The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost

[Bronco73idi]

[youtube][/youtube]

Remember Abinadi was amongst the heathens, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one as in monotheism. One will one way.

No, King Noah was raised by Zeniff. Abinadi was amongst people who knew better, knew the commandments and still chose to follow after the desires of their own hearts.

Yes but they were quick to practice polytheism…. The lord tried to tell the relationship between Him, The Father and The Holy Ghost in person and they twisted it to the Trinity in a couple hundred of years. Imagine if he tried to break it down in the BOM time, we would have more sun god temples in the mound areas of North America.

[Atrasado]

The scripture in D&C 5 says,

4 And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.

Well, Joseph translated the Book of Mormon and it was published as directed. After having done so, God said He might grant Joseph more gifts.

No, the Lord didn't say that. Here is what he said in the original Book of Commandments Chapter 4.

2 And now, behold this shall you say unto him: -- I the Lord am God, and I have given these things unto my servant Joseph, and I have commanded him that he should stand as a witness of these things, nevertheless I have caused him that he should enter into a covenant with me, that he should not show them except I command him and he has no power over them except I grant it unto him; and he has a gift to translate the book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

God said he will grant him no other gift.

God said He would grant him no other gift, he didn't say He would grant him no other gift, ever. Like a father telling his daughter, "I am not getting you those shoes!" He isn't saying, "I'm never buying you any more shoes, ever!" Be reasonable.

All we have to do is look Joseph's fruits. Joseph Smith cast out devils, healed many, many sick people, spoke in tongues, prophesied, and saw visions, angels, and God the Father and the Savior Jesus Christ. There were many contemporary witnesses to these things who recorded their witness at the time. So, I feel confident that Joseph had other gifts from God.

[SunriseBoy]

'So, I feel confident that Joseph had other gifts from God.'
Absolutely. People feel very smug donning the cloak of religion and pontificating lyrically about what they think they know. As in the likes of Nelson and Oaks.

Where are the pleading for the widows. Where are the intercessions for the orphans, the homeless, the hungry, the diseased, the outcasts, the downtrodden?!
When I read Isaiah, I get the distinct impression he is speaking to the likes of those guys particularly.
If you were to put all the GA's in a room together, they wouldn't amount to a prophet's bootlace.

Since the demise of Joseph Smith, the theology, the language, and the direction of "the church" is 180 degrees previous to the 27th of June, 1844.

What we've got now, with the Mormons, is 'the gospel' in drag!

[TheDuke]

Jesus is the father because those who accept him, he becomes their father or savior for eternity.

That's not what the BoM says. It says he is the Father because of himself and the son because of the flesh.

Believe the BoM. It says all throughout the he is both father and son and it says twice that he is the very Eternal Father. How much more plain can language be.

Go back and read the scriptures BeingThere posted.

you'll have to show me the "himself" verses. I don't find them. He isn't the father because of "himself" that is just your interpretation. He is the father to those who accept him. BTW in BoM he is only talking to the children of Abraham (Lehi, Joseph). Please show your reference it isn't in the above links and I don't see it.

[Shawn Henry]

God said He would grant him no other gift, he didn't say He would grant him no other gift, ever. Like a father telling his daughter, "I am not getting you those shoes!" He isn't saying, "I'm never buying you any more shoes, ever!" Be reasonable.

All we have to do is look Joseph's fruits. Joseph Smith cast out devils, healed many, many sick people, spoke in tongues, prophesied, and saw visions, angels, and God the Father and the Savior Jesus Christ. There were many contemporary witnesses to these things who recorded their witness at the time. So, I feel confident that Joseph had other gifts from God.

God is not referring to the gifts of the spirit that all his children have. That would indeed be ridiculous. God has been clear that he does not vary from that which he has said. If he says "I will", that is a future tense reference. He does not say, thou shalt not commit adultery, and then turn around and say, I didn't say never commit adultery. God knows how to properly use the English language. He would simply say, "I am not getting you those shoes, at this time!" And when he properly phrases things, he avoids authoring confusion.

"I will grant him no other gift" is quite clear.

I understand your hesitance. You don't want it to mean what it says. I didn't either the first time I read, but it does mean what it says, whether we like it or not.

