith new exactly who the Son of God was. Rick B. claims they were altered, these verses clarified and were necessary insertions, not doctrinal changes.
Again the old argument is why the changes if it came directly from revelation? Joseph Smith being the only translator would have last say and he felt that comparing it back to the original printers manuscripts brought the clarity back to the original.
The addition of “the Son of” to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon’s teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel. This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts. For example:
“And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself…as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up…and to be crucified…and to be buried in a sepulchre….” (1 Nephi 19:10)
“…he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth.” (Mosiah 7:27)
It still did not paste correctly. Here it is again:
Printers.
behold the virgin which (Whom) thou seest is the Mother of (the son of) God after the manner of the flesh.
Printers. & the Angel said unto me behold the Lamb of God yea even the (God) Father knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw
Printers. & the Angel spake unto me saying these last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles shall establish the truth of the first which is (which are) of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb & shall make known the plain & precious things which have been taken away from them & shall make known unto all Kindreds Tongues & People that the Lamb of God is the (the son of) eternal Father & the saviour of the world & that all men must Come unto him or they cannot be saved
Potential confusion or clarity to the benefit of us pedestrians like me? Rick B. assumes JS originally believed in the Trinitarian Christian belief handed down through the Creeds which Christians claim are directly revealed by scripture in the Bible. Though God the Father and Christ are distinct beings, Christ as a member of the perfectly united Godhead can bear the title of “God” as well as “Eternal Father.” Nothing in the post by Rick B. alludes to anything other then that one should commit to further studying the BOM before submitting to general criticisms. I claim that every printed version of the BOM makes it clear in multiple places that Christ and God are distinct beings.
2 Nephi 25
2 Nephi 31
All one has to do is read the above to see that Rick B. argument is without foundation.
The Original Manuscript and the present Book of Mormon speak of the Messiah as the Son of God, for verse 24 of 1 Nephi 11 reads: “And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.”
Neo Platonic doctrine of the Trinity was obviously added to the orthodox Christian Doctrine and Rick needs to think about what is the real truth, before he commits to condemning another. Christian doctrine studied by biblical scholars show that classical philosophies of Greek and Roman have obviously crept in and corrupted the true, true teaching of the Nature of God.
Helen said:
How does Rick B. explain the original and printer copies.
First off, you showed zero evidence that it was printers that screwed it up. Where did you get this so called evidence.
Second of all, How come JS simply allowed the BoM to be printed with these mistakes. You mean no one proof read it first, they simply allowed these problems?
Third, I own the 1920 edition BoM and the newest ones from the 80’s and above. No mention of these “Errors” being corrected. Why is that?
If the original 1830 Book of Mormon was inspired than why were there so many errors and changes and additions and deletions, when compared to current editions?
And are they “printers errors” Yes their are changes and no foot notes in just about every edition of the BoM, not just the 1830 edition.
Why is about 1/8th of the B of M copied directly from the KJV (1611AD) when it was alleged to have been written some 1200-2000 years before the KJV existed?
Joseph Smith deleted the italicized words in the KJV because he knew they were not in the original. “Then said I, Woe is me! For I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips” Isa 6:5, The words “is & am” are deleted in the Book of Mormon.
How can we be assured that the translation of the B of M into French is correct?
Joseph smith as I already pointed out said, The German Bible is the most accurate, so why are LDS not using German?
Mormon Article of Faith #8: “We Believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” Why do you only add the phrase, “as far as it is translated correctly” to describe the Bible and not after the book of Mormon when in fact there are far more translating errors in the Book of Mormon than the Bible?
Why is? How can we be sure? First off? none of those addressed the issue I brought up, WHY?
2 Nephi 25
2 Nephi 31
All one has to do is read the above to see that Rick B. argument is without foundation.
The Original Manuscript and the present Book of Mormon speak of the Messiah as the Son of God, for verse 24 of 1 Nephi 11 reads: “And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.”
Please get back to me.
