and the Lord of the vineyard wept

[thestock]

Okay, I’ve never stated to you my belief on them , so how can you make this claim about me when you don’t know my belief?

And I’m glad you’ve made it clear that you have this idea of a doctrine of faith in mortal men, and that somehow this faith in this men results in some blessing. Such a doctrine does not exist, you should not have faith in a mortal man. Those mortal men serve to point you towards Jesus, towards the gate that he guards. Whether you think they are special witnesses or non-special witness is unimportant.There is a gate, and the Lord employs no servant at that gate. Your belief and faith in 15 mortal men won’t get you through that gate because they are not employed to guard that Gate. Jesus Christ alone is at that gate, and belief in him alone will determine if you make it to the other side of that gate.

I'm not sure how one finds himself on the right side of the fence if he rejects the belief that the living prophets have the authority to act for and in behalf of God (have authority of God's holy priesthood).

I’m not sure how one can hear Jesus say he employs no servant at the gate and yet still convince themselves that surely Jesus employs someone at the gate.

Having faith in mortal men, insisting that you must have faith in mortal men, and defending such garbage. Such a sad state.

Do you believe the Israelites were duped into thinking they were supposed to listen to Moses? How about Abraham, Issac and Jacob? How about John the Baptist and Peter? Did Satan influence men to pretend to receive revelation and write scripture to make themselves a go between that God did not want? Or was it ok to follow ancient prophets but modern one's who try to lead serve the Devil?

Joseph Smith seems to think so. In fact, after consulting the stone in his hat as to why the revelation to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada failed, he said to David Whitmer and others "some revelations are of God, some revelations are of men, and some revelations are of the Devil."

[Cheetos]

It's rather simple- if you are of the belief our current leaders are who they say they are- special witnesses of Jesus Christ then you must be on the other side of the fence.

Okay, I’ve never stated to you my belief on them , so how can you make this claim about me when you don’t know my belief?

And I’m glad you’ve made it clear that you have this idea of a doctrine of faith in mortal men, and that somehow this faith in this men results in some blessing. Such a doctrine does not exist, you should not have faith in a mortal man. Those mortal men serve to point you towards Jesus, towards the gate that he guards. Whether you think they are special witnesses or non-special witness is unimportant.There is a gate, and the Lord employs no servant at that gate. Your belief and faith in 15 mortal men won’t get you through that gate because they are not employed to guard that Gate. Jesus Christ alone is at that gate, and belief in him alone will determine if you make it to the other side of that gate.

I'm not sure how one finds himself on the right side of the fence if he rejects the belief that the living prophets have the authority to act for and in behalf of God (have authority of God's holy priesthood).

I’m not sure how one can hear Jesus say he employs no servant at the gate and yet still convince themselves that surely Jesus employs someone at the gate.

Having faith in mortal men, insisting that you must have faith in mortal men, and defending such garbage. Such a sad state.

Remember, it is through mortal men who hold the authority of the priesthood, that the administration of the ordinances of salvation of the gospel are brought to pass. Without prophets who hold the authority and keys, no ordinances of salvation for mankind come to pass. The bottom line is that access to the atonements saving power comes through the prophets who hold the keys to administer the saving ordinances.

[Zathura]

Okay, I’ve never stated to you my belief on them , so how can you make this claim about me when you don’t know my belief?

And I’m glad you’ve made it clear that you have this idea of a doctrine of faith in mortal men, and that somehow this faith in this men results in some blessing. Such a doctrine does not exist, you should not have faith in a mortal man. Those mortal men serve to point you towards Jesus, towards the gate that he guards. Whether you think they are special witnesses or non-special witness is unimportant.There is a gate, and the Lord employs no servant at that gate. Your belief and faith in 15 mortal men won’t get you through that gate because they are not employed to guard that Gate. Jesus Christ alone is at that gate, and belief in him alone will determine if you make it to the other side of that gate.

I'm not sure how one finds himself on the right side of the fence if he rejects the belief that the living prophets have the authority to act for and in behalf of God (have authority of God's holy priesthood).

I’m not sure how one can hear Jesus say he employs no servant at the gate and yet still convince themselves that surely Jesus employs someone at the gate.

Having faith in mortal men, insisting that you must have faith in mortal men, and defending such garbage. Such a sad state.

Do you believe the Israelites were duped into thinking they were supposed to listen to Moses? How about Abraham, Issac and Jacob? How about John the Baptist and Peter? Did Satan influence men to pretend to receive revelation and write scripture to make themselves a go between that God did not want? Or was it ok to follow ancient prophets but modern one's who try to lead serve the Devil?

These seem like pointless questions IMO. I've never suggested anybody was influenced by Satan at any point. I'm simply addressing this oft-preached false doctrine that says that if someone does not have have faith in a prophet, or does not profess to know if someone is a prophet, then they can't possibly be someone that has the Spirit / Receives Salvation / Has faith in Jesus.

As often as I state that the Lord employs no servant at the gate, there come at least 2 that insist that surely he does employ someone at the gate. It's not true, it will never be true. Your belief or lack of belief in a prophet will not impact your salvation. There is often this knee-jerk reaction by people on this forum when someone suggests they do not know if a certain GA is a general authority. Not knowing , and therefore not yet having a belief that a certain person is a prophet is not the same thing as rejecting that person. This knee-jerk reaction is caused by traditions of men. We hold too firmly to our prophets, we lean on them and depend on them and we should not do that. Find faith in Jesus and Jesus alone.

[Zathura]

Okay, I’ve never stated to you my belief on them , so how can you make this claim about me when you don’t know my belief?

And I’m glad you’ve made it clear that you have this idea of a doctrine of faith in mortal men, and that somehow this faith in this men results in some blessing. Such a doctrine does not exist, you should not have faith in a mortal man. Those mortal men serve to point you towards Jesus, towards the gate that he guards. Whether you think they are special witnesses or non-special witness is unimportant.There is a gate, and the Lord employs no servant at that gate. Your belief and faith in 15 mortal men won’t get you through that gate because they are not employed to guard that Gate. Jesus Christ alone is at that gate, and belief in him alone will determine if you make it to the other side of that gate.

