LDS Freedom Forum

jbalm wrote:

freedomfighter wrote:

jbalm wrote:This thread confirms what I have thought for a long time. Mormonism is just another self-imposed stumbling block keeping people from coming unto Christ. And its fruits leave quite a bit to be desired.

Christ was plain. Repent; Be baptized; endure to the end.

But most people are uncomfortable with simplicity, so they add layer upon layer of needless complexity: Mysteries, money, men, rules, buildings, secrets... Maybe some people feel like by solving an extremely complex riddle, they are more worthy of Christ's approval. But I really don't think that is the case.

The real "test," apparently, is taking Christ at his own word, without allowing someone who claims authority to "interpret" the Word, and twist it to suit his/her own agenda. For whatever reason, His simple message is impossible for many to accept. A difficult test indeed.

What church did Christ belong to again?

Do you mean, which church is Christ's church? It is evident that whatever church is His is the one He belongs to, right?

That isn't what I meant.

I'm from the position that Christ regards all churches more or less equally.

Have you read the bible where it states differently? In there He tells us the name of His church. Not to mention what Joseph Smith learned regarding other churches.

freedomfighter wrote:

jbalm wrote:
That isn't what I meant.

I'm from the position that Christ regards all churches more or less equally.

Have you read the bible where it states differently? In there He tells us the name of His church. Not to mention what Joseph Smith learned regarding other churches.

1 Nephi 14:10

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

jbalm wrote:

Lizzy60 wrote:I'm not speaking for jbalm, of course, but it is my opinion that The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a stumbling block. However, the Book of Mormon has also brought me to Christ. It teaches of Him, testifies of Him, and was essentially written by Him. I maintain that if I were to teach in Church many of the truths that are taught in the Book of Mormon, I could end up fighting for my membership. I would LOVE to get rid of the chapter headings.

I agree about the BOM. I would guess Aussie does too.

Everyone here is getting all worked up about one particular point here and there, and getting all mad. We shouldn't overstate the significance of the study mentioned in the OP. All is does is take various so-called Hebraisms and other linguistic peculiarities and removes them from the "proof the BOM is true" category. That's it. It is actually an arrow in the quiver of any LDS apologist who subscribes to the "loose translation" theory. The people who are most worked up over this, it seems, are the "tight translation" people.

I didn't read the BOM entirely until I was in my 30s. I was shocked at how much I liked it, and at how much sense it made.

At the same time, I was very uneasy. It took a while for me to realize that the BOM does not equate to the CoJCoLDS. The church doesn't have any more right to claim the BOM than any of the other dozens of offshoots from Joseph Smith's religion.

The church seems to have "outgrown" the BOM anyway, so any discussion of the BOM's historicity is mostly academic from an LDS perspective. All doctrine now seems to come from loosely-quoted GAs loosely quoting other GAs.

None of us are supposed to be spoon fed by any church. Why are we told by Christ to feast upon the word. And where is the word? The church is geared to teach milk, as we study the gospels we learn meat. That's key. New members are not ready for meat or, perhaps, they would run out the back door. The scriptures we have are all we have, so why not accept them as from God? Why not study them, pray about them and learn line upon line, precept upon precept until we can stand on our own two feet under God? If we cannot we will fall. Each member has to be truly converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ, EVERY member. The how to do is throughout scripture.

jo1952 wrote:

DrJones wrote:

jbalm wrote:
Jbalm: I'm from the position that Christ regards all churches more or less equally.

But didn't Jesus say to Joseph:

" 18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them;

Over time I have come to understand additional meaning to what was told to Joseph...wherein "they were all wrong". We must have a direct, personal relationship with God. That is what Joseph was manifesting, and what he was rewarded with. By seeking God on his own he sought and found God. Now, even though we have hung on to more clarifications of truth (they aren't "new" truths....just some "rediscovered" truth....and we don't have everything Joseph was taught; just some), we also have become creedal. We have become what Joseph was told not to join. We all must do the same thing; have a direct, personal relationship with God. Seek, and ye shall find. NOT, let someone else seek and depend upon what they find.