[Shawn Henry]

you'll have to show me the "himself" verses. I don't find them. He isn't the father because of "himself" that is just your interpretation. He is the father to those who accept him. BTW in BoM he is only talking to the children of Abraham (Lehi, Joseph). Please show your reference it isn't in the above links and I don't see it.

3 Ne 1:14 Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh. And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given.

It's just like all of us. We have two wills inside of us. We have the will of our true selves, our spirits. We also have another will which is the flesh, the natural man. Our true will of spirit is meant to overcome the flesh.

Did you go back and read those scriptures posted by BeingThere?

[TheDuke]

you'll have to show me the "himself" verses. I don't find them. He isn't the father because of "himself" that is just your interpretation. He is the father to those who accept him. BTW in BoM he is only talking to the children of Abraham (Lehi, Joseph). Please show your reference it isn't in the above links and I don't see it.

3 Ne 1:14 Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh. And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given.

It's just like all of us. We have two wills inside of us. We have the will of our true selves, our spirits. We also have another will which is the flesh, the natural man. Our true will of spirit is meant to overcome the flesh.

Did you go back and read those scriptures posted by BeingThere?

Yes, but you misunderstand and are taking this verse as he did in the others out of context. I would suggest a bit more slow reading and more attempted deep comprehension. I mean just on the surface you can see the phase you highlighted being quite meaningless out of context. Lets example the entire verse and structure in context.

The context is Nephi worrying about whether Jesus will come or the prophesies will fail. Also, it is Nephi speaking as the Lord, not the Lord directly speaking. So, here we go. I will break it down for you. Now you should know this takes me time as I'm lousy in English language skills!

13 Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets. (the prophesies will be fulfilled this night and all will be well with those about to be put to death for believing Samuel the Lamanite).

14 Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, (so Jesus is coming or being born tomorrow, see verse 13, THIS IS the focus of his message and IS the answer to Nephi's prayer and concern for the life of his valiant people, the rest is description of his mission)

and to do the WILL, both of the Father and of the Son (so he is doing the will of the father and the son, which he says later are one in the same)—of the Father because of me (he is talking of the WILL of the father, see the '-' and the sentence structure?), and of the Son because of my flesh (will of the son, keep up with the sentence structure and focus of the message, his mission is to do the will of the father as the son in the flesh and make them one WILL that is not people).

And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given (again repeating verse 13 and the focus of his message and Nephi's urgent prayer to avert unneeded deaths, and to show that they will not be destroyed and the prophesies are true).

Like I said, it often takes context and a bit of open reading to see how these very long sentences with multiple phrases, comma separated are to be read. BTW same issue with the last exchange we had on Abinadi's comments. NOTE: for the modern scriptures in PoGP it is often beneficial to read the JS papers where the revelations are still w/o verses and original phraseology is used and earliest sentence structure as often the later editors unintentionally add or break the sentences up in a manner making it more complex to read the original meaning. This is very true of Abraham 3 and D&C 93, 88, 132, and others with many complex phrases and parenthetical comments in a very long sentence and paragraph structure.

[Shawn Henry]

out of context.

The context seemed very plain to me. Here's the verse posted by BeingThere. They are even plainer.

Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand
that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son,
because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Mosiah16:15Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father.


The Book of Ether
Chapter 4:12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me.
I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me.
For behold, I am the Father,
I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

Ether3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people.
Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.
In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Alma 11:38-39 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father

The English is quite plain.

[TheDuke]

out of context.

The context seemed very plain to me. Here's the verse posted by BeingThere. They are even plainer.

Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand
that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son,
because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Mosiah16:15Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father.


The Book of Ether
Chapter 4:12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me.
I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me.
For behold, I am the Father,
I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

Ether3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people.
Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.
In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Alma 11:38-39 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father

The English is quite plain.

Apparently not, I am out for a while, I will explain when I get a chance, but note, you left 3 Ne for pre-atonement verses during law of Moses teachings here before they taught of the father as we learn in NT times

[Dusty Wanderer]

God said He would grant him no other gift, he didn't say He would grant him no other gift, ever. Like a father telling his daughter, "I am not getting you those shoes!" He isn't saying, "I'm never buying you any more shoes, ever!" Be reasonable.