I'm not sure how one finds himself on the right side of the fence if he rejects the belief that the living prophets have the authority to act for and in behalf of God (have authority of God's holy priesthood).

I’m not sure how one can hear Jesus say he employs no servant at the gate and yet still convince themselves that surely Jesus employs someone at the gate.

Having faith in mortal men, insisting that you must have faith in mortal men, and defending such garbage. Such a sad state.

Remember, it is through mortal men who hold the authority of the priesthood, that the administration of the ordinances of salvation of the gospel are brought to pass. Without prophets who hold the authority and keys, no ordinances of salvation for mankind come to pass. The bottom line is that access to the atonements saving power comes through the prophets who hold the keys to administer the saving ordinances.

How did Adam receive Salvation with no ordinance?
How did the Lamanites in Helaman 5 receive Salvation without an ordinance?

Read about the Huguenots. They clearly manifested the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the 1500's, more so than members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 2019. How could they have the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the spirit that come from that Gift without ordinances?

Don't limit yourself, don't limit your faith by putting somebody between yourself and God. If you insist on doing that to yourself, stop doing that to others. It's false doctrine. The Lord employs no servant at the Gate, he requires faith in Jesus Christ, and nobody else. It's false doctrine to say otherwise. A prophet serves only to point to Jesus Christ. Period.

[jmack]

You're talking about two different things. Jesus employs no servant at the gate of heaven, there is no other way but through him is what the prophets teach! And God sends true messengers and watchmen on tower to exercise authority offer saving ordinances in the flesh, to bind in heaven what is done on earth through covenants. You can't serve God and reject his servants.

[jmack]

I'm not sure how one finds himself on the right side of the fence if he rejects the belief that the living prophets have the authority to act for and in behalf of God (have authority of God's holy priesthood).

I’m not sure how one can hear Jesus say he employs no servant at the gate and yet still convince themselves that surely Jesus employs someone at the gate.

Having faith in mortal men, insisting that you must have faith in mortal men, and defending such garbage. Such a sad state.

Remember, it is through mortal men who hold the authority of the priesthood, that the administration of the ordinances of salvation of the gospel are brought to pass. Without prophets who hold the authority and keys, no ordinances of salvation for mankind come to pass. The bottom line is that access to the atonements saving power comes through the prophets who hold the keys to administer the saving ordinances.

How did Adam receive Salvation with no ordinance?
How did the Lamanites in Helaman 5 receive Salvation without an ordinance?

Read about the Huguenots. They clearly manifested the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the 1500's, more so than members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 2019. How could they have the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the spirit that come from that Gift without ordinances?

Don't limit yourself, don't limit your faith by putting somebody between yourself and God. If you insist on doing that to yourself, stop doing that to others. It's false doctrine. The Lord employs no servant at the Gate, he requires faith in Jesus Christ, and nobody else. It's false doctrine to say otherwise. A prophet serves only to point to Jesus Christ. Period.

Do you also reject the ancient prophets and do you reject that ordinances wete given in ancient times? If you do then I understand why you reject them today.

[jmack]

And I better clarify. TRUE MESSENGERS, not wannabe fakes who try to sound like prophets by quoting a bunch of scriptures and using Jesus' titles.

[Zathura]

I’m not sure how one can hear Jesus say he employs no servant at the gate and yet still convince themselves that surely Jesus employs someone at the gate.

Having faith in mortal men, insisting that you must have faith in mortal men, and defending such garbage. Such a sad state.

Remember, it is through mortal men who hold the authority of the priesthood, that the administration of the ordinances of salvation of the gospel are brought to pass. Without prophets who hold the authority and keys, no ordinances of salvation for mankind come to pass. The bottom line is that access to the atonements saving power comes through the prophets who hold the keys to administer the saving ordinances.

How did Adam receive Salvation with no ordinance?
How did the Lamanites in Helaman 5 receive Salvation without an ordinance?

Read about the Huguenots. They clearly manifested the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the 1500's, more so than members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 2019. How could they have the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the spirit that come from that Gift without ordinances?

Don't limit yourself, don't limit your faith by putting somebody between yourself and God. If you insist on doing that to yourself, stop doing that to others. It's false doctrine. The Lord employs no servant at the Gate, he requires faith in Jesus Christ, and nobody else. It's false doctrine to say otherwise. A prophet serves only to point to Jesus Christ. Period.

Do you also reject the ancient prophets and do you reject that ordinances wete given in ancient times? If you do then I understand why you reject them today.

Are you reading what I'm saying? Or do you just immediately click reply? When did I say I rejected anybody?
You have no explanation for Adam, The Lamanites in Helaman 5 or for the Huguenots and so you ignore them. This is the typical response from those who insist that others must have faith in Russell M Nelson before they can have faith in Jesus Christ.

If someone does not have a knowledge or belief or a testimony that a certain person is a prophet, you don't need to assume they must be rejecting them. Rejection of a prophet consists of hearing a prophets words, the prophet telling them to seek Christ(TAKE NOTE, the prophet is not saying "FOLLOW ME" , the Prophet is saying "FOLLOW CHRIST"), the person rejecting the Christ that the prophet directs them to. That's it.

The prophet is a sign on the path. A sign pointing in the direction you should go, not a guide whose hand you must hold in order for him to lead you to salvation. He cannot do that. Only your Faith in Jesus can do that for you, no matter how much you love, admire, and even worship the prophet.
Go jump in your car real quick and stop at the first sign you get to. Wait at that sign and have faith in it until it goes somewhere. See how far it takes you. Notice, you don't NEED The sign to get where you need to go. You could also use landmarks to get where you need to go. The signs just make things easier, especially for people unfamiliar with where they are going.