One of the ways the Church now has a form of godliness, but she denies the power thereof, is this: When an individual receives personal revelation which is not a part of correlated material, she denies the personal revelation. If it isn't correlated, you aren't allowed to speak or share it. The Church denies the very power of God to have either revealed truth to someone other than to her; and/or she denies the ability of other members to benefit from what was revealed to anyone other than to her.

I would like to add that we are commanded to edify one another. When we aren't allowed to share what has been revealed to us, we cannot edify one another. The Church is denying the power of God when she regulates and prevents us from sharing what the Holy Spirit reveals to us. She cannot control the Holy Spirit; though she attempts to limit us in our beliefs in accordance with what the Church teaches. If Joseph was here today, but only as a regular member of laity who was not recognized as a "prophet", and he were to give a talk in which he told us of something the Holy Spirit had revealed to him because it was now time to share it (IOW, one of the things he had not been able to share before), do you realize that the Church would disallow it because it is not now a part of our correlated teachings? And if Joseph did not retract it, that he would be in danger of excommunication?

jbalm:
More and more, it becomes clear that we will be judged according to what we DO. Not what we BELIEVE. Nothing else makes sense.

Every week during sacrament, we take the name of Christ upon us. That's really all I'm in it for. Everything else is just noise.

But according to Romans 12, we are ALL members of Christ (HIS Church). I am fully aware of the 'faults' within the Institution of the Church and within the cultural 'norm' which has evolved over time.

Here's the kicker ~

Those of us who KNOW things are NOT as Christ meant for them to be in HIS Church

either leave...

or

We work harder at applying the LAW in our personal lives and take it to the congregation in our various callings, and let our lights so shine that our fellow members of Christ's Church will begin to see how this Church can edify ALL of us.

I've been disciplined for quoting scripture in SS classes in which undisciplined teens had the final word against me although I was never given voice in accounting the actual circumstances. So be it.

I have also been given dreams and miracles along the way that assure me of the correctness of my continued activity within the 'body of the Church'. We need to have the same courage exercised by Jesus in teaching those of his hometown of Nazareth. When his friends, neighbors, and even kinfolk sought to toss him down the hill, 'he passed through the midst of them'.

I don't know if the Church can throw ALL of us down the hill when we are on the Lord's errand. We must be worthy in every respect to have sure KNOWLEDGE that what we DO is - indeed - the Lord's errand.

Luke 4
28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,

29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way,

31 And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days.

Luke 11
36 If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.

buffalo_girl wrote:Here's the kicker ~

Those of us who KNOW things are NOT as Christ meant for them to be in HIS Church

either leave...

or

We work harder at applying the LAW in our personal lives and take it to the congregation in our various callings, and let our lights so shine that our fellow members of Christ's Church will begin to see how this Church can edify ALL of us.

I try to do the second one. Met more resistance than anticipated, but...oh well. Sorry to say, I mostly just keep my mouth shut now.

When we aren't allowed to share what has been revealed to us, we cannot edify one another. The Church is denying the power of God when she regulates and prevents us from sharing what the Holy Spirit reveals to us. She cannot control the Holy Spirit; though she attempts to limit us in our beliefs in accordance with what the Church teaches. If Joseph was here today, but only as a regular member of laity who was not recognized as a "prophet", and he were to give a talk in which he told us of something the Holy Spirit had revealed to him because it was now time to share it (IOW, one of the things he had not been able to share before), do you realize that the Church would disallow it because it is not now a part of our correlated teachings? And if Joseph did not retract it, that he would be in danger of excommunication?

I'm not altogether sure I understand what has been denied.

If personal revelation and interpretations become the 'order of our meetings', I'm afraid it will be three solid hours of Testimony Meeting EVERY Sunday! Now, there's a test for Endurance!!!

On the other hand, the Spirit does work to help me convey insights given to me personally, through scripture and by relating experiences which apply to the specific Principle being presented to the members. I DO NOT choose in advance to share my insight.
I DO read scripture and source material (rarely the manuals) which reveal other aspects of the Principle to be shared.

I find it offensive to assign GC talks to be regurgitated at Sacrament Meeting. (I guess that's why I'm never asked to speak.) I believe we can share our unique experiences and perspectives through scripture and by 'approved' church materials. It takes a 'wise as serpents, harmless as doves' approach with the HG's absolute endorsement. I have found God to have a sense of humor.