All we have to do is look Joseph's fruits. Joseph Smith cast out devils, healed many, many sick people, spoke in tongues, prophesied, and saw visions, angels, and God the Father and the Savior Jesus Christ. There were many contemporary witnesses to these things who recorded their witness at the time. So, I feel confident that Joseph had other gifts from God.

God is not referring to the gifts of the spirit that all his children have. That would indeed be ridiculous. God has been clear that he does not vary from that which he has said. If he says "I will", that is a future tense reference. He does not say, thou shalt not commit adultery, and then turn around and say, I didn't say never commit adultery. God knows how to properly use the English language. He would simply say, "I am not getting you those shoes, at this time!" And when he properly phrases things, he avoids authoring confusion.

"I will grant him no other gift" is quite clear.

I understand your hesitance. You don't want it to mean what it says. I didn't either the first time I read, but it does mean what it says, whether we like it or not.

I’ve taken it this way, too. It seems that Joseph’s gift that the Lord is referring to is more akin to a calling than a “spiritual gift”, like what are found enumerated in D&C 46. I think it’s interesting that translation and seership are not found in 46.

[TheDuke]

Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand
that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

Ok this verse says he is god before he comes down. No qualms here, I believe in MMP so to me Jesus was already a resurrected being "condescending" to come here as Nephi said.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

Ok, no issue with him being the son for sure. Again as I said before on the thread not issue with doing the will of the father. So being called the father here is because his will and the father's are one.

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son,
because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

Ok, this is where he changes his story or adds to his story of why he is called father and the son. He adds you can call him father because he is god . But the Nephites were not taught about pre-mortal existence or spirits or that the father is literally any type of "father" as we know this. Neither was the godhead taught. They worshipped Jehovah and knew a Messiah who would be a god, with god as his literal earthly father (see Nephi's vision) would be born. So, this is reference to what Catholics (and others) call the immaculate conception. so he is or can be called the father (of the Jews) and the son (of god) both.

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Fatherr of heaven and of earth.

OK, "And they......" are one god. THEY are ONE. So, it specifically says they as in more than one person vs. "He". and since they are one (in purpose with the will of the son swallowing up the will of the father) he is considered the Eternal Father. Jesus would later say if you see him you see the Father. One in purpose (I don't literally think they look alike in any feature set, but maybe they share celestial DNA after all).

Mosiah16:15Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father.

ok, ditto. But notice here he says "Christ" obviously not a term Abinadi knew or used. It is after all Greek and there were no Greeks before or around Abinadi. Same reference to "father as above" but again they did not teach of pre-existence or spirits or souls with celestial parents or any of that. So, eternal father, frankly smacks of Adam-God theory here in many ways. I mean if you don't teach godhead or pre-mortal or exaltation or spirit prison but only earth then heaven or hell like in the BoM, then we are not god's children. It is unknown to them what it means for a Messiah to be an offspring of god, EXCEPT as a literl father to his body and partner to Mary his mother.... Please let this sink in. There is no pre-mortal, no exaltation, no post-life, no-millennium no degrees of glory, no teaching outside of the chosen/born in the covenant seed of Abraham (see how all they taught including Mulek are seed of Abraham to allow teaching them, and as of yet no concept of baptism, only of vague repentance and almost a unitarian view of the father-son combination must result).

The Book of Ether
Chapter 4:12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me.
I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me.
For behold, I am the Father,
I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

So, interesting that this verse is captured in the Book of Ether but is written by Moroni, not Ether. So, it is written after Jesus' appearance and does talk of the godhead. It says "... he that will not believe MY words ...ME ... will not believe the Father who sent ME". Pretty darned plain they are not the same. if you read the context though it continues with statements like in verse 14, the father and you; and 15 the father in my name; clearly he does not claim to be his own eternal father.

Ether3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people.
Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.
In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

So, I love Ether 3 as it is as I said obviously reworded for our day. I mean the entire structure of Jesus' introduction is tortured as their is no concept at this time of pre-mortal, or MMP or anything other than god created the earth spiritually and now on earth he creates physically. I see Jesus as already a resurrected being, but even if you don't then it is difficult for Ether, Mormon, Moroni or JS to translate the idea that there was a son of god, prior to his mortal birth. It just isn't a BoM concept, nor was it in Joseph's construct in late 1820's. Read Stapley's Plans of Salvation BCC article linked on the forum to see what the pre-1833/5 constructs were for man's evolution and even the evolution of Jesus (even w/o MMP). tortured. but loving it as it does clearly show what I've stated about the book being (re)written for our day vs. being held accurate as a history or even literal discussion, in this case 4000+ years ago after the flood.