A lack of testimony in a mortal man or belief that a certain person is or is not a prophet will never prevent you from coming unto Jesus Christ. Anybody that says otherwise is Anti-Mormon and Anti-Christ.

[Cheetos]

I'm not sure how one finds himself on the right side of the fence if he rejects the belief that the living prophets have the authority to act for and in behalf of God (have authority of God's holy priesthood).

I’m not sure how one can hear Jesus say he employs no servant at the gate and yet still convince themselves that surely Jesus employs someone at the gate.

Having faith in mortal men, insisting that you must have faith in mortal men, and defending such garbage. Such a sad state.

Remember, it is through mortal men who hold the authority of the priesthood, that the administration of the ordinances of salvation of the gospel are brought to pass. Without prophets who hold the authority and keys, no ordinances of salvation for mankind come to pass. The bottom line is that access to the atonements saving power comes through the prophets who hold the keys to administer the saving ordinances.

How did Adam receive Salvation with no ordinance?
How did the Lamanites in Helaman 5 receive Salvation without an ordinance?

Read about the Huguenots. They clearly manifested the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the 1500's, more so than members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 2019. How could they have the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the spirit that come from that Gift without ordinances?

Don't limit yourself, don't limit your faith by putting somebody between yourself and God. If you insist on doing that to yourself, stop doing that to others. It's false doctrine. The Lord employs no servant at the Gate, he requires faith in Jesus Christ, and nobody else. It's false doctrine to say otherwise. A prophet serves only to point to Jesus Christ. Period.

So why did Jesus anoint his apostles and give them power to baptize and perform other ordinances of salvation so that after he left his work could continue?

[Zathura]

You're talking about two different things. Jesus employs no servant at the gate of heaven, there is no other way but through him is what the prophets teach! And God sends true messengers and watchmen on tower to exercise authority offer saving ordinances in the flesh, to bind in heaven what is done on earth through covenants. You can't serve God and reject his servants.

I don't think you realize what you're saying. You're essentially saying :

"Yeah sure Jesus doesn't employ a servant at the gate **TECHNICALLY** but 5 feet BEFORE the gate he employs servants at a different Gate so you still have to go through a different servant. "

You still aren't properly understanding what it means to "REJECT" a prophet.

[Zathura]

I’m not sure how one can hear Jesus say he employs no servant at the gate and yet still convince themselves that surely Jesus employs someone at the gate.

Having faith in mortal men, insisting that you must have faith in mortal men, and defending such garbage. Such a sad state.

Remember, it is through mortal men who hold the authority of the priesthood, that the administration of the ordinances of salvation of the gospel are brought to pass. Without prophets who hold the authority and keys, no ordinances of salvation for mankind come to pass. The bottom line is that access to the atonements saving power comes through the prophets who hold the keys to administer the saving ordinances.

How did Adam receive Salvation with no ordinance?
How did the Lamanites in Helaman 5 receive Salvation without an ordinance?

Read about the Huguenots. They clearly manifested the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the 1500's, more so than members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 2019. How could they have the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the spirit that come from that Gift without ordinances?

Don't limit yourself, don't limit your faith by putting somebody between yourself and God. If you insist on doing that to yourself, stop doing that to others. It's false doctrine. The Lord employs no servant at the Gate, he requires faith in Jesus Christ, and nobody else. It's false doctrine to say otherwise. A prophet serves only to point to Jesus Christ. Period.

So why did Jesus anoint his apostles and give them power to baptize and perform other ordinances of salvation so that after he left his work could continue?

Why are you responding with a question to a question? Stop playing games. If you don't know the answer, then say you don't know. You're preaching false doctrine. Stop. You make a mockery of the Prophets of God, insisting that others have faith in them, destroying their purpose and leading others away from Christ. Stop.

[Zathura]

And 20-year-old Joseph Smith accidentally contrived chiasmus in the Book of Mormon with his third grade education. All these apocrypha that came to light after Joseph Smith's martyrdom that coincidentally affirm the Book of Abraham and other modern revelations - all coincidental. Those who believe Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, spending time in LDS forums aren't bound by the adversary ... they're just wasting their time for fun!

Joseph Smith dictated the way he read the bible. So, obviously.....since he read chiasmus in the bible, his brilliant sermons are full of chiasmus. Pretty elementary really.

Or we can believe God decided to intervene to do a work that Joseph Smith was fully capable of doing himself. Occam's Razor....believe what you wish.

How can you say it's "pretty elementary"? How much do you know about chiasmus and the history of chiasmus?

Do you not realize that Chiasmus in the Bible were not even discussed much in the United States until the late 1900's?
The first time in the history of the entire world that people started to discuss the patterns that turned out to be chiasmus are in the very late 1700's and early 1800's IN EUROPE. Even Mormons didn't even notice or talk about these patterns in the Book of Mormon until the 1960's.

How much time have you spent trying to discover if Joseph Smith could possibly know about chiasmus in 1829?

John Jebb and Thomas boys published their studies on chiasmus in the bible in 1824/1825. There is not reason to believe his work found it's way to the United States as soon as 1829. Efforts have been made to show that Joseph might have had their studies, and it can't be shown that he did. Thomas Horne did have work published in Philadelphia that had a section that discussed John Jebb's work on chiasmus, and that's all you have to work with. The only book you'll find of Thomas Horne's that Joseph ever had contact with was the book "Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures", which does not discuss chiasmus.

The faith you need to believe that Joseph was one of the only people to know about Chiasmus in North America for 150 years AND to this day have created some of the most complex chiasmus ever written, is about as much faith as you'd need to believe he might have translated gold plates by the power of God.

There are quite a few works that you can find that discussed Chiasmus, and almost all of them originated in Europe, many of them in different languages. The english translations often didn't exist until decades after the Book of Mormon came forth.