By doing it this way, no one in a leadership position will have an anxiety attack leading to further alienation of those sharing sincere spiritual expression. They probably aren't paying attention anyway, other than to observe that you have strayed from the 'approved text'.

During Gospel Doctrine class I often hold up the 'approved' book or source so that the leadership can witness my source reference. They can then go back to sleep.

Certainly the cleansing spoken of in D&C 112 and elsewhere (wheat and tares, 10 virgins, a TEST, sifting) is part of the prophesied future/present. I agree with that.

Sunday in our branch we had a fireside and questions led to a discussion of home schooling vs. public schools -- and of secret combinations in our day. The strong consensus was that we need to avoid upholding these Gadiantons and their elitist/globalist money-powers - get out of debt (so don't pay interest to them), have food storage non-GMO, don't work for them etc. Helaman 6, Ether 8, and I also brought in Pres. Hinckley's Aug 2005 Ensign article re: "evil schemers" = Gadiantons of our day.

It was a fun discussion, rich with the Book of Mormon.

Moroni 6: 4 And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.

Sounds like the ideal home/visiting teaching to me -- clearly, HT and VT are consistent with the BoM!

5 And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls.

6 And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus.

Yes! we do some things right.

Thomas wrote:So, we are talking about a book here that is so popular that a poor farm boy from western New York has read it and plagiarized it's pages to write the Book of Mormon and no one noticed until now. Can't you see how ridiculous this is? Don't you think he would be the laughing stock of the era? Don't you think someone would notice and spread the word? Don't you think the antis, of the day, would have a field day with this info?

I am sorry but this just doesn't make sense.

:ymapplause:
Amen, Amen, and Triple Amen. It totally defies logic.

A Random Phrase wrote:

Thomas wrote:So, we are talking about a book here that is so popular that a poor farm boy from western New York has read it and plagiarized it's pages to write the Book of Mormon and no one noticed until now. Can't you see how ridiculous this is? Don't you think he would be the laughing stock of the era? Don't you think someone would notice and spread the word? Don't you think the antis, of the day, would have a field day with this info?

I am sorry but this just doesn't make sense.

:ymapplause:
Amen, Amen, and Triple Amen. It totally defies logic.

The problem is many antis cannot be trusted. I understand that there are some honest seekers of truth that search into these things and some antis have valid concerns and points to make, but many antis are outright liars and fabricate falsehoods. I think all anti evidence should be given a lot of scrutiny.

I know Aussie has talked about the 600 k salaries and 900k Audis but we really don't know this is true. I am not saying it is all kosher, within the corporation but I think some of these things get embellished or are made up.

Thomas wrote:I guess Joseph Smith must have been the only one in the world that owned that book because no one noticed.

Yep.

They would have come down on him immediately. He would have been laughed at. It would have been picked up everywhere. We would have books available now that pointed to that as the biggest and best example of his deception.

Make no mistake. The devil hates this work and will do his damnedest to make us believe the Book of Mormon is a lie. Lacking that, he will do what he can to have us ignore the doctrine, believe the book actually says something else, believe it is a warning to everyone who is not a Mormon. If he can cause us to fear and mistrust the book, great, but ignoring it or misapplying it works just as well. It looks like Aussie has joined those who fear and mistrust.

Let me say here that just because something anti-Mormon or something accusing Joseph Smith was written in the eighteen hundreds, does not automatically make it a truth. Lies were just as prevalent then, given the population, as they are now.

And just because someone declares a lie does not make them a truth-teller. The voice of the Master is what we listen for.

I've read many anti-Mormon/anti-Joseph books in my time. First, they suck you in with emotion. That makes the logical side of the brain cease its functioning. You don't notice the "must have beens" where logic would dictate that the accurate phrase would be "may have been, but may not also." You don't notice the contradictions (BY lusted after me. He wanted in my pants so bad. vs (after she married him) The jerk wouldn't touch me sexually. He ignored me completely. I might as well have not been married to him).

You don't notice the alarmist tones that paint the depths of hell over lies, half-truths, and divine truths that the author demonizes (in his or her valiant efforts to serve the darkness s/he has chosen to worship).