Rick B. rebuttal was:
First off, you showed zero evidence that it was printers that screwed it up. Where did you get this so called evidence.
Second of all, How come JS simply allowed the BoM to be printed with these mistakes. You mean no one proof read it first, they simply allowed these problems?
Never said the printer screwed it up. If you would study the History of the Printing and the printers own words that would never have been brought up by you.
1840 Nauvoo Edition
By 1840, more Book of Mormons were needed. Preliminary to a new edition, Joseph Smith
compared the 1837 version with the original manuscript and discovered a number of errors made by
Oliver Cowdery when making the printer’s copy. Joseph corrected these errors in the 1840 edition.
2,000 copies were printed by Shepard and Stearns, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
As good as the Printer’s Manuscript is, the Original Manuscript is even better. Of the thirty-seven differences in transcription noted so far, seventeen show that the reading in the Printer’s Manuscript became more awkward or grammatically improper or unusual. In only seven cases was the Original Manuscript harder to understand, due for example to atypical spellings or awkward grammar
Martin Harris, Hyrum Smith and Oliver Cowdery, were very frequent visitors to the office during the printing of the Mormon Bible [Book of Mormon]. The manuscript was supposed to be in the handwriting of [Oliver] Cowdery. Every chapter, if I remember correctly, was one solid paragraph, without a punctuation mark, from beginning to end.
Names of persons and places were generally capitalized, but sentences had no end. The character or short “&” was used almost invariably where the word “and” occurred, except at the end of a chapter. I punctuated it to make it read as I supposed the author intended, and but very little punctuation was altered in proofreading. The Bible [Book of Mormon] was printed sixteen pages at a time, so that one sheet of paper made two copies of sixteen pages each, requiring 2,000 sheets of paper for each form of sixteen pages. There were thirty-seven forms of sixteen pages each–570 pages in all. Recollections of John H. Gilbert [by himself]
Rick B. a printers manuscript is what was submitted to the Printer, not something the Printer would create.
Helen/Louis 🙂
Helen,
First off, the BoM was supposedly written from “reformed Egyptian. Seeing as how that does not exist, never has and no Mormon or any human period has proved that language exists, then that proves the BoM is fake. You can claim all you want that I dont have a clue about what I’m talking about. But as usual you still avoid many questions, that proves you dont want the truth and dont care what I say. Then you claim I am being nit picky by saying you could not tell me where you got your information from, how do I know you simply did not make it up?
Now even if you tell me it came from Mormon sources, let me provide you with Mormon sources that back up what I have been saying. I told you that about 15 years ago, LDS were claiming no changes ever were made, well thats because your church taught that.
It is very interesting to note that the Mormon Historian Joseph Fielding Smith has claimed that there is no truth in the statement that there have been thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon. He was reported as saying the following at the fall conference of 1961:
Read:
During the past week or two I have received a number of letters from different parts of the United States written by people, some of whom at least are a little concerned because they have been approached by enemies of the Church and enemies of the Book of Mormon, who have made the statement that there have been one or two or more thousand changes in the Book of Mormon since the first edition was published. Well, of course, there is no truth in that statement.
It is true that when the Book of Mormon was printed the printer was a man who was unfriendly. The publication of the book was done under adverse circumstances, and there were a few errors, mostly typographical — conditions that arise in most any book that is being published — but there was not one thing in the Book of Mormon or in the second edition or any other edition since that in any way contradicts the first edition, and such changes as were made were made by the Prophet Joseph Smith because under those adverse conditions the Book of Mormon was published. But there was no change of doctrine.