[thestock]

And 20-year-old Joseph Smith accidentally contrived chiasmus in the Book of Mormon with his third grade education. All these apocrypha that came to light after Joseph Smith's martyrdom that coincidentally affirm the Book of Abraham and other modern revelations - all coincidental. Those who believe Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, spending time in LDS forums aren't bound by the adversary ... they're just wasting their time for fun!

Joseph Smith dictated the way he read the bible. So, obviously.....since he read chiasmus in the bible, his brilliant sermons are full of chiasmus. Pretty elementary really.

Or we can believe God decided to intervene to do a work that Joseph Smith was fully capable of doing himself. Occam's Razor....believe what you wish.

How can you say it's "pretty elementary"? How much do you know about chiasmus and the history of chiasmus?

Do you not realize that Chiasmus in the Bible were not even discussed much in the United States until the late 1900's?
The first time in the history of the entire world that people started to discuss the patterns that turned out to be chiasmus are in the very late 1700's and early 1800's IN EUROPE. Even Mormons didn't even notice or talk about these patterns in the Book of Mormon until the 1960's.

How much time have you spent trying to discover if Joseph Smith could possibly know about chiasmus in 1829?

John Jebb and Thomas boys published their studies on chiasmus in the bible in 1824/1825. There is not reason to believe his work found it's way to the United States as soon as 1829. Efforts have been made to show that Joseph might have had their studies, and it can't be shown that he did. Thomas Horne did have work published in Philadelphia that had a section that discussed John Jebb's work on chiasmus, and that's all you have to work with. The only book you'll find of Thomas Horne's that Joseph ever had contact with was the book "Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures", which does not discuss chiasmus.

The faith you need to believe that Joseph was one of the only people to know about Chiasmus in North America for 150 years AND to this day have created some of the most complex chiasmus ever written, is about as much faith as you'd need to believe he might have translated gold plates by the power of God.

There are quite a few works that you can find that discussed Chiasmus, and almost all of them originated in Europe, many of them in different languages. The english translations often didn't exist until decades after the Book of Mormon came forth.

I am not arguing against the complexity of chiasmus. I am simply saying if I spend my formative years, at least from age 7 to age 24, listening to Doctor Suess and reading Doctor Suess.....when I try my hand at dictating children's books it might not be too surprising if I sound like Doctor Suess...

[Zathura]

And 20-year-old Joseph Smith accidentally contrived chiasmus in the Book of Mormon with his third grade education. All these apocrypha that came to light after Joseph Smith's martyrdom that coincidentally affirm the Book of Abraham and other modern revelations - all coincidental. Those who believe Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, spending time in LDS forums aren't bound by the adversary ... they're just wasting their time for fun!

Joseph Smith dictated the way he read the bible. So, obviously.....since he read chiasmus in the bible, his brilliant sermons are full of chiasmus. Pretty elementary really.

Or we can believe God decided to intervene to do a work that Joseph Smith was fully capable of doing himself. Occam's Razor....believe what you wish.

How can you say it's "pretty elementary"? How much do you know about chiasmus and the history of chiasmus?

Do you not realize that Chiasmus in the Bible were not even discussed much in the United States until the late 1900's?
The first time in the history of the entire world that people started to discuss the patterns that turned out to be chiasmus are in the very late 1700's and early 1800's IN EUROPE. Even Mormons didn't even notice or talk about these patterns in the Book of Mormon until the 1960's.

How much time have you spent trying to discover if Joseph Smith could possibly know about chiasmus in 1829?

John Jebb and Thomas boys published their studies on chiasmus in the bible in 1824/1825. There is not reason to believe his work found it's way to the United States as soon as 1829. Efforts have been made to show that Joseph might have had their studies, and it can't be shown that he did. Thomas Horne did have work published in Philadelphia that had a section that discussed John Jebb's work on chiasmus, and that's all you have to work with. The only book you'll find of Thomas Horne's that Joseph ever had contact with was the book "Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures", which does not discuss chiasmus.

The faith you need to believe that Joseph was one of the only people to know about Chiasmus in North America for 150 years AND to this day have created some of the most complex chiasmus ever written, is about as much faith as you'd need to believe he might have translated gold plates by the power of God.

There are quite a few works that you can find that discussed Chiasmus, and almost all of them originated in Europe, many of them in different languages. The english translations often didn't exist until decades after the Book of Mormon came forth.

I am not arguing against the complexity of chiasmus. I am simply saying if I spend my formative years, at least from age 7 to age 24, listening to Doctor Suess and reading Doctor Suess.....when I try my hand at dictating children's books it might not be too surprising if I sound like Doctor Suess...

The logic might seem sound, but everybody and their dog spent their formative years doing the same things in the 1800s. Only Joseph ended up with this uncanny ability to create complex chiasmus? Not Brigham, Oliver , Martin Harris, Emma, just Joseph? Not even his brothers? He was so intelligent that only he had this ability AND it took a solid 130 years for members of this church he started to start to find those patterns? Not even those who grew up in the same era/household/town/state could see them?

Just sayin!

[thestock]

Joseph Smith dictated the way he read the bible. So, obviously.....since he read chiasmus in the bible, his brilliant sermons are full of chiasmus. Pretty elementary really.

Or we can believe God decided to intervene to do a work that Joseph Smith was fully capable of doing himself. Occam's Razor....believe what you wish.

How can you say it's "pretty elementary"? How much do you know about chiasmus and the history of chiasmus?

Do you not realize that Chiasmus in the Bible were not even discussed much in the United States until the late 1900's?
The first time in the history of the entire world that people started to discuss the patterns that turned out to be chiasmus are in the very late 1700's and early 1800's IN EUROPE. Even Mormons didn't even notice or talk about these patterns in the Book of Mormon until the 1960's.

How much time have you spent trying to discover if Joseph Smith could possibly know about chiasmus in 1829?

