Page 19 of 34

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 1:00 am
by freedomforall
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. Are you serious? You risk offending Christ with this claim? There are hundreds of saints doing their very best to follow Christ, by feasting upon the word, repenting regularly, praying, etc. How can you honestly speak for the whole body of Christ? It's a shame, or should I say...sham. We all must do the same thing; have a direct, personal relationship with God. This is fact. Seek, and ye shall find. NOT, let someone else seek and depend upon what they find. This is so true, this is why I correct you and Frank all the time because I will not rely wrested scripture, especially where the meaning has been distorted or otherwise changed. I applaud you.

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.
Really! No one except the prophet can have revelation for the whole church. Additionally, revelation will not cause someone to change the wording and or the meaning of scripture to mean something it does not. A person having a revelation that is in conflict with official church doctrine the said revelation must be examined and weighed as to its truth. Also, one cannot assume the said revelation is for the ears of everyone.

Alma 12:9
9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. In other words, anything that is backed by scripture is allowed to be discussed, but any information that God may reveal to any one person, that is not in scripture...is to be retained in one's head, it is not for everyone else to know. Is anyone willing to collaborate this?

The info spewed forth on the forum for the world to read claimed to be "higher knowledge" is clearly against God's word. To change or twist the meaning of scripture is a travesty.

Believe that it is not your calling to cause people to doubt their beliefs based on mere claims of higher knowledge. According to the verse cited, even if you were to get new info, it is to be retained by the recipient and not spewed to the world.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 2:40 am
by AussieOi
>>>>>>> No one except the prophet can have revelation for the whole church


Cool, which one?
We have 15 I understand.
I have no idea where those other 3 came from either.
Prophet.
Prophet
Interesting.


The proclamation on the family.
Was that a revelation.

When asked by his son in law about that he said "that, oh that was (insert name of "just" an apostle's) idea.

Wasn't the word of wisdom Emma's idea?

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 3:31 am
by freedomforall
Gone Fishing wrote:>>>>>>> No one except the prophet can have revelation for the whole church


Cool, which one?
We have 15 I understand.
I have no idea where those other 3 came from either.
Prophet.
Prophet
Interesting.


The proclamation on the family.
Was that a revelation.

When asked by his son in law about that he said "that, oh that was (insert name of "just" an apostle's) idea.

Wasn't the word of wisdom Emma's idea?
I'm not concerned as to your believing this or not. It is for information purposes. Take it as you will.

Prophet: A man who has been called by and speaks for God. As a messenger of God, a prophet receives priesthood authority, commandments, prophecies, and revelations from God. His responsibility is to make known God’s will and true character to mankind and to show the meaning of His dealings with them. A prophet denounces sin and foretells its consequences. He is a preacher of righteousness. On occasion, a prophet may be inspired to foretell the future for the benefit of mankind. His primary responsibility, however, is to bear witness of Christ.

http://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gos ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Under Key Definitions near the bottom.

Christ did not need Councilors when he walked the earth. Let's face it, He was God, Jehovah, in the flesh. He did, however, call twleve men to be His disciples. All of these men were sinners just like they are today. Nothing has changed. We're all He's got...unless He wants to bring back twelve men from the past. You know, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Nephi, Moroni, Noah, Adam, Lehi, Alma, Abinidi, Zeezrom, Enoch, Ether, Alfred E Newman...well maybe not him, but a host of others.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 3:58 am
by AussieOi
Typically, you also appear confused about "the" prophet and "a" prophet.

we LDS are good for that. We like to manufacture an artificial box of our own creation and then tell god what he can and cannot do.

But I don't want to engage that discussion in this thread. Lord knows we've had it 50 times before.

Isn't it fascinating that Joseph Smith, when he channeled the allegory of the Book of Mormon (comment: in my opinion), that it started with "a" prophet acting outside of that very chain of command (nice American militaristic concept you'd be familiar with). Lehi vs Jeremiah.
Abinadi.


Samuel.


Incidentally, our 12s responsibility is to simply baptise.