Now, these Sons of Belial who circulate these reports evidently know better. I will not use the word that is in my mind.” (The Improvement Era, December, 1961, pp. 924-925)
Everyone knows and can prove there have been thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Fielding Smith is the one who is not telling the truth. As to his statement that the man who printed the first edition was unfriendly and allowed errors to creep into the book, the famous Mormon Historian B. H. Roberts has already stated that the first edition of the Book of Mormon was “singularly free from typographical errors” and that the printer could not be blamed for the many mistakes that are found in the Book of Mormon:
That errors of grammar and faults in dictation do exist in the Book of Mormon (and more especially and abundantly in the first edition) must be conceded; and what is more, while some of the errors may be referred to inefficient proof-reading, such as is to be expected in a country printing establishment, yet such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the Book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the ‘typos’ or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character; they are of the web and woof of the style, and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition of the Book of Mormon is SINGULARLY FREE FROM TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS.” (Defense of the Faith, by B. H. Roberts, pp. 280-281; reprinted in A New Witness For Christ in America, by Francis W. Kirkham, Vol. 1, pp. 200-201)
In a footnote on page 295 of the same book Mr. Roberts stated:
But after due allowance is made for all these conditions, the errors are so numerous, and of such a constitutional nature, that they cannot be explained away by these unfavorable conditions under which the work was published.
John H. Gilbert, the man who helped to print the Book of Mormon, claimed that the Mormons did not want him to correct the grammatical errors which were in the manuscript:
When the printer was ready to commence work, Harris was notified, and Hyrum Smith brought the first installment of manuscript … On the second day — Harris and Smith being in the office — I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said: ‘The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written.’ … .
Cowdery held and looked over the manuscript when most of the proofs were read. Martin Harris once or twice, and Hyrum Smith once, Grandin supposing these men could read their own writing as well, if not better, than any one else; and if there are any discrepancies between the Palmyra edition and the manuscript these men should be held responsible.” (Memorandum, made by John H. Gilbert, Esq., September 8, 1892, Palmyra, N.Y., printed in Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, Introduction)
A photograph of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon which is published in the book, A New Witness For Christ In America, Vol. 1, page 216, proves that the printer was not responsible for the grammatical errors which appeared in the first edition A second handwritten manuscript known as the printer’s manuscript also confirms this. (See photo at the end of the introduction.) Photos of the printer’s manuscript can be seen at the University of Utah Library Special Collections. George Reynolds quotes the following from an interview with John H. Gilbert:
Hyrum Smith always brought the manuscript to the office; he would have it under his coat and all buttoned up as carefully as though it was so much gold. He said at the time that it was translated from plates by the power of God, and they were very particular about it. We had a great deal of trouble with it. It was not punctuated at all. They did not know anything about punctuation, and we had to do that ourselves.’
“‘Well; did you change any part of it when you were setting the type?’
“‘No, Sir; we never changed it at all.’
“‘Why did you not change it and correct it?’
“‘Because they would not allow us to; they were very particular about that. We never changed it in the least. Oh, well; there might have been one or two words that I changed the spelling of; I believe I did change the spelling of one, and perhaps two, but no more.’
“‘Did you set all the type, or did some one help you?’
“‘I did the whole of it myself, and helped to read the proof, too; there was no one who worked at that but myself. Did you ever see one of the first copies? I have one here that was never bound. Mr.Grandin, the printer, gave it to me. If you ever saw a Book of Mormon you will see that they changed it afterwards.’
“‘They did! Well, let us see your copy; that is a good point. How is it changed now?’
“‘I will show you (bringing out his copy). Here on the title page it says (reading) “Joseph Smith, Jr. author and proprietor.” Afterwards, in getting out other editions they left that out, and only claimed that Joseph Smith translated it.’
“‘Well, did they claim anything else than that he was the translator when they brought the manuscript to you?’
“‘Oh, no; they claimed that he was translating by means of some instruments he got at the same time he did the plates, and that the Lord helped him.'” (The Myth of the Manuscript Found, 1883 edition, page 59)
According to Joseph Smith’s testimony there should not have been any reason to make changes in the Book of Mormon. He stated that when he and the witnesses went out to pray concerning it, a voice spoke from heaven telling them that the translation of the Book of Mormon was correct:
we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, ‘These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.'” (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55)
I’m having difficulty in communicating my points apparently Rick.
Facts:
1). Thousands of Corrections were made to the BOM.
2). Printer never was accused of making any or the mistakes.