John Jebb and Thomas boys published their studies on chiasmus in the bible in 1824/1825. There is not reason to believe his work found it's way to the United States as soon as 1829. Efforts have been made to show that Joseph might have had their studies, and it can't be shown that he did. Thomas Horne did have work published in Philadelphia that had a section that discussed John Jebb's work on chiasmus, and that's all you have to work with. The only book you'll find of Thomas Horne's that Joseph ever had contact with was the book "Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures", which does not discuss chiasmus.

The faith you need to believe that Joseph was one of the only people to know about Chiasmus in North America for 150 years AND to this day have created some of the most complex chiasmus ever written, is about as much faith as you'd need to believe he might have translated gold plates by the power of God.

There are quite a few works that you can find that discussed Chiasmus, and almost all of them originated in Europe, many of them in different languages. The english translations often didn't exist until decades after the Book of Mormon came forth.

I am not arguing against the complexity of chiasmus. I am simply saying if I spend my formative years, at least from age 7 to age 24, listening to Doctor Suess and reading Doctor Suess.....when I try my hand at dictating children's books it might not be too surprising if I sound like Doctor Suess...

The logic might seem sound, but everybody and their dog spent their formative years doing the same things in the 1800s. Only Joseph ended up with this uncanny ability to create complex chiasmus? Not Brigham, Oliver , Martin Harris, Emma, just Joseph? Not even his brothers? He was so intelligent that only he had this ability AND it took a solid 130 years for members of this church he started to start to find those patterns? Not even those who grew up in the same era/household/town/state could see them?

Just sayin!

To be fair, none of those other people you mentioned produced brand new scripture from scratch....

[Zathura]

And 20-year-old Joseph Smith accidentally contrived chiasmus in the Book of Mormon with his third grade education. All these apocrypha that came to light after Joseph Smith's martyrdom that coincidentally affirm the Book of Abraham and other modern revelations - all coincidental. Those who believe Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, spending time in LDS forums aren't bound by the adversary ... they're just wasting their time for fun!

Joseph Smith dictated the way he read the bible. So, obviously.....since he read chiasmus in the bible, his brilliant sermons are full of chiasmus. Pretty elementary really.

Or we can believe God decided to intervene to do a work that Joseph Smith was fully capable of doing himself. Occam's Razor....believe what you wish.

How can you say it's "pretty elementary"? How much do you know about chiasmus and the history of chiasmus?

Do you not realize that Chiasmus in the Bible were not even discussed much in the United States until the late 1900's?
The first time in the history of the entire world that people started to discuss the patterns that turned out to be chiasmus are in the very late 1700's and early 1800's IN EUROPE. Even Mormons didn't even notice or talk about these patterns in the Book of Mormon until the 1960's.

How much time have you spent trying to discover if Joseph Smith could possibly know about chiasmus in 1829?

John Jebb and Thomas boys published their studies on chiasmus in the bible in 1824/1825. There is not reason to believe his work found it's way to the United States as soon as 1829. Efforts have been made to show that Joseph might have had their studies, and it can't be shown that he did. Thomas Horne did have work published in Philadelphia that had a section that discussed John Jebb's work on chiasmus, and that's all you have to work with. The only book you'll find of Thomas Horne's that Joseph ever had contact with was the book "Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures", which does not discuss chiasmus.

The faith you need to believe that Joseph was one of the only people to know about Chiasmus in North America for 150 years AND to this day have created some of the most complex chiasmus ever written, is about as much faith as you'd need to believe he might have translated gold plates by the power of God.

There are quite a few works that you can find that discussed Chiasmus, and almost all of them originated in Europe, many of them in different languages. The english translations often didn't exist until decades after the Book of Mormon came forth.

I am not arguing against the complexity of chiasmus. I am simply saying if I spend my formative years, at least from age 7 to age 24, listening to Doctor Suess and reading Doctor Suess.....when I try my hand at dictating children's books it might not be too surprising if I sound like Doctor Suess...

And to be clear, my emphasis wasn't on the complexity of chiasmus. It's about the liklihood of Joseph knowing what chiasmus are.

Look, people spoke in very simple chiasmus. I'll link a few from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus

By day the frolic, and the dance by night. — Samuel Johnson, "The Vanity of Human Wishes" (1794)[3]

Despised, if ugly; if she's fair, betrayed. — Mary Leapor, "Essay on Woman" (1751)[4]

For comparison, the following is considered antimetabole, in which the reversal in structure involves the same words:

Pleasure's a sin, and sometimes sin's a pleasure. — Lord Byron, in "Don Juan", (1824)[5]

Here is the structure of antimetabole presented in table form:

Fair is foul, and foul is fair — Shakespeare, Macbeth 1.

It's not far-fetched for Joseph to naturally write in these simple patterns. These are single sentences though. The Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon are sometimes so large you don't even realize you're looking at a chiasm. It's quite the leap , to say the least.

[Zathura]

How can you say it's "pretty elementary"? How much do you know about chiasmus and the history of chiasmus?

Do you not realize that Chiasmus in the Bible were not even discussed much in the United States until the late 1900's?
The first time in the history of the entire world that people started to discuss the patterns that turned out to be chiasmus are in the very late 1700's and early 1800's IN EUROPE. Even Mormons didn't even notice or talk about these patterns in the Book of Mormon until the 1960's.

How much time have you spent trying to discover if Joseph Smith could possibly know about chiasmus in 1829?

John Jebb and Thomas boys published their studies on chiasmus in the bible in 1824/1825. There is not reason to believe his work found it's way to the United States as soon as 1829. Efforts have been made to show that Joseph might have had their studies, and it can't be shown that he did. Thomas Horne did have work published in Philadelphia that had a section that discussed John Jebb's work on chiasmus, and that's all you have to work with. The only book you'll find of Thomas Horne's that Joseph ever had contact with was the book "Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures", which does not discuss chiasmus.