Joseph did not do half of what he was accused of.

If this thing is the Book of Mormon's original, why not lay out three chapters side by side? Also, where is the proof that it was published pre-BofM manuscript? What is the copyright date on it? Is it recorded by the gov't as having been published in the early 1800's?

Also, you haven't seen anything yet, Aussie, in comparison to the storms that are soon to wrack the earth. If you fall from these attacks, there are worse attacks that would crush you even more. Heaven help us. Hell's mouth is opened and all honest seekers after truth had best beware. Time is short. The battle is upon us. We may run. We may attempt to hide. But it is here, and in the final day we will stand in the place we were willing to stand here. And the judgments will be just.

A Random Phrase wrote:

Thomas wrote:So, we are talking about a book here that is so popular that a poor farm boy from western New York has read it and plagiarized it's pages to write the Book of Mormon and no one noticed until now. Sounds like a little sarcasm used here. Could be wrong. Can't you see how ridiculous this is? I think he's saying it is ridiculous to think that JS plagiarized anything. Don't you think he would be the laughing stock of the era? I think he's saying that if men got wind of JS plagiarizing, he would be ridiculed and laughed at till the end of his days. Don't you think someone would notice and spread the word? Don't you think the antis, of the day, would have a field day with this info? All relative to previous explanation.



I am sorry but this just doesn't make sense.

:ymapplause:
Amen, Amen, and Triple Amen. It totally defies logic.

I could be wrong, just surmising. I tried to figure it out at least.

There's a discussion about "The Holy Church of God" reference in Mormon 8 over yonder:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30695" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is my final post on that thread:

The stumbling block within any 'institution' which has taken pains to portray itself in a certain light is maintaining The 'IMAGE'.

Members of the institution want to believe in the Vision (fantasy) of that glorious IMAGE despite evidence to the contrary. Behavior of specific individuals or of 'the group' which is directly contrary to the agreed upon tenets poses a serious dilemma.

Wherein lies the fault? Is it The IMAGE or the Institution itself which runs counter to what we have been conditioned to believe and uphold? Is it the religious Belief upon which the Institution was founded? Or, is it the behavior of those 'who should know better' which tarnishes our trust in the Institution and its IMAGE?

The unconscious reaction to this conflict is to protect the IMAGE. We deny uncomfortable realities in order to maintain belief in The IMAGE.

The Church is 'a tool' within which we 'practice' The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some are serious; some play a role designed to fit The IMAGE.

Ultimately, Salvation is based on a personal relationship with our Creator and Savior.

The Institution of The Church gives us opportunities to grow in and test our spiritual development. Sometimes it even provides soul searing challenges to everything we thought we knew and even what is written in Scripture.

I see Mormon Chapter 8 in the same light as the author of this thread. I've seen it that way for many years.

Our condemnation before God certainly lies in our individual application - or lack thereof - of Christ's Doctrine, but my sense is that the 'Gentile Church' - speaking as to our concept of the Institution - is working more to maintain The IMAGE than to literally follow the Example of Christ's mortal ministry.

Much good is done. Much money is spent. Somehow, though, there is an overwhelming sense that many of us are simply 'playing a role' which is required to maintain The IMAGE.

Doctrine & Covenants 84
52 And whoso receiveth not my voice is not acquainted with my voice, and is not of me.

53 And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked, and that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now.

54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.

59 For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay.

Well...that passage certainly echoes Moroni's rebuke in Mormon 8:38!

freedomfighter wrote:

A Random Phrase wrote:

Thomas wrote:So, we are talking about a book here that is so popular that a poor farm boy from western New York has read it and plagiarized it's pages to write the Book of Mormon and no one noticed until now. Sounds like a little sarcasm used here. Could be wrong. Can't you see how ridiculous this is? I think he's saying it is ridiculous to think that JS plagiarized anything. Don't you think he would be the laughing stock of the era? I think he's saying that if men got wind of JS plagiarizing, he would be ridiculed and laughed at till the end of his days. Don't you think someone would notice and spread the word? Don't you think the antis, of the day, would have a field day with this info? All relative to previous explanation.



I am sorry but this just doesn't make sense.