3). Errors have been know about the BOM way before 15 years ago.
(JS himself made corrections in the mid 1800’s , a known fact.)
4). Chiasm is found through out the BOM, not a easy feat for an uneducated JS.
5). JS is still responsible for changes of clarity, nothing doctrinal ever proven.
( but there was not one thing in the Book of Mormon or in the second edition or any other edition since that in any way contradicts the first edition, and such changes as were made were made by the Prophet Joseph Smith because under those adverse conditions the Book of Mormon was published. But there was no change of doctrine. Joseph Fielding Smith. )
B. H. Roberts claimed that since God did not give the English found in the Book of Mormon, the Church leaders had a right to make changes in it:
“Many errors, verbal and grammatical, have already been eliminated in the later English editions, and there is no valid reason why every-one of those that remain should not be eliminated … There is no good reason why we should not have just as good a Book of Mormon in the English language as they now have in the French, the German, the Swedish and the Danish … for in these translations, it has not been thought necessary to perpetuate the English errors; nor do I believe it necessary to perpetuate them in our English editions … the present writer hopes that he will live to see those verbal and grammatical changes authorized.” (Defense of the Faith, Vol. 1, pages 300 and 301)
Rick B. seems you have intentionally veered of course bringing up all sorts of peripheral points, but you still did not address the larger point, Doctrinal Changes.
2 Nephi 25
2 Nephi 31
All one has to do is read the above to see that Rick B. argument is without foundation.
The Original Manuscript and the present Book of Mormon speak of the Messiah as the Son of God, for verse 24 of 1 Nephi 11 reads: “And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.”
We all agree that minor and trivial changes, punctuation, typographical errors and grammar were made for better clarity. A member for some 50 plus years and one who is religious about correcting faulty assumptions and criticisms by Christians and critics have left me with a firm conviction nothing
yet shows a real change in doctrine or anything that would cast doubt on the origins of the Book of Mormon.
Would love for you to address doctrinal changes that you claim prove the BOM false!
Helen 🙂
Helen,
As usual you have and continue to avoid many, many questions I have asked. The biggest one being, you asked for evidence proving the BoM is false.
I showed changes and you deny them, I gave quotes WITH proof of who said them, you gave “quote” with out proof of who said them. Then I said for all I know they were made up by you, you did not like that, but still gave no evidence of who said them.
Then my quotes were from Mormon sources, even if yours are and you prove it, all that shows is your leaders cannot agree on the truth.
All these issues aside, lets get back to the issue of is the BoM true or not. You asked for evidence showing it is fake, I gave it and you never even tried to answer it, you focus on verse instead.
My evidence is this. REFORMED EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE. This simply does not exist, never has and not one single LDS person no matter how high up the ranks they are has ever given any evidence of. Not even a single human ever has come forward with evidence.
So when you can show solid evidence this language exists, then you have a basis to prove the BoM exists. Until you or anyone can prove this exists, you are in serious trouble, because if this language does not exist, then that means the BoM was never written from this language and was nothing more than mere fiction.
So even the verse that you defend are nothing more than a fictional story and were debating fake verse that are nothing more than made up tripe. Once you answer this question then we will talk.
Talk? I don’t think you really came here to seriously discuss the Book of Mormon.
I asked for Doctrinal Changes and you’re still out in left field somewhere bringing
up something about reformed egyptian. I have tried hard to stay on topic, meaning our discussion of is or is not the BOM our Keystone and if not who is going to show otherwise its false or fiction? Then you state that JS believed and taught the Trinity as found in the Orthodox Christian Faith even pointing out that the original printing of the BOM proved your point. I stated that JS made changes by adding or deleting, WORDS not verses, which made clear certain ambiguous meanings. To prove my point I posted some BOM
chapters for you to read, you ignored them twice, no comment so I suppose you are either confused or still studying them. Lets agree to just disagree and close this topic, apparently
we just don’t seem to be on the same page, I’m sure it must be me, so I apologize.