Is their responsibility to do all those things you say? I know we are asked to sustain them to do that. Can you give me the scripture where what you say is their charge?

I didn't think "prophet" was a charge. I thought it was a gift from god. The potential ability to do so coming from god if he wills it.

Perhaps you can demonstrate some prophecies any of our prophets have given since 1844.

I'm curious how god is restricted to talking to the world through these men only.

Jo explains it 50 x better than me. A god of our own creation, and then we beat up others for not believing as we tell them.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 9:59 am
by dlbww
.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 11:03 am
by drjme
dlbww wrote:
freedomfighter wrote:
drjme wrote:
I think you give him too much credit. Using this same logic you could say the same thing about the bible. Don't you think he knew Jesus was coming? Don't you think he knew about Jesus and what he would do for the world?

If he knew what killing Jesus would do for he world he would have made sure no one lived who tried to kill Jesus. He does not know the future by his own powers, he does not comprehend the power and plans of God. He lives in reaction to them, not in anticipation of them. By this logic you can't even trust the written word of God.
Satan knows more than is given credit. Why else was he driven out of heaven and cast down to earth? He was in on the counsels in heaven from the beginning. He had to know all or he wouldn't know how to tempt us in every way possible. He wouldn't know how to twist truth around and make it appear evil. Yes, Satan knows a tremendous amount of ways to turn men away from God. He does it all the time. Isn't this why there is so much evil speaking of church leaders on this forum? Isn't this why people are allowed on this forum to cut down the church in so many ways? Satan knows every trick in the book, because he knows the truth of all things, yet he chose not to follow his Father's plan. He wanted all the glory for himself in making everyone come back to God. The war in heaven still rages here on earth. It is up to the righteous to seek God and His Christ, and their words for safety. Satan knows each of us and knows exactly what buttons to push to get any one of us to join him in his effort and goal to destroy the church and the people in it. Remember, we cannot serve both God and Mammon? We must choose one or the other, however, if we do not choose God...hell is the default setting.
"The war in heaven still rages here on earth". Yes it does. And it seems certain that without the full armor of God we will lose that battle. "Satan knows each of us ..." And I suspect in an NSA-like fashion has stored all our data and is not limited by rule of law to use it against us. Perhaps that sifting time is now.
I have no doubt that he knows a lot, people miss my point. They give him more power than he has. They think he knows the future, they think he is a fallen god. the war doesnt rage in the way people think it does, because Christ has already won, sin and death has been conquered, satan is fighting a battle that he has been declared the loser. People empower an already disempowered devil with this kind of talk. Especially coming from Christians...

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 2:04 pm
by freedomforall
Gone Fishing wrote:Typically, you also appear confused about "the" prophet and "a" prophet.

we LDS are good for that. We like to manufacture an artificial box of our own creation and then tell god what he can and cannot do.

But I don't want to engage that discussion in this thread. Lord knows we've had it 50 times before.

Isn't it fascinating that Joseph Smith, when he channeled the allegory of the Book of Mormon (comment: in my opinion), that it started with "a" prophet acting outside of that very chain of command (nice American militaristic concept you'd be familiar with). Lehi vs Jeremiah.
Abinadi.


Samuel.


Incidentally, our 12s responsibility is to simply baptise.

Is their responsibility to do all those things you say? I know we are asked to sustain them to do that. Can you give me the scripture where what you say is their charge?

For anyone that feel they are above following the prophet or apostles read this:
20 Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you.
21 And again, I say unto you, that whosoever ye shall send in my name, by the voice of your brethren, the Twelve, duly recommended and authorized by you, shall have power to open the door of my kingdom unto any nation whithersoever ye shall send them—
22 Inasmuch as they shall humble themselves before me, and abide in my word, and hearken to the voice of my Spirit



I didn't think "prophet" was a charge. I thought it was a gift from god. The potential ability to do so coming from god if he wills it.

A title for the presiding officer of an organization. The President of the Church is a prophet, seer, and revelator (D&C 21:1; 107:91–92), and members of the Church are to call the prophet of the Church by the title “President” (D&C 107:65). He is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.