We already discussed why Joseph and Mormon would have seen him as the father and the son, no need to repeat. Note: how he says if you believe in him, you can become his sons and daughters (adoption some how)! Now, we get full evidence that in the chain from BroJ through Ether to Mormon to JS in 1829 their was no concept of literal offspring of god for us anyway, and the only type of offspring for Jesus (no pre-existence even for Jesus remember) was as the husband of Mary Jesus' mother.

Alma 11:38-39 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father

ditto above about Alma and Zeezrom being pre-Jesus and LoM time and their idea of what an "eternal father" was given god didn't have offspring but Jesus and no human pre-existence.

I will edit above beneath the scriptures.

I want to repeat my general statement on all the scriptures in the BoM written before Jesus' birth. The scriptures are true but the words have been "twisted" or "altered" to make them easy to comprehend for our day. Mormon says this up front and in the middle and in the introduction. Second, all the ancient scriptures were handed down and eventually written on metal plates (according to what Mormon obtained). As I stated before with both the Bro of J having Jesus introduced as "Jesus Christ" his English name and Greek title in 2500 BC is not what happened or was said to BroJ, but what got transcribed for "our day" so we would get a testimony of Christ. Also, I have pointed out the awkwardness of both the the first Nephi and Jacob's teachings which obviously went through the same process as they didn't have a "nation" or "army" or "fine twined linens" or "gold" or many wives in a group of 40 but arguably up to at most 80 people that moved 4 times, lived sustenance life in 40 years bringing nothing with them from Jerusalem, on the boat, to Land of Nephi from Bountiful then to their last place where this was written. And they didn't have the 40=60# of gold at the time either. Still teachings are true but context must be read or you're just parroting words back from ancient writings.

Lastly consider there are here in BoM and in Bible three time frames with varied teachings. There is OT and BoM, say up to Alma where all is Law of Moses, with teachings of a Messiah and his atonement (better called out in BoM than Bible thank heavens). Then a transition period where baptisms and early teachings preparatory for Jesus were taught (John the Baptist in NT and Alma starts in BoM a few years earlier). These teachings lay out baptism and some teachings of godhead, while OT teachings are of a Messiah and God, or Jehovah - not Jesus and not The Father, of spirits, etc... there is NO spirit world, pre-mortal teachings until Jesus' time (and then none in BoM even after Jesus arrives). Then there is the visit of Jesus and teachings of the godhead and love your neighbor, baptism, etc...

Many LDS try to say baptism goes back to Adam, not sure about Moses by JS saying about Adam's baptism, no others recorded any, including Joseph's Enoch. Seems an attempt to bind modern post-Jesus teaching with history, fails to me. No need for baptism if you're born into the covenant. Only those outside the seed of Abraham converting needed baptism until Jesus came (or shortly before) as the gospel and the PH was only for the chosen seed/race/genealogy/family/tribes/etc... And PH went father to son, until it broke and went to someone claiming rights of Melchizedek, then father-to-son again, up to Jesus time then apostles/disciples and people called regardless of family genealogy.

Context, for the words, along with English as I said before. I'm sure you will disagree as you have your opinion already formed. That is ok, it is your truth. I had them once, before I could see the deeper meanings of some many scriptures myself and I was exclaiming how I'm 67 (next week) and only really started understanding the true gospel of exaltation in the past 3-5 years.

[Atrasado]

God said He would grant him no other gift, he didn't say He would grant him no other gift, ever. Like a father telling his daughter, "I am not getting you those shoes!" He isn't saying, "I'm never buying you any more shoes, ever!" Be reasonable.

All we have to do is look Joseph's fruits. Joseph Smith cast out devils, healed many, many sick people, spoke in tongues, prophesied, and saw visions, angels, and God the Father and the Savior Jesus Christ. There were many contemporary witnesses to these things who recorded their witness at the time. So, I feel confident that Joseph had other gifts from God.