The faith you need to believe that Joseph was one of the only people to know about Chiasmus in North America for 150 years AND to this day have created some of the most complex chiasmus ever written, is about as much faith as you'd need to believe he might have translated gold plates by the power of God.

There are quite a few works that you can find that discussed Chiasmus, and almost all of them originated in Europe, many of them in different languages. The english translations often didn't exist until decades after the Book of Mormon came forth.

I am not arguing against the complexity of chiasmus. I am simply saying if I spend my formative years, at least from age 7 to age 24, listening to Doctor Suess and reading Doctor Suess.....when I try my hand at dictating children's books it might not be too surprising if I sound like Doctor Suess...

The logic might seem sound, but everybody and their dog spent their formative years doing the same things in the 1800s. Only Joseph ended up with this uncanny ability to create complex chiasmus? Not Brigham, Oliver , Martin Harris, Emma, just Joseph? Not even his brothers? He was so intelligent that only he had this ability AND it took a solid 130 years for members of this church he started to start to find those patterns? Not even those who grew up in the same era/household/town/state could see them?

Just sayin!

To be fair, none of those other people you mentioned produced brand new scripture from scratch....

This is why I say, the faith required to believe he had this knowledge of chiasmus before everyone else in the US for 130 years, and a far greater knowledge of them than the scholars throughout Europe without ever having contact with their work and this ability to create this book from scratch(and everything that goes into creating a book).. IMO that takes more faith that to believe he got the words of the book by the power of God.

[thestock]

I am not arguing against the complexity of chiasmus. I am simply saying if I spend my formative years, at least from age 7 to age 24, listening to Doctor Suess and reading Doctor Suess.....when I try my hand at dictating children's books it might not be too surprising if I sound like Doctor Suess...

The logic might seem sound, but everybody and their dog spent their formative years doing the same things in the 1800s. Only Joseph ended up with this uncanny ability to create complex chiasmus? Not Brigham, Oliver , Martin Harris, Emma, just Joseph? Not even his brothers? He was so intelligent that only he had this ability AND it took a solid 130 years for members of this church he started to start to find those patterns? Not even those who grew up in the same era/household/town/state could see them?

Just sayin!

To be fair, none of those other people you mentioned produced brand new scripture from scratch....

This is why I say, the faith required to believe he had this knowledge of chiasmus before everyone else in the US for 130 years, and a far greater knowledge of them than the scholars throughout Europe without ever having contact with their work and this ability to create this book from scratch(and everything that goes into creating a book).. IMO that takes more faith that to believe he got the words of the book by the power of God.

I am failing to grasp why it would be so difficult for him to speak/dictate in the language he was familiar with? Can we agree that the copy/paste verses from Isaiah would contain chiasmus? Is it really so hard to think that the sermons he produced himself would have similar language?

[thestock]

I am not arguing against the complexity of chiasmus. I am simply saying if I spend my formative years, at least from age 7 to age 24, listening to Doctor Suess and reading Doctor Suess.....when I try my hand at dictating children's books it might not be too surprising if I sound like Doctor Suess...

The logic might seem sound, but everybody and their dog spent their formative years doing the same things in the 1800s. Only Joseph ended up with this uncanny ability to create complex chiasmus? Not Brigham, Oliver , Martin Harris, Emma, just Joseph? Not even his brothers? He was so intelligent that only he had this ability AND it took a solid 130 years for members of this church he started to start to find those patterns? Not even those who grew up in the same era/household/town/state could see them?

Just sayin!

To be fair, none of those other people you mentioned produced brand new scripture from scratch....

This is why I say, the faith required to believe he had this knowledge of chiasmus before everyone else in the US for 130 years, and a far greater knowledge of them than the scholars throughout Europe without ever having contact with their work and this ability to create this book from scratch(and everything that goes into creating a book).. IMO that takes more faith that to believe he got the words of the book by the power of God.

To this point: you seem to take it as fact that JS was ignorant of chiasmus and that he either got extremely lucky or was a true prophet translating a true ancient document. It appears there are some reasons why he may have already known about them. Here is a post from Mormon Subreddit which summarizes some arguments why Chiasmus as evidence is not very strong:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comment ... _chiasmus/

[Zathura]

The logic might seem sound, but everybody and their dog spent their formative years doing the same things in the 1800s. Only Joseph ended up with this uncanny ability to create complex chiasmus? Not Brigham, Oliver , Martin Harris, Emma, just Joseph? Not even his brothers? He was so intelligent that only he had this ability AND it took a solid 130 years for members of this church he started to start to find those patterns? Not even those who grew up in the same era/household/town/state could see them?

Just sayin!

To be fair, none of those other people you mentioned produced brand new scripture from scratch....

This is why I say, the faith required to believe he had this knowledge of chiasmus before everyone else in the US for 130 years, and a far greater knowledge of them than the scholars throughout Europe without ever having contact with their work and this ability to create this book from scratch(and everything that goes into creating a book).. IMO that takes more faith that to believe he got the words of the book by the power of God.

I am failing to grasp why it would be so difficult for him to speak/dictate in the language he was familiar with? Can we agree that the copy/paste verses from Isaiah would contain chiasmus? Is it really so hard to think that the sermons he produced himself would have similar language?

If you studied Isaiah and had no idea what chiasmus were and set out to create your own "sermons", you might expect to pick up on some of the patterns, but if you don't know that chiasmus exist, then you won't be looking for them. You'd likely only pick up on the quick chiasmus, the ones like the chiasmus that wikipedia uses as examples. I couldn't see myself somehow turning that into longer chiasmus like this:

18 For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

A:humble themselves
B:become as little children
C:believe that salvation is through atoning blood of Christ
D:The natural man
E:Enemy of God
E: has been from the fall of Adam
F:will be forever and ever
G:unless you put off the natural man
H:and become a saint through the atonement of Christ
I: and become as a child
J: submissive, meek, humble, full of love.

