Aesa

I'm not going to bother quoting your text. What I'm saying is, and I thought it was, is that the Book of Mormon is a commentary because it is said by you to have originally existed in reformed egyptian on gold plates -- thus it is a commentary on the original, and what makes it a commentary is the fact that you could translate it 100 times and it would always differ in at least small ways -- as is with the Bible.

That is absolutely incorrect, let me start by reminding you that Joseph Smith was one person -- and since the Gospels appear not to have been "copied off" each other, the differences and so called contradictions on further investigation don't exist and fit fairly well.If the gospels were completely identical in the ways which they describe the events, then people would have questioned them and realised that people had conspired to put them together. Now you could turn that around to Joseph Smith, but you see, the problem is it was Joseph and Joseph alone who was responsible for his grove testimony -- and he writes it many different ways. Here's an interesting quote: Now, you could ofcourse say "well then I'll apply that to Joseph and say he abridged, ommited, paraphrased, and so forth. The problem is the major details disagree.If the gospels were too consistent on the smaller less important details, that would invalidate them. As I've said, and I think you really have no choice but to agree if we're being honest -- "many angels" and "jesus and god" and a changing message are not little details. Things that might be considered little details: the time of the day, who he told, etc,. All those little details you've picked out, most biblical scholars would agree -- really are not contradictions at all. The reasno why they can vouch for this is because most if not all of them understand the gospels in the original language very well. Whereis with Mormonism originals it's all english, so we need not delve further.

Hmmm, not really, a lot of the first vision content I've read so far is a real stretch.

I personally don't trust fairwiki because so many things can easily be refuted from it. The apologetics is generally weak.

Exaltation, that's what the user is asking about.

Well this is a great thread -- no one seems to want to quantify this doctrine. Here are some official LDS articles: LDS.org - Melchizedek Priesthood Chapter Detail - “To Live with Him Someday†LDS.org - Liahona Article - Salvation and Exaltation Doctrine and Covenants 132 "...Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant... ... 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. 21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory..."

Okay, then, lets take a look for the second time in this thread. :) These are just some of the non-canonised 1838 editions.

I was pretty sure, but it never hurts to check.

I'm reffering to all the different accounts of the first vision, yes. This, as far as I'm aware, isn't just a discussion of the canonised 1838 edition.

Ofcourse I understand the fall of man, but all man is fallen. Only, we are complete in Christ. This doesn't mean that commandment doesn't apply to us. I have to wonder -- where does any scripture say that that particular command relates only to the fall of man? And also, are you then saying that Adam and Eve were pseudo-gods in the Garden of Eden? Gods commandments are for all of His children, in other words, those of the body of Christ.

But, still in the end, obviously Joseph told people of all his vision accounts. No one mistakes "Jesus and God" for "many angels," nobody is that stupid.

Well, then, you're not really talking about Godhood.

That makes sense to me. But, the thing that I don't understand is -- the scripture says "...all our works are as filthy rags... no man doeth good, no not one..." So how can we ever be worthy to transcend space and time and be as god?

"You shall have no other Gods before me." That includes us.

Ofcourse I am sure. What basis do you have for even saying the catholic church was the first church to begin with, and then even further that they hold other ancient biblical documents that none know about?

Well, if they lived long enough to write them.And it's almost certain that the Vatican doesn't have them, they would have no need to hide something like that becuase they could use it to authenticate their "church".

This is actually not the case, at least not to any decent extent, if you really look into it they show amazing harmony.

It is a commentary because it's not in the supposed original language. Personally I disagree with the notion of "teaching" the child to bear testimony. When they are old enough to read and comprehend what you would call scriptures, and they find it to be "true," then bearing testimony should come naturally.

Ah, you're right. I apologise for the use of the word brainwashing. It's easy to look at one side of the coin.I haven't actually, been to a church where that song is sung. Becuase I haven't been to an institutional Church since I went to a presbyterian church, and before that being raised on the Catholic church.

Um... as far as I'm aware .. churches (scripturally) are not to seek after popularity. And, why would you want to have lots of growth from lots of 16-year old fangirls joining because of their celebrity darling?

No, actually, a friend said it in a youtube video. She was about 14 and she'd been considering leaving the church and one weekend she decided to go to Sacrament with her father and it was testimony weekend. She talks about how one little 3 year old girl was taken up to the mic and told by her mother what to say. Absolutely amazing. That is not testimony, I don't care what you want to call it but I call that brainwashing. Faith is not supposed to be blind. In regards to "having been Mormon," I have been considering going to an LDS church one Sunday just to see what it's like.

You may not want to discuss the details. But, in my personal experience watching my mothers second marriage in which she has had another child, it's not always possible to think of the child and what you may do by ending the marriage.Especially in situations where the partner is, quite frankly, abnormal.

I think that's a little too blanketed. It almost feels like "let us just be quiet and accept what the Church says," now that said I understand why an LDS person would believe this 100%. The leadership, when they speak, it is as if God is speaking -- no?

You're actually correct on this point, as far as I can tell, the first vision was virtually unknown before the mid-late 1830's.I can't be bothered replying to anything else in your post at the moment because I gotta go get some exercise. Interesting discussion though, and I'll make a response later.

Um, not really. So from what I understand you're trying to say ... "I don't care if he contradicted himself, he's still right!!" ... Please elaborate/correct me.