21 Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers growing out of, or appointed of or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods.
22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned


Perhaps you can demonstrate some prophecies any of our prophets have given since 1844. 1978

I'm curious how god is restricted to talking to the world through these men only. Read verse 23 above. Prophet holds all keys. See above.

Jo explains it 50 x better than me. A god of our own creation, and then we beat up others for not believing as we tell them.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 2:19 pm
by freedomforall
drjme wrote:
dlbww wrote:
drjme wrote:
I think you give him too much credit. Using this same logic you could say the same thing about the bible. Don't you think he knew Jesus was coming? Don't you think he knew about Jesus and what he would do for the world?

If he knew what killing Jesus would do for he world he would have made sure no one lived who tried to kill Jesus. He does not know the future by his own powers, he does not comprehend the power and plans of God. He lives in reaction to them, not in anticipation of them. By this logic you can't even trust the written word of God.

"The war in heaven still rages here on earth". Yes it does. And it seems certain that without the full armor of God we will lose that battle. "Satan knows each of us ..." And I suspect in an NSA-like fashion has stored all our data and is not limited by rule of law to use it against us. Perhaps that sifting time is now.
I have no doubt that he knows a lot, people miss my point. They give him more power than he has. They think he knows the future, they think he is a fallen god. the war doesnt rage in the way people think it does, because Christ has already won, sin and death has been conquered, satan is fighting a battle that he has been declared the loser. People empower an already disempowered devil with this kind of talk. Especially coming from Christians...
Let me put it this way, If you have sinned at least once in this life that you have not repented for, he already has you. Sorry. One sin will keep you out from the presence of Father. Believe it. Besides if you think I'm wrong, what happened to Adam and Eve when they sinned one time buy partaking the forbidden fruit? They became fallen, and were cast from before God's presence. They then had to repent in order to get back to Father. No? This process has never changed. God tells us, you sin one time and you are out of here. No unclean thing can enter into His presence, He says so.
Would you now like to rethink your position?

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 4:14 pm
by drjme
freedomfighter wrote: Let me put it this way, If you have sinned at least once in this life that you have not repented for, he already has you. Sorry. One sin will keep you out from the presence of Father. Believe it. Besides if you think I'm wrong, what happened to Adam and Eve when they sinned one time buy partaking the forbidden fruit? They became fallen, and were cast from before God's presence. They then had to repent in order to get back to Father. No? This process has never changed. God tells us, you sin one time and you are out of here. No unclean thing can enter into His presence, He says so.
Would you now like to rethink your position?

Not really, not.

Adam and Eve still were in Gods presence after they had sinned. He still met with them and informed them that as a result of their disobedience they could no longer dwell in the garden. So the statements you made are not absolute.
Using your position, you can say that anyone that sins in ignorance is condemned to the devils lair. Because one minuscule sin they didn't even know about is held against them. Now as a non believer in Christ this is true, all sins are held against someone who doesn't accept Christ.. But as a believer in Christ you don't understand grace. You see when we are in Christ we are judged by His merits, not ours, we are given to conquer because we are in Him, and he has already conquered the devil.
Dan7:22 When the ancient of days takes his throne...judgement is passed...in favour of the saints...to inherit the kingdom.

Christ has conquered and taken the throne and so judgement has been passed in favor of the saints to inherit the kingdom of God.
So what does this look for you?

Do we repent? Yes. Do we try our best to be better? Yes. In the end is that what saves us? No. It is the good that Christ done that saves us, not the good we done. It isn't our ability to repent perfectly or to be perfect.We are reconciled to the father by Christs merits alone. Would you like to rethink you position? :)

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 7:11 pm
by drjme
drjme wrote: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.
Back to thread topic. bump. Thoughts?

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 9:19 pm
by freedomforall
drjme wrote:
freedomfighter wrote: Let me put it this way, If you have sinned at least once in this life that you have not repented for, he already has you. Sorry. One sin will keep you out from the presence of Father. Believe it. Besides if you think I'm wrong, what happened to Adam and Eve when they sinned one time buy partaking the forbidden fruit? They became fallen, and were cast from before God's presence. They then had to repent in order to get back to Father. No? This process has never changed. God tells us, you sin one time and you are out of here. No unclean thing can enter into His presence, He says so.
Would you now like to rethink your position?