:ymapplause:
Amen, Amen, and Triple Amen. It totally defies logic.

I could be wrong, just surmising. I tried to figure it out at least.

Yep.

buffalo_girl wrote:

When we aren't allowed to share what has been revealed to us, we cannot edify one another. The Church is denying the power of God when she regulates and prevents us from sharing what the Holy Spirit reveals to us. She cannot control the Holy Spirit; though she attempts to limit us in our beliefs in accordance with what the Church teaches. If Joseph was here today, but only as a regular member of laity who was not recognized as a "prophet", and he were to give a talk in which he told us of something the Holy Spirit had revealed to him because it was now time to share it (IOW, one of the things he had not been able to share before), do you realize that the Church would disallow it because it is not now a part of our correlated teachings? And if Joseph did not retract it, that he would be in danger of excommunication?

I'm not altogether sure I understand what has been denied.

If personal revelation and interpretations become the 'order of our meetings', I'm afraid it will be three solid hours of Testimony Meeting EVERY Sunday! Now, there's a test for Endurance!!!

Hahahaha! That WOULD be a test of endurance!!

On the other hand, the Spirit does work to help me convey insights given to me personally, through scripture and by relating experiences which apply to the specific Principle being presented to the members. I DO NOT choose in advance to share my insight.
I DO read scripture and source material (rarely the manuals) which reveal other aspects of the Principle to be shared.

I find it offensive to assign GC talks to be regurgitated at Sacrament Meeting. (I guess that's why I'm never asked to speak.) I believe we can share our unique experiences and perspectives through scripture and by 'approved' church materials. It takes a 'wise as serpents, harmless as doves' approach with the HG's absolute endorsement. I have found God to have a sense of humor.

By doing it this way, no one in a leadership position will have an anxiety attack leading to further alienation of those sharing sincere spiritual expression. They probably aren't paying attention anyway, other than to observe that you have strayed from the 'approved text'.

During Gospel Doctrine class I often hold up the 'approved' book or source so that the leadership can witness my source reference. They can then go back to sleep.

See how you have explained why you think you aren't asked to give talks. See how you act in accordance with what the Church wants you to teach....if the Church's atmosphere was not so regulated and correlated, you would be able to share more. Right now you speak about the principle which has been pre-determined will even be discussed. You may have received something mind blowing to yourself; but you can't share it because it's not on the agenda. You are denied the ability to share; and God forbid you received something that isn't in correlated material at all. People who teach classes, when they want to share something revealed to them, aren't sharing it for the purpose of speaking it as though it was to be revealed to the entire Church. They are sharing it amongst their ward family members. If you can't share it, you can't edify others. Those attending classes who have received revelation and share it are later chastised for daring to share something not correlated. This is absolutely a form of denying the power of God. Revelation is being swept under the rug; not only as though it never happened, but also it is being hidden---it is being denied. The entire premise of the LDS Church is founded upon the fact that Joseph Smith received personal revelation. Yet we are denied sharing what has been revealed to us personally; unless, of course, it has been correlated. Nothing "new" can ever pass the test of being correlated.

I am speaking about edifying each other toward our salvation. Our testimony meetings have become stories which affirm things we already have learned. But what of the new things we are personally ready and able to bear and receive? What about sharing those things? Paul taught that all members should share what was being revealed to them. That they could all be as prophets....because this type of prophetship (is that a word?) is actually the abiity to receive inspiration...aka revelation; the same spirit of prophecy Joseph spoke about.

As I recently posted, I think that if Joseph were to show up today (but as a member of laity...and not recognized as a "prophet"), and share something additional which was revealed to him personally (such as one of the truths he did NOT share earlier), that the Church would reject his words because they would not be a part of correlated materials. If he did not recant, or not stop speaking those words, he would be disciplined; even to the extent of being excommunicated.

Gone Fishing wrote:And here we are.
The entire book and its historicity blown apart in one single week.

Not hardly..........

freedomfighter wrote:uote="Lizzy60"]I'm not speaking for jbalm, of course, but it is my opinion that The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a stumbling block. However, the Book of Mormon has also brought me to Christ. It teaches of Him, testifies of Him, and was essentially written by Him. I maintain that if I were to teach in Church many of the truths that are taught in the Book of Mormon, I could end up fighting for my membership. I would LOVE to get rid of the chapter headings.