You wouldn't casually and accidentally make a chiasm like that as a result of copying and pasting Isaiah. If you create that one above, you know exactly what you're trying to create. The types of Chiasms you'd expect someone to naturally pick up might be something like:

Isaiah 2:7-8

Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots:
Their land is also full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made

Very compact, short. It's clear that the same thing is being stated with different words one after another. That pattern is easy to notice and replicate. The more advanced patterns , I just don't see someone like Joseph noticing them unless he knew what Chiasmus were and had a reason to look for Chiasmus.

Isaiah 1:1-20

1 The avision of bIsaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning cJudah and Jerusalem in the days of dUzziah, eJotham, fAhaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

2 aHear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have brebelled against me.

3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the @#$ his master’s acrib: but Israel doth not bknow, my people doth not consider.

4 Ah asinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, bchildren that are ccorrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto danger, they are gone away backward.

5 ¶ Why should ye be astricken any more? ye will brevolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart cfaint.

6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been aclosed, neither bound up, neither bmollified with ointment.

7 Your acountry is bdesolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, cstrangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.

8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a avineyard, as ba lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.

9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small aremnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

10 ¶ Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of aSodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

11 To what purpose is the multitude of your asacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I bdelight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

13 Bring no more avain boblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and csabbaths, the calling of dassemblies, I cannot eaway with; it is finiquity, even the gsolemn meeting.

14 Your new amoons and your appointed bfeasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am cweary to bear them.

15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many aprayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of bblood.

16 ¶ aWash you, make you bclean; put away the cevil of your doings from before mine eyes; dcease to do evil;

17 aLearn to do bwell; seek cjudgment, drelieve the oppressed, ejudge the fatherless, plead for the fwidow.

18 Come now, and let us areason together, saith the Lord: though your bsins be as scarlet, they shall be as cwhite as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

19 If ye be awilling and bobedient, ye shall eat the cgood of the land:

20 But if ye refuse and arebel, ye shall be bdevoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

Those 20 versus actually have a small chiasm , consisting ONLY of ABCBA, but it spans the entire duration of those 20 versus. You know exactly what a chiasm is, and I suspect you would have a hard time identifying the chiasm. Now imagine you don't know it's there, and somehow accidentally replicating a chiasm like that in your own sermon. I really just don't see it happening.

[Zathura]

The logic might seem sound, but everybody and their dog spent their formative years doing the same things in the 1800s. Only Joseph ended up with this uncanny ability to create complex chiasmus? Not Brigham, Oliver , Martin Harris, Emma, just Joseph? Not even his brothers? He was so intelligent that only he had this ability AND it took a solid 130 years for members of this church he started to start to find those patterns? Not even those who grew up in the same era/household/town/state could see them?

Just sayin!

To be fair, none of those other people you mentioned produced brand new scripture from scratch....

This is why I say, the faith required to believe he had this knowledge of chiasmus before everyone else in the US for 130 years, and a far greater knowledge of them than the scholars throughout Europe without ever having contact with their work and this ability to create this book from scratch(and everything that goes into creating a book).. IMO that takes more faith that to believe he got the words of the book by the power of God.

To this point: you seem to take it as fact that JS was ignorant of chiasmus and that he either got extremely lucky or was a true prophet translating a true ancient document. It appears there are some reasons why he may have already known about them. Here is a post from Mormon Subreddit which summarizes some arguments why Chiasmus as evidence is not very strong:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comment ... _chiasmus/

I've read that, and a lot more where that came from as well.

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=msr

Take a look at studies like that. People will always see what they want to see. Well respected authors, historians, scientists frequently ignore inconvenient facts. Our job is to take an objective and equal look at everything , without bias to creep in,and then make a decision.

I am unconvinced that Joseph knew what chiasms were. It's up to those people to prove that he indeed knew what chiasms were, and this can't be proven. It hasn't been proven, and it won't be proven. The burden of proof is on those who try to convince others that he knew what chiasms were, it's not on me to prove he didn't. I only posted that information for your benefit.

[thestock]

To be fair, none of those other people you mentioned produced brand new scripture from scratch....

This is why I say, the faith required to believe he had this knowledge of chiasmus before everyone else in the US for 130 years, and a far greater knowledge of them than the scholars throughout Europe without ever having contact with their work and this ability to create this book from scratch(and everything that goes into creating a book).. IMO that takes more faith that to believe he got the words of the book by the power of God.

To this point: you seem to take it as fact that JS was ignorant of chiasmus and that he either got extremely lucky or was a true prophet translating a true ancient document. It appears there are some reasons why he may have already known about them. Here is a post from Mormon Subreddit which summarizes some arguments why Chiasmus as evidence is not very strong:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comment ... _chiasmus/

I've read that, and a lot more where that came from as well.

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=msr

Take a look at studies like that. People will always see what they want to see. Well respected authors, historians, scientists frequently ignore inconvenient facts. Our job is to take an objective and equal look at everything , without bias to creep in,and then make a decision.

I am unconvinced that Joseph knew what chiasms were. It's up to those people to prove that he indeed knew what chiasms were, and this can't be proven. It hasn't been proven, and it won't be proven. The burden of proof is on those who try to convince others that he knew what chiasms were, it's not on me to prove he didn't. I only posted that information for your benefit.

I think the burden of proof is very much on you if you are making the argument that he is a true prophet that translated ancient records. JS made those claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Like I mentioned, I am an "Occam's Razor" guy....the simplest explanation should be the most likely. I think it is more likely that JS was well-schooled in "Bible speak", he clearly knew the Bible, he was a bible genius for sure, and he likely dictated the way he read the scriptures.......and PERHAPS he also was very well educated about chiasmus as that thread seems to indicate. Again, neither position can be proven but like you said, people see what they want to see. My whole life I've taken Joseph's position on this and simply believed and didnt care about the other side. Now I care about the other side and I am left trying to make a reasonable conclusion based on all the various inputs, both faith-based and secular....