Not really, not.

Adam and Eve still were in Gods presence after they had sinned. He still met with them and informed them that as a result of their disobedience they could no longer dwell in the garden. So the statements you made are not absolute.
Using your position, you can say that anyone that sins in ignorance is condemned to the devils lair. Because one minuscule sin they didn't even know about is held against them. Now as a non believer in Christ this is true, all sins are held against someone who doesn't accept Christ.. But as a believer in Christ you don't understand grace. You see when we are in Christ we are judged by His merits, not ours, we are given to conquer because we are in Him, and he has already conquered the devil.
Dan7:22 When the ancient of days takes his throne...judgement is passed...in favour of the saints...to inherit the kingdom.

Christ has conquered and taken the throne and so judgement has been passed in favor of the saints to inherit the kingdom of God.
So what does this look for you?

Do we repent? Yes. Do we try our best to be better? Yes. In the end is that what saves us? No. It is the good that Christ done that saves us, not the good we done. It isn't our ability to repent perfectly or to be perfect.We are reconciled to the father by Christs merits alone. Would you like to rethink you position? :)
Absolutely not! The scriptures I posted say what the plan of justice is and I can't help it if people refuse to read and understand that which is written. I can't put into words the discontent I have because of unbelief. It's much easier to say I'm in the wrong than to read it for yourselves.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 9:49 pm
by drjme
freedomfighter wrote:
drjme wrote:
freedomfighter wrote: Let me put it this way, If you have sinned at least once in this life that you have not repented for, he already has you. Sorry. One sin will keep you out from the presence of Father. Believe it. Besides if you think I'm wrong, what happened to Adam and Eve when they sinned one time buy partaking the forbidden fruit? They became fallen, and were cast from before God's presence. They then had to repent in order to get back to Father. No? This process has never changed. God tells us, you sin one time and you are out of here. No unclean thing can enter into His presence, He says so.
Would you now like to rethink your position?

Not really, not.

Adam and Eve still were in Gods presence after they had sinned. He still met with them and informed them that as a result of their disobedience they could no longer dwell in the garden. So the statements you made are not absolute.
Using your position, you can say that anyone that sins in ignorance is condemned to the devils lair. Because one minuscule sin they didn't even know about is held against them. Now as a non believer in Christ this is true, all sins are held against someone who doesn't accept Christ.. But as a believer in Christ you don't understand grace. You see when we are in Christ we are judged by His merits, not ours, we are given to conquer because we are in Him, and he has already conquered the devil.
Dan7:22 When the ancient of days takes his throne...judgement is passed...in favour of the saints...to inherit the kingdom.

Christ has conquered and taken the throne and so judgement has been passed in favor of the saints to inherit the kingdom of God.
So what does this look for you?

Do we repent? Yes. Do we try our best to be better? Yes. In the end is that what saves us? No. It is the good that Christ done that saves us, not the good we done. It isn't our ability to repent perfectly or to be perfect.We are reconciled to the father by Christs merits alone. Would you like to rethink you position? :)
Absolutely not! The scriptures I posted say what the plan of justice is and I can't help it if people refuse to read and understand that which is written. I can't put into words the discontent I have because of unbelief. It's much easier to say I'm in the wrong than to read it for yourselves.
so have you perfectly repented of EVERY sin in your entire life? missed any? if you have are you numbered amongst the devil minions?

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 10:46 pm
by AussieOi
No one will engage drjme.

Too confronting. They prefer conforming

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 11:23 pm
by jbalm
drjme wrote:
drjme wrote: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.
Back to thread topic. bump. Thoughts?
Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer all described JS doing a word for word translation of the plates. Do we throw them under the bus for the sake of BOM historicity?

Of course, that would mean throwing two of the three witnesses of the Gold Plates themselves under the bus. Something has got to give. Maybe we should just classify the BOM as midrash and be done with the debate.