I agree about the BOM. I would guess Aussie does too.

Everyone here is getting all worked up about one particular point here and there, and getting all mad. We shouldn't overstate the significance of the study mentioned in the OP. All is does is take various so-called Hebraisms and other linguistic peculiarities and removes them from the "proof the BOM is true" category. That's it. It is actually an arrow in the quiver of any LDS apologist who subscribes to the "loose translation" theory. The people who are most worked up over this, it seems, are the "tight translation" people.

I didn't read the BOM entirely until I was in my 30s. I was shocked at how much I liked it, and at how much sense it made.

At the same time, I was very uneasy. It took a while for me to realize that the BOM does not equate to the CoJCoLDS. The church doesn't have any more right to claim the BOM than any of the other dozens of offshoots from Joseph Smith's religion.

The church seems to have "outgrown" the BOM anyway, so any discussion of the BOM's historicity is mostly academic from an LDS perspective. All doctrine now seems to come from loosely-quoted GAs loosely quoting other GAs.[/quote]
None of us are supposed to be spoon fed by any church. Why are we told by Christ to feast upon the word. And where is the word? The church is geared to teach milk, as we study the gospels we learn meat. That's key. New members are not ready for meat or, perhaps, they would run out the back door. The scriptures we have are all we have, so why not accept them as from God? Why not study them, pray about them and learn line upon line, precept upon precept until we can stand on our own two feet under God? If we cannot we will fall. Each member has to be truly converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ, EVERY member. The how to do is throughout scripture.[/quote]







Any guesses how the early church got started?
Yes, they got the letters/ epistles, but what spoke to these people and what non negotiables did they have to accept to join the body of Christ?

idahommie wrote:

Gone Fishing wrote:And here we are.
The entire book and its historicity blown apart in one single week.

Not hardly..........

At the very least only a fool can't see the problems and accept they need to rethink a few correlated myths.



Jo said...
I am speaking about edifying each other toward salvation.



Jo, is that human nature, or does we all want to know we will get there if we are ticking the boxes our daily franchise?

Ok, so I watched the presentation, and here's my take on it.

the study analysed 100,000+ pre 1830 books. The algorithm apparent compared phrases (not subjects) of 4 words+ to compare similarities between various Authors and documents to reveal potential influences and sources for the BOM. While study itself doesn't prove that the BOM was plagiarized from these other books it DOES open up a whole lot of issues being:

We are not dealing with direct translations from 'reformed egyptian' to english, like others here suggest, instead JS would be using phrases that He was familiar with and common to the day.
this presents a few problems, mainly, Why isn't he using standard common english grammar and phraseology. If we are talking about channeling using preferred phraseology, as opposed to direct translation, which is what we are talking about now, why isn't the dictation written in standard english?

the next issue with channelling instead of translation is, if the bible verses included in the BOM were also written in reformed egyptian, Which would have required channelling rather than direct translation to interpret, Why are they written word for word, errors and all from the KJV, instead of a corrected different dictation using the same phraseology as the rest of the BOM. if reformed egyptian requires JS to add many of His own phrases (borrowed from books that influenced him) to convey the meaning of the text more clearly, why isn't this reflected in the KJV verses in the BOM that would also have been written in reformed egyptian. They should not read word for word or grammatically, as they are being translated from completely different languages (reformed egyptian to 'english' vs hebrew/greek to english).

it presents a few problems.

were some of the BOM plates written in reformed egyptian and channelled into olde english speak?
were some of the BOM plates written in hebrew and translated word for word into olde english speak?
were some of the BOM plates written in greek and translated word for word into olde english speak?

for instance, If Jesus came and spoke the sermon on the mount to them in hebrew or reformed egyptian or what not, why would it match the greek translation (from the future) with errors and all from the KJV?

its all very interesting anyway. I suppose next is to look at subject and content simularities.

This humorous article by Jeff Lindsay applies very well to the video that was recently released.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/oneday.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Personally, I see this latest video as a testament to the authenticity of The BOM, as you will understand from the above article. I was thinking along the same lines before I even watched the presentation and was already coming to similar conclusions as Jeff Lindsay.