Helen said
Your only trying to stay on the topic you want to stay on, while still avoiding questions.
Helen said
First off, stop with this act of false humility by saying it must be your fault. Be honest, it is your fault.
Then you said I ignored you twice.
Ok, lets recap here one last time. I asked you from the start a good dozen questions, You ignored all but one, maybe two. And I repeatedly asked for you to reply, yet you never did. So I told you, until you answer my questions, I will not reply to yours. So I was not ignoring them.
Then your main question you focused on was, You wanted me to prove the BoM false. I provided much in the way of what I see as evidence, yet clearly stated you most likely would reject anything I say, and you did. some evidence you did not make any attempt to even reply to.
Then I stated the Issue of Reformed Egyptian language not existing is evidence, You ignored that. Then I said, the Changes in the BoM are evidence. You highly focused upon that, yet you acted as if it was no big deal.
I then asked question about why the changes were never foot noted in the BoM, you ignored that question. You gave what you thought was evidence saying the changes were no big deal, yet you gave no evidence of who said this stuff or where it came from. Then when I pointed that out, saying, How do I know you simply did not make it up, you complained.
I then gave quotes with where they came from and who said them, showing your church claimed no changes were ever made, or if they were they were very minor. You blew them off, demanding I stay on topic. I was staying on topic. You wanted evidence that the BoM was fake, so I brought it back to the major question that you ignored. If the Golden Plates were written in Reformed Egyptian language as Your Prophet JS claimed, then if that Language does not exist, neither does the BoM. But you did not like that, so you went on a rant about how I am clueless.
If you want to insist I am wrong, then go back and show me evidence I got it wrong and we will talk, other wise this is my last post to you on this since t=your the one who does not care to be honest in debate. People can easly go back and read everything I wrote and verify for themselves. Rick B
I would just like to say that once again this argument is backwards. It is not up to Christians to prove the BoM is false and it is not up to Christians to prove anything in Mormonism is false. It is up to Mormonism to prove it’s doctrines and beliefs are true. Which no Mormon can or will ever do. There is no archeological evidence for the BoM. None. The land (hill comorah in New York State) that Mormons have been taught and believed is where the big battle accurred, is now being said must have been somewhere else. Mesoamerica? Asia? Those are the theories from Mormon apologists. Really? Sorry but the Mayas (yes it’s Mayas, not Mayans) have their own rich history and heritage and guess what? They have one of the oldest written languages. Not one word of their long history supports Mormonism. How arrogant! To come into a land and people and try to strip them of their own unique heritage just to try and prove your religion is true. The BoM mentions coins, metal swords, horses and many other things that were not on the American continents at the time the so called events took place. On the issue of horses, Mormon apologists say they were really talking about tapirs. Really? How do you load down your body with metal armor and a heavy metal sword and ride your tapir into battle? A tapir is not much bigger than a dog! Yes there is also the matter of reformed Egyptian. It never existed. American Indians (in the States) have always been thought to be the Lamanites, (and I was taught this from a Sunbeam), until the early 2000’s and then DNA evidence came out that they were from Asia not Israel. I have to admit, it’s quite humorous to watch the Mormon apologists do their spinning and twisting, trying to find an explanation of these things. There is only one logical explanation and that is Joseph Smith told a big windy. Please come to the saving Grace that is in Christ alone. The traditional Christ of the Bible, not the Mormon Christ of the BoA.
Might I add that when DNA evidence came out showing the American Indians are not Lamanites, the explanation in the introduction of the BoM was CHANGED! It originally read that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the American Indians and now says that the Lamanites are believed to be “among” the principle ancestors of the American Indians. That indeed changes the whole meaning!
Ok, Since Kate jumped in that made me think of a major change helen.
The BoM says about the Black people, they will be changed from Black to white, since your rasist church taught they are cursed with black skin.
Since we never saw them change color of the skin, the BoM was changed to say “Pure” instead of white. that also is a huge major change.
I can see a black person change from black to white, I cannot see a black person change from black to pure. Pure what? Thats makes no sense.