God is not referring to the gifts of the spirit that all his children have. That would indeed be ridiculous. God has been clear that he does not vary from that which he has said. If he says "I will", that is a future tense reference. He does not say, thou shalt not commit adultery, and then turn around and say, I didn't say never commit adultery. God knows how to properly use the English language. He would simply say, "I am not getting you those shoes, at this time!" And when he properly phrases things, he avoids authoring confusion.

"I will grant him no other gift" is quite clear.

I understand your hesitance. You don't want it to mean what it says. I didn't either the first time I read, but it does mean what it says, whether we like it or not.

Nope. As I pointed out, that's not what the phrase means.

The word "ever" would need to be attached. And what other special gift would Joseph be given then the gifts of the Spirit? Also, beholding the Savior and Heavenly Father are not gifts that all of His children have. In fact, none of them are. Very few people have ever exercised those gifts.

I can tell this is a time we'll need to agree to disagree, so best wishes. Until next time.

[Shawn Henry]

I was exclaiming how I'm 67 (next week)

Happy Birthday!

[Shawn Henry]

I can tell this is a time we'll need to agree to disagree, so best wishes. Until next time.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing, best wishes to you as well my friend.

[Shawn Henry]

Because of the parable of the talents, I believe that John Taylor was the last servant and he buried his Talent.

This link will help explain how the Lord in this parable is Satan.
https://spaciousfaith.com/2017/11/14/th ... -servants/

The God we worship definitely reaps where he sows.

[Shawn Henry]

15 Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is your father.“

I'm not saying this is the case, but it is possible that Jesus is saying here that he is the one who incarnated as Adam.

In any case, I'm still confused why you don't rely on the BoM.

[Bronco73idi]

15 Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is your father.“

I'm not saying this is the case, but it is possible that Jesus is saying here that he is the one who incarnated as Adam.

In any case, I'm still confused why you don't rely on the BoM.

Because, I believe my Lord. In the 4 gospels he calls what we call the Old Testament, The Law. The Dead Sea scrolls are witnesses to the integrity of the Law that he would have taught from.

Don’t you think that the Lord had them be revealed at an appropriate time? I do. BYU technology had to piece them together after the cursed nation tried for over 40 years. Do you think that is a coincidence?

The BOM is another testament of Jesus. If our interpretation of it doesn’t fit the other two, I say we have to rethink the interpretation. When we have tried all we can we then ask.

D&C 9:7
you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

[Shawn Henry]

The BOM is another testament of Jesus. If our interpretation of it doesn’t fit the other two, I say we have to rethink the interpretation. When we have tried all we can we then ask.

I completely disagree brother. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the only one with a correct translation. It is the book that God commanded us to rely on. End of story (for me anyway).

[Bronco73idi]

The BOM is another testament of Jesus. If our interpretation of it doesn’t fit the other two, I say we have to rethink the interpretation. When we have tried all we can we then ask.

I completely disagree brother. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the only one with a correct translation. It is the book that God commanded us to rely on. End of story (for me anyway).

The question I have, who told you that it was the only one to rely on?

Jospeh had JST’s for a reason, there is more to the story then the BOM tells us.

[TheDuke]

obviously we don't need a house, home, barn, village............. only the keystone!

[Shawn Henry]

The BOM is another testament of Jesus. If our interpretation of it doesn’t fit the other two, I say we have to rethink the interpretation. When we have tried all we can we then ask.

I completely disagree brother. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the only one with a correct translation. It is the book that God commanded us to rely on. End of story (for me anyway).

The question I have, who told you that it was the only one to rely on?

Jospeh had JST’s for a reason, there is more to the story then the BOM tells us.

It's the only book with a correct translation. I don't know that we have to be told anything beyond that. That says a lot. If we believe the Bible only as far as it is translated correctly, how do we know when it is correctly translated?

The JST was not to go forth to the world and Joseph never moved to publish it. The original command in the Book of Commandments tells the saints to rely on what the saints were given at that time, which was the manuscript of the Book of Mormon before it was even printed.

[Bronco73idi]

I completely disagree brother. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the only one with a correct translation. It is the book that God commanded us to rely on. End of story (for me anyway).