Gone Fishing wrote: Jo said...
I am speaking about edifying each other toward salvation.

Jo, is that human nature, or does we all want to know we will get there if we are ticking the boxes our daily franchise?

From the pov of the believer (regardless of which religion they hang their hat on): They want to believe that they are doing the right thing; the purpose of believing to begin with is having hope that there is a God---and that this life isn't the end of our being. So we look for something that resonates with us; even with what we want to hear---which sounds like something that will continue our existence. We are also only able to experience God in accordance with what we allow ourselves to believe. In this way, even though the Holy Spirit can teach us ALL things, we limit the Holy Spirit by what we allow ourselves to believe. And however we believe, then THAT is how we experience God. Edifying one another helps us to see how someone else is experiencing God...it can help us to open ourselves to considering what others have to say. Edifying opens us up and allows the Holy Spirit to increase our experiencing of God.

What we want to believe is really another way of saying that this is something we are ready to believe. Regardless of whether we are "right" or "wrong" (or if there IS such a thing as being right or wrong), whatever we believe at any given moment....THAT is how we are experiencing "God". (Even agnostics and atheists---in accordance with what they do or don't believe...THAT is how they are experiencing "God".) THAT becomes our "truth"---whatever we believe IS the "truth" we are able and ready to experience. If we choose to be Budhist; then we will experience God in accordance with Budhist beliefs---and what we experience will be our truth about God. If we choose to be Methodist; then we will experience God in accordance with Methodist beliefs---and what we experience will be our truth about God. If we choose the LDS Church; the same thing.

Laws, commandments, creeds, belief systems, ordinances, rituals, etc., these are all things which we live by and practice in our efforts to show to "God" that we hope to continue on; preferably WITH Him---even if we don't know what that means or looks like. We tell ourselves that the better we obey things which we believe that this will show God our true desires, that we will be rewarded because of our steadfastness. We make lists; and we earnestly make sure that we have checked off every item on that list. A list, by its very nature, is confining; it places God in a box. Then we tell others that if they don't agree with us, they aren't going to make it. And if they insist on not agreeing with us, we actually feel justified in punishing them for not agreeing with us. Mankind actually resorts to killing others who won't agree with their ideas and rules and lists about God. Even when the other guy also believes in God. We kill each other; we judge each other; we punish each other. We do this, even though both "sides" want the same thing....sigh.

The Word became flesh to show by example, and to teach us NOT to judge or punish or kill. He set the example; but there still aren't many who have learned what He was teaching.

Livy:

This humorous article by Jeff Lindsay applies very well to the video that was recently released.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/oneday.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, insightful and funny article by Jeff Lindsay.
Now, can you save me some time - what is this "video that was recently released"?

"

You are denied the ability to share; and God forbid you received something that isn't in correlated material at all. People who teach classes, when they want to share something revealed to them, aren't sharing it for the purpose of speaking it as though it was to be revealed to the entire Church. They are sharing it amongst their ward family members. If you can't share it, you can't edify others. Those attending classes who have received revelation and share it are later chastised for daring to share something not correlated. This is absolutely a form of denying the power of God. Revelation is being swept under the rug; not only as though it never happened, but also it is being hidden---it is being denied. The entire premise of the LDS Church is founded upon the fact that Joseph Smith received personal revelation. Yet we are denied sharing what has been revealed to us personally; unless, of course, it has been correlated. Nothing "new" can ever pass the test of being correlated.

Jo, I do understand your concern.

It occurs to me that this 'wheat & tares' dealio is getting along toward the harvest stage.

In a way, those who choose to share their spiritual insight within and through what you call 'correlation' are doing exactly what Christ did in His mortal ministry, as well as the early Apostles who taught the Jews. They taught within the proscribed system of institutional religion. The miracle of using the 'institutional architecture' is that when the Spirit speaks the difference may be more obvious to those who have heard the exact same lesson over and over again and didn't realize there is potential for greater spiritual understanding.

The more obvious the difference between the 'mechanical' and the inspired, those actively seeking greater understanding are able to ask the questions they have unanswered.