Quite the conundrum the apologists find themselves in. I bet right about now, they are wishing they could just fall back on the tried and true "Satan did it" defense.

Apparently there is a very fine line between faithfulness and ignorance.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 11:26 pm
by jbalm
Then there was the whole thing about JS trying to sell the copyright to the BOM.

What's up with that?

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 11:50 pm
by drjme
jbalm wrote:
drjme wrote:
drjme wrote: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.
Back to thread topic. bump. Thoughts?
Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer all described JS doing a word for word translation of the plates. Do we throw them under the bus for the sake of BOM historicity?

Of course, that would mean throwing two of the three witnesses of the Gold Plates themselves under the bus. Something has got to give. Maybe we should just classify the BOM as midrash and be done with the debate.

Quite the conundrum the apologists find themselves in. I bet right about now, they are wishing they could just fall back on the tried and true "Satan did it" defense.

Apparently there is a very fine line between faithfulness and ignorance.
was the witness account using the urim and thummin? the seerstone? or straight off the plates?

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 30th, 2013, 11:53 pm
by jbalm
As far as I can remember, it was the stone in all three of the accounts.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 31st, 2013, 1:11 am
by drjme
Interesting. Edit

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 31st, 2013, 2:00 am
by AussieOi
jbalm wrote:Then there was the whole thing about JS trying to sell the copyright to the BOM.

What's up with that?

Don't go there.
He didn't write a book he couldn't get published then start a religion

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 31st, 2013, 2:02 am
by AussieOi
jbalm wrote:As far as I can remember, it was the stone in all three of the accounts.

IIRC, the word Urim wasn't used until 1835 or 1838.

(?)

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 31st, 2013, 7:41 am
by freedomforall
drjme wrote:
freedomfighter wrote:
drjme wrote:

Not really, not.

Adam and Eve still were in Gods presence after they had sinned. He still met with them and informed them that as a result of their disobedience they could no longer dwell in the garden. So the statements you made are not absolute.
Using your position, you can say that anyone that sins in ignorance is condemned to the devils lair. Because one minuscule sin they didn't even know about is held against them. Now as a non believer in Christ this is true, all sins are held against someone who doesn't accept Christ.. But as a believer in Christ you don't understand grace. You see when we are in Christ we are judged by His merits, not ours, we are given to conquer because we are in Him, and he has already conquered the devil.
Dan7:22 When the ancient of days takes his throne...judgement is passed...in favour of the saints...to inherit the kingdom.

Christ has conquered and taken the throne and so judgement has been passed in favor of the saints to inherit the kingdom of God.
So what does this look for you?

Do we repent? Yes. Do we try our best to be better? Yes. In the end is that what saves us? No. It is the good that Christ done that saves us, not the good we done. It isn't our ability to repent perfectly or to be perfect.We are reconciled to the father by Christs merits alone. Would you like to rethink you position? :)
Absolutely not! The scriptures I posted say what the plan of justice is and I can't help it if people refuse to read and understand that which is written. I can't put into words the discontent I have because of unbelief. It's much easier to say I'm in the wrong than to read it for yourselves.
so have you perfectly repented of EVERY sin in your entire life? missed any? if you have are you numbered amongst the devil minions?
See what I mean? I said sin un-repented of, not sins that have been remitted. My point was that when someone sins beyond the age of accountability, those sins will keep them from the presence of the Father until they have been repented of and remitted. Sins have to be remitted before one can be with Father and Christ. It's in the book.
Frankly, I have hope that Christ removes stains from my spirit and body...this is all any of us can hope for...because God sure will tell us where we stand at the judgement bar. When we repent with a sincere heart, with real intent and a contrite spirit our sin can be lift from us. But God does not accept wooden nickles. He knows if we are sincere or not.
We have this promise when we repent regularly:

Mosiah 26:30
30 Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me. Is this unclear?

Moro. 6:8
8 But as oft as they repented and sought forgiveness, with real intent, they were forgiven. Ah, there's the real intent part.

