Jason

That's part of a distress call well known to Masons. So yes, he was trying to establish himself as a Mason in distress to call any Masons in the crowd to help defend him. If there were any Masons in the mob, they failed to do their duty. That was one idea held at that time (even up until more recent days) but we now know that this is little more than wishful thinking. The ceremonies of Freemasonry (with their accompanying grips, signs, tokens and penalties) are the product of no earlier than the late middle-ages.

Seems like some here have an idea, and other's do not. Why don't you ask the resident Freemason? (That's me in case you didn't know.)

Maybe you haven't been to college, but a reference is more than "read XYZ book". That's not a reference, and you'd get a failing grade in any University level course for your "references" alone. To help you put this in perspective, If I told you that the Hebrews worshipped a female goddess named Asherah, and as a "reference" told you to read the Bible, just how helpful is that? I hope you see my point. I am unimpressed by anyone who stands on the shoulders of great historians, only to put them down. That goes for historians of any subject, not just Mormonism. Your book of the month club doesn't count as the "historian community".

It's a personal preference. I hated the soft cover BoM's all throughout my mission. I wanted to give them away, but I wanted them to be cherished, not placed on a shelf next to their latest dime novel. If I were in charge, (and Im still running for Pres of the Church when Pres. Hinckley dies...) I'd make them all out of a nice quality BLACK LEATHER, with gold gilt edging. That way, whether they read it or not, it will still look good on their bookshelf, and won't end up on the floor to stabilize their table!

You should change the "most modern Christians" to mean Protestants and ignorant Roman Catholics. Eastern Churches have never ceased teaching Theosis, and educated RCC's know it's been there all along.

On a personal note, I think this is a bad idea. Comes across that the BoM is little more than a cheap novel. I think they should only give out hard cover BoM's.

I had to take a break after the hanging of Saddam. It really bothered me. Still does, but able to come back without being so upset.

That wasn't from an LDS Church. A different Mormon denomination teaches that. I didn't make that clear before, so my apologies. Huh? Hey CK, can you "dummy" that down for me? Just to be picky CK, Theosis and the Mormon teaching of Deification are very distinct and quite different. Theosis is becoming one with God, whereas Deification is becoming a unique God who is of one mind with God.

Could be one of those branches where the church isn't true? Annabelli, I've heard just about everything before, but I've never heard any Mormon, of any theological bent, claim that they'd rule over Jesus. I've heard that they'll have to be a Jesus on another earth before becoming a God, but never that they'd be over the Jesus of our world.

Im willing to bury the hatchet. I think you've got some great ideas, and I'd like to hear them. But let's be forthright about where're were getting our material at, instead of hinting it's coming the whole time, eh? I'll try and do the same.

Apparently. It did work. I know of at least two guys who didn't have a testimony, who after "pretending" for awhile eventually said that they finally, really and truly believed. Is that God in action, or self-delusion?

Thanks for the links CK. I'll be checking them out soon. I can say I heard this in the MTC back in Jun-Aug of 1994. I don't remember who said it, but someone in a leadership position told us that if we didn't have a testimony, that we should act as though we did until we actually got one.

I'm very sorry to hear that. Thank you for sharing.

This is a common feeling held by many non-LDS. To believe it blindly invites our scorn, but to believe it in spite of it all, well that we can at least live with. I do try. I may not always come across like it, but I do try to be fair and give credit where it is due. That's a handy link CK. Do you know of a link that has all four versions printed out in their entirety?

Yep. But I also believe it has a deeper mystical significance than is understood by Roman Catholic theologians. In other words, I don't accept their explanation of why it's true, I believe there are other reasons. No office, but Baptists are not well know for their theological profundity.

And again, that's where Modalism may again come into play. But I suppose we should take that back to the Modalist thread. Where is that sucker anyway? Huh? Modalist? For the benifit of us not as learned as you...please do explain? Am I confusing boards again? Modalism is an heterodoxical teaching about the Godhead. It's more Trinitarian overall, but expresses that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One Being, in different Manifestations. (any modalists here feel free to correct that as you will.) Since Joseph Smith likely grew up with a belief more in line with Trinitarians (and his brief conversion to Methodism could be used as evidence of that), some suggest that the Book of Mormon teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, as opposed to three persons of the Godhead, and that it is a Modalistic Trinitarianism instead of the orthodox Trinity taught by Roman Catholics, most Protestants, and my Church as well.

And again, that's where Modalism may again come into play. But I suppose we should take that back to the Modalist thread. Where is that sucker anyway?

You're my boy BLUE....you're my boy!

Perhaps this would add some weight to the Modalist argument? I don't believe I made that point. CK's response is appropriate. If (which obviously I don't accept...but I digress) Joseph Smith was a prophet, then he could be inspired enough to make post-dictatorial changes as God's mouthpiece on earth, right? And if (which I do accept) Joseph Smith's understanding of the Godhead changed over time, then the alterations are necessary to clarify misunderstandings. NOW (and this is the big "now") I seem to recall that there were other passages that already began "son of" in the BOM, and so this is really just a change for added consistency throughout the text. It's not a wholesale alteration, but it was done to make the text more uniform. Almost makes me sick to be so nice.

Herald used to sell them in a set (the BoC and BoM), as well as the 1835 D&C.

Why does it crack you up? Where does this guy get his information? And is there any validity to his claims? The list is accurate, but like anything, subject to interpretation. Yediyd you should pick up a reprint of the original 1830 edition and compare for yourself. They're running about twenty bucks. http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Facsimil...3458&sr=8-1

I can only hope she's read more than one book. The book she offers as her source is called: "Utah Historians and the Reconstruction of Western History" by Gary Topping. But in a rather unscholarly way, she has made his book into "the" book on the subject. Toppings book appears little more than a trash-talk text against better historians.

I was responding to her "attack" of the rest of us for not getting the so-called big picture. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, it was meant to ask her for her evidence. Which I found wanting, but that's not the point. So if "she" wants to ignore me, no big loss.

ESP. Go sit in with the Young Men or Young Women's classes. You didn't miss much.