Why endanger your ability to continue 'edifying' by tweaking those who are more interested in maintaining the status quo.

"Pass through the midst of them." It can be done in all humility, with the light of the Holy Spirit to direct. I don't have anything personal I need to share with members of the Church. I want to share what the Lord wants to share with His other children by means of my abilities and perspective.

There have been entire class periods when my lesson - with its carefully outlined, color coded questions & numbered scriptures - wasn't referred to after introducing a single question regarding a particular scripture which ignited a lively discussion.

It sounds like Brother Jones' new Ward is like that. How wonderful for everyone!

DrJones wrote:Livy:

This humorous article by Jeff Lindsay applies very well to the video that was recently released.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/oneday.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, insightful and funny article by Jeff Lindsay.
Now, can you save me some time - what is this "video that was recently released"?

"

It is a video from the presentation at the Ex-Mo Foundation conference that goes over the arguments that Aussie/GoneFishin has been bringing up.

buffalo_girl wrote:

You are denied the ability to share; and God forbid you received something that isn't in correlated material at all. People who teach classes, when they want to share something revealed to them, aren't sharing it for the purpose of speaking it as though it was to be revealed to the entire Church. They are sharing it amongst their ward family members. If you can't share it, you can't edify others. Those attending classes who have received revelation and share it are later chastised for daring to share something not correlated. This is absolutely a form of denying the power of God. Revelation is being swept under the rug; not only as though it never happened, but also it is being hidden---it is being denied. The entire premise of the LDS Church is founded upon the fact that Joseph Smith received personal revelation. Yet we are denied sharing what has been revealed to us personally; unless, of course, it has been correlated. Nothing "new" can ever pass the test of being correlated.

Jo, I do understand your concern.

It occurs to me that this 'wheat & tares' dealio is getting along toward the harvest stage.

In a way, those who choose to share their spiritual insight within and through what you call 'correlation' are doing exactly what Christ did in His mortal ministry, as well as the early Apostles who taught the Jews. They taught within the proscribed system of institutional religion. The miracle of using the 'institutional architecture' is that when the Spirit speaks the difference may be more obvious to those who have heard the exact same lesson over and over again and didn't realize there is potential for greater spiritual understanding.

The more obvious the difference between the 'mechanical' and the inspired, those actively seeking greater understanding are able to ask the questions they have unanswered.

Why endanger your ability to continue 'edifying' by tweaking those who are more interested in maintaining the status quo.

"Pass through the midst of them." It can be done in all humility, with the light of the Holy Spirit to direct. I don't have anything personal I need to share with members of the Church. I want to share what the Lord wants to share with His other children by means of my abilities and perspective.

There have been entire class periods when my lesson - with its carefully outlined, color coded questions & numbered scriptures - wasn't referred to after introducing a single question regarding a particular scripture which ignited a lively discussion.

It sounds like Brother Jones' new Ward is like that. How wonderful for everyone!

I understand exactly where you are coming from! The reason for discussing this is to show that the Church teaches the Joseph Smith history; but does not recognize that she fits the description of what Joseph was forbidden to join: "having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof”. Because of correlation (this is an abomination! It is an indication of our condemnation!), we have shut the door to the Holy Spirit's ability to give us more truth to the individual. Joseph said that every individual can have revealed to them everything that had been revealed to him. That includes what he did not share when the Church, as a collective, was not ready. Today, individuals ARE having revealed to them those things which were revealed to Joseph; but which he had not yet shared. The Church won't let us share those things. This causes those who are hungry and ready for meat to starve at Church; even though we are able to do what we can under the rules the Church has set up. The Holy Spirit will surely help us teach in accordance with what the members are ready to hear. And kudos to you for hanging in there and doing your part!!! There are also those among us in our ward families who ARE ready to hear more. Where are they to go so they can be fed? We can't even form study groups outside of Church anymore so that like-minded members can meet and share. Thank heavens for this forum!! What a mess, huh? Still, the Church IS helping to fulfill God's purposes. Meanwhile, we can work within her in accordance with her rules; but also be there for others who are awakening to our awful state. We surely aren't getting that support from the Church; unless we are lucky enough to be in an untypical ward (like Bro. Jones' ward).