The question I have, who told you that it was the only one to rely on?

Jospeh had JST’s for a reason, there is more to the story then the BOM tells us.

It's the only book with a correct translation. I don't know that we have to be told anything beyond that. That says a lot. If we believe the Bible only as far as it is translated correctly, how do we know when it is correctly translated?

The JST was not to go forth to the world and Joseph never moved to publish it. The original command in the Book of Commandments tells the saints to rely on what the saints were given at that time, which was the manuscript of the Book of Mormon before it was even printed.

The BOM was meant to go with “The Law” or what we call the plates of brass, the lost 116 plates.

The BOM was an account of a people who lived “The Law” just like our Lord and Savior.

So why would we not believe it especially when the lord gave us the Dead Sea scrolls and made them accessible through the work of the house of Ephraim?

So yes, The Law, the Lord’s words during his earthly life prophetic mission and the BOM are my standard.

[Shawn Henry]

The question I have, who told you that it was the only one to rely on?

Jospeh had JST’s for a reason, there is more to the story then the BOM tells us.

It's the only book with a correct translation. I don't know that we have to be told anything beyond that. That says a lot. If we believe the Bible only as far as it is translated correctly, how do we know when it is correctly translated?

The JST was not to go forth to the world and Joseph never moved to publish it. The original command in the Book of Commandments tells the saints to rely on what the saints were given at that time, which was the manuscript of the Book of Mormon before it was even printed.

The BOM was meant to go with “The Law” or what we call the plates of brass, the lost 116 plates.

The BOM was an account of a people who lived “The Law” just like our Lord and Savior.

So why would we not believe it especially when the lord gave us the Dead Sea scrolls and made them accessible through the work of the house of Ephraim?

So yes, The Law, the Lord’s words during his earthly life prophetic mission and the BOM are my standard.

I don't even see how your comments relate to mine.

In any case, if the BoM is your standard, why not believe it when it says Jesus is the Father?

[Bronco73idi]

It's the only book with a correct translation. I don't know that we have to be told anything beyond that. That says a lot. If we believe the Bible only as far as it is translated correctly, how do we know when it is correctly translated?

The JST was not to go forth to the world and Joseph never moved to publish it. The original command in the Book of Commandments tells the saints to rely on what the saints were given at that time, which was the manuscript of the Book of Mormon before it was even printed.

The BOM was meant to go with “The Law” or what we call the plates of brass, the lost 116 plates.

The BOM was an account of a people who lived “The Law” just like our Lord and Savior.

So why would we not believe it especially when the lord gave us the Dead Sea scrolls and made them accessible through the work of the house of Ephraim?

So yes, The Law, the Lord’s words during his earthly life prophetic mission and the BOM are my standard.

I don't even see how your comments relate to mine.

In any case, if the BoM is your standard, why not believe it when it says Jesus is the Father?

My comments relate, think outside the box.

I told you my standard, all 3. Read TheDuke comments on how Jesus is our father.

We have to go through him to get to his father. That makes Jesus his son and our father.

We should not worship him as the father, did he not say that?

I have a thread on reading the Bible literally. I erred, I read other’s opinion on their literal reading of the Bible.

Look at your opinion of Mosiah 13, can you justify that verse 31 is about our current affairs of the church, ie handbook over scriptures? Sure. But those verses are actually telling us the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican in a none parable form.

If the church had the missing 116 pages, The Law, The Old Testament. Would they be able to justify homosexuality as they are doing currently?

[TheDuke]

It's the only book with a correct translation. I don't know that we have to be told anything beyond that. That says a lot. If we believe the Bible only as far as it is translated correctly, how do we know when it is correctly translated?

Shawn provide a link to the statement you made above "only book with a correct translation"? Never, EVER heard that story before.

I once read somewhere it is the "most correct book", I guess meaning scripture. And most correct being a bit of a relative statement of comparison. It would hold if 15% of BoM was true with only 10% of OT, I'm not saying these are the statistics, I'm simply showing the error of your interpretation and this ISNT the first time on this topic.

I don't recall the word "correct translation" being an issue? BTW that was before any of the PoGP and the understanding of Egyption afer the Rosetta stone and before dead sea scrolls were found.............