Acts 3:19
19 ¶Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; Right out of the bible. Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. I have not said otherwise, yet some here argue that God will save us all against our will. Remember, no unclean thing can enter into God's presence and remain?

2 Ne. 1:20
20 And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence. Straight forward, right?

If we do not repent:


Doctrine and Covenants 76:84
84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.

2 Nephi 9:34
34 Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell. Prov. 9:18, 2 Ne. 9:12 (11–12), Alma 12:11 and D&C 29:38

2 Nephi 9:36
36 Wo unto them who commit whoredoms, for they shall be thrust down to hell.

2 Nephi 28:15
15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell Pretty clear, right?

Ignorance vs Rebellion

D&C 76
81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.
82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus. Not ignorance ,rather, no interest.
83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.
84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.
85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work.

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.
72 Behold, these are they who died without law;
73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;
74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

Now for the Celestial
50 ...this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—
51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—
52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God Only the Celestial are Gods.
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
60 And they shall overcome all things.
61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.
62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people. Only Celestial people will rise to meet the Savior when He comes.
64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.
65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.
66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.
67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.
68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.
69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.
70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

What is the church of Enoch, vs 67?:


D&C 133:54-56
54 Yea, and Enoch also, and they who were with him; the prophets who were before him; and Noah also, and they who were before him; and Moses also, and they who were before him;
55 And from Moses to Elijah, and from Elijah to John, who were with Christ in his resurrection, and the holy apostles, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, shall be in the presence of the Lamb.
56 And the graves of the saints shall be opened; and they shall come forth and stand on the right hand of the Lamb, when he shall stand upon Mount Zion, and upon the holy city, the New Jerusalem; and they shall sing the song of the Lamb, day and night forever and ever.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 31st, 2013, 7:45 am
by Hyrcanus
jbalm wrote:
drjme wrote:
drjme wrote: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.
Back to thread topic. bump. Thoughts?
Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer all described JS doing a word for word translation of the plates. Do we throw them under the bus for the sake of BOM historicity?

Of course, that would mean throwing two of the three witnesses of the Gold Plates themselves under the bus. Something has got to give. Maybe we should just classify the BOM as midrash and be done with the debate.

Quite the conundrum the apologists find themselves in. I bet right about now, they are wishing they could just fall back on the tried and true "Satan did it" defense.

Apparently there is a very fine line between faithfulness and ignorance.
I think it's a bit of a stretch given the various accounts we have to say that the only plausible translation method was word for word. I'm not disagreeing with your broader point that apologists tend to shift back and forth to whatever is most convenient at the time, but from an objective perspective, I don't think it is clear precisely how the "translation" occurred.

Edit: For those interested I think Royal Skousen probably makes the best case for a word for word translation and Stephen Ricks for a "looser" version. Both of them published papers at Farms (NAMI) on the topic.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 31st, 2013, 7:49 am
by Hyrcanus
jbalm wrote:As far as I can remember, it was the stone in all three of the accounts.
The vast majority of the accounts have him using the stone. Emma said he used the U & T when he was translating most of what became known as the 116 pages, but that was 40 years after the fact, so take it with a grain of salt.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 31st, 2013, 8:05 am
by buffalo_girl
IIRC, the word Urim wasn't used until 1835 or 1838.

(?)

Huh?!!

Leviticus 8
6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.

7 And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith.

8 And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.

9 And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre, even upon his forefront, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown; as the Lord commanded Moses.

Re: It's all over. Adieu

Posted: October 31st, 2013, 8:19 am
by Hyrcanus
buffalo_girl wrote:
IIRC, the word Urim wasn't used until 1835 or 1838.

(?)

Huh?!!

Leviticus 8
6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.

7 And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith.

8 And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.

9 And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre, even upon his forefront, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown; as the Lord commanded Moses.
I think he was suggesting that the first time the Urim and Thummim were mentioned in the restoration was 1835 or 1838. Although I think that is incorrect as well. I know D&C 17 mentions it specifically. Perhaps it was in the context of referring to them as an instrument in translation.