[Zathura]

This is why I say, the faith required to believe he had this knowledge of chiasmus before everyone else in the US for 130 years, and a far greater knowledge of them than the scholars throughout Europe without ever having contact with their work and this ability to create this book from scratch(and everything that goes into creating a book).. IMO that takes more faith that to believe he got the words of the book by the power of God.

To this point: you seem to take it as fact that JS was ignorant of chiasmus and that he either got extremely lucky or was a true prophet translating a true ancient document. It appears there are some reasons why he may have already known about them. Here is a post from Mormon Subreddit which summarizes some arguments why Chiasmus as evidence is not very strong:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comment ... _chiasmus/

I've read that, and a lot more where that came from as well.

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=msr

Take a look at studies like that. People will always see what they want to see. Well respected authors, historians, scientists frequently ignore inconvenient facts. Our job is to take an objective and equal look at everything , without bias to creep in,and then make a decision.

I am unconvinced that Joseph knew what chiasms were. It's up to those people to prove that he indeed knew what chiasms were, and this can't be proven. It hasn't been proven, and it won't be proven. The burden of proof is on those who try to convince others that he knew what chiasms were, it's not on me to prove he didn't. I only posted that information for your benefit.

I think the burden of proof is very much on you if you are making the argument that he is a true prophet that translated ancient records. JS made those claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Like I mentioned, I am an "Occam's Razor" guy....the simplest explanation should be the most likely. I think it is more likely that JS was well-schooled in "Bible speak", he clearly knew the Bible, he was a bible genius for sure, and he likely dictated the way he read the scriptures.......and PERHAPS he also was very well educated about chiasmus as that thread seems to indicate. Again, neither position can be proven but like you said, people see what they want to see. My whole life I've taken Joseph's position on this and simply believed and didnt care about the other side. Now I care about the other side and I am left trying to make a reasonable conclusion based on all the various inputs, both faith-based and secular....

Sure, if you're talking about the golden plates. The burden of proof is on me to show that it existed. I have no proof.
However, you're presenting an alternate method for how the Book of Mormon exists, therefore it's on you to prove that method. You'll need to prove how he would know anything about chiasms, and everything else that would explain how he is capable of writing this work of fiction.

[Cheetos]

Remember, it is through mortal men who hold the authority of the priesthood, that the administration of the ordinances of salvation of the gospel are brought to pass. Without prophets who hold the authority and keys, no ordinances of salvation for mankind come to pass. The bottom line is that access to the atonements saving power comes through the prophets who hold the keys to administer the saving ordinances.

How did Adam receive Salvation with no ordinance?
How did the Lamanites in Helaman 5 receive Salvation without an ordinance?

Read about the Huguenots. They clearly manifested the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the 1500's, more so than members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 2019. How could they have the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the spirit that come from that Gift without ordinances?

Don't limit yourself, don't limit your faith by putting somebody between yourself and God. If you insist on doing that to yourself, stop doing that to others. It's false doctrine. The Lord employs no servant at the Gate, he requires faith in Jesus Christ, and nobody else. It's false doctrine to say otherwise. A prophet serves only to point to Jesus Christ. Period.

So why did Jesus anoint his apostles and give them power to baptize and perform other ordinances of salvation so that after he left his work could continue?

Why are you responding with a question to a question? Stop playing games. If you don't know the answer, then say you don't know. You're preaching false doctrine. Stop. You make a mockery of the Prophets of God, insisting that others have faith in them, destroying their purpose and leading others away from Christ. Stop.

This is the read I get from you. See if I am wrong-

1. You don't believe it's necessary to have priesthood ordinances to be saved eternally.
2. You believe the church is in apostasy.
3. You believe current prophets have no priesthood authority or keys.

Under this premise I would say your beliefs are apostate.

[thestock]

To this point: you seem to take it as fact that JS was ignorant of chiasmus and that he either got extremely lucky or was a true prophet translating a true ancient document. It appears there are some reasons why he may have already known about them. Here is a post from Mormon Subreddit which summarizes some arguments why Chiasmus as evidence is not very strong:

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comment ... _chiasmus/

I've read that, and a lot more where that came from as well.

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=msr

Take a look at studies like that. People will always see what they want to see. Well respected authors, historians, scientists frequently ignore inconvenient facts. Our job is to take an objective and equal look at everything , without bias to creep in,and then make a decision.

I am unconvinced that Joseph knew what chiasms were. It's up to those people to prove that he indeed knew what chiasms were, and this can't be proven. It hasn't been proven, and it won't be proven. The burden of proof is on those who try to convince others that he knew what chiasms were, it's not on me to prove he didn't. I only posted that information for your benefit.

I think the burden of proof is very much on you if you are making the argument that he is a true prophet that translated ancient records. JS made those claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Like I mentioned, I am an "Occam's Razor" guy....the simplest explanation should be the most likely. I think it is more likely that JS was well-schooled in "Bible speak", he clearly knew the Bible, he was a bible genius for sure, and he likely dictated the way he read the scriptures.......and PERHAPS he also was very well educated about chiasmus as that thread seems to indicate. Again, neither position can be proven but like you said, people see what they want to see. My whole life I've taken Joseph's position on this and simply believed and didnt care about the other side. Now I care about the other side and I am left trying to make a reasonable conclusion based on all the various inputs, both faith-based and secular....

Sure, if you're talking about the golden plates. The burden of proof is on me to show that it existed. I have no proof.
However, you're presenting an alternate method for how the Book of Mormon exists, therefore it's on you to prove that method. You'll need to prove how he would know anything about chiasms, and everything else that would explain how he is capable of writing this work of fiction.

Right, and I can't do that. I can't prove for the official narrative and I can't prove against it. We are all left to conclude what we can based on all the available information.