Klaymen

But "Christians" are baptized all the time without the authority of any prophet, so why would you want to be named among them? I think you want to see us as close enough, but obviously we aren't close enough for me to be considered LDS so what's the difference?

And why would that be (just a few simple reasons)?

Would you consider me a Latter Day Saint?

Wow thanks for some honesty.

You seem traumatized by dissenting opinion.

I wasn't referring to your testimony. I was referring to the JST. You were talking about the "lens" through which Christ's words recorded. The Book of Mormon and the JST came through the "lens" of JS.

I'm on a discussion forum of actuaries who are more atheist than not, it's quite something. They can be downright vicious. While God does speak to his followers, I think there is a line between what God is actually saying and what I am feeling or thinking or believing or wanting to believe. It is not easy to divide between soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12). We very much can get in the way of God, myself included for sure.

The concept is not difficult. I studied french for 7 years, spanish for 2, german for 1. I regularly listen to youtube sermons in french. \ I understood what you said and went on to point out that it looks like there were sufficient greek words to capture the essence of the difference in the two versions of John 4.

Or you could replace the word "Creedal" with "Joseph Smith", right? But Joseph Smith is the filter through which you view scripture, so you are looking to a man for truth. Of course, you could say the same thing about the KJV as is. John 4 says "God is a Spirit" and 1700+ years later Joseph Smith changes it to "God has promised us His Spirit". Why should we trust him? I suppose I might need to find other examples.

Understood. But to get down on your knees and answer God and listening for His answer isn't any legitimate proof, because other people do the same and come to other conclusions.

If you like I could present more "evidence" about these "facts" about Joseph Smith on this board. Is that what you want? I do work for a living, I don't answer every single question put in front of me. I am married and yes I come to different conclusions than my wife on some things. Some things are discerned by the spirit, but many other things we have to figure out with our minds.

I understood your Korean explanation but still felt it was worthwhile pointing out that specific greek words were available to clarify. I didn't address the word "promise" because I think I understood what you said. Incidentally it is easy to find a greek word for promise (epangelias) which suggests that the author probably would not have struggled that much using greek to correctly differentiate "is a spirit" from "promised a spirit".

This is a thread discussing the differences between the KJV and JST, so I brought up an example. I am also presenting factual information about Joseph Smith but I am not attacking the posters themselves, and I would appreciate it if you would do the same. You also had an amazing hissy-fit when someone else wished to speculate about the Holy Spirit. Why should be not consult with each other about these things. You seem very closed minded and intolerant of other people's opinions. While I highly doubt the idea that JS actually correcting some of Jesus words that could have been misplaced by another author, I must admit I find the idea fascinating and it helps me understand where the LDS people are coming from.

We have fragments of the original papyrus sufficient for a curator to say "Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end. Egyptian characters can now be read almost as easily as Greek, and five minutes' study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture. God didn't just give us his Spirit to dismiss the evidence in front of us. Quick to accept anything Joseph Smith says, quick to reject anything bad about him. But in greek there are separate words for spirit (pneuma), soul (psyche), and body (soma) and the word in John is pneuma (spirit). https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_thessalonians/5-23.htm People often confuse the spirit with the soul (mind/will/intellect) but they are two things entirely.

Yes but there are numerous prophecies and symbolism in the Old Testament that foreshadow the New Testament. Abraham offers to use his son Isaac as a sacrifice, God intervenes and provides a ram - and refuses to withhold his own Son from us. Isaiah 53, and passages to numerous to mention. There is going to be a Messiah to save us from our sins. He shows up, has his ministry, is crucified, tells us "It is finished", and rises again and appears to many. And also says that he will be rejected by many. I don't see any foreshadowing in either the old or new testament to any sort of Joseph Smith restoration era, although I'm sure collectively we will have little trouble arguing for and against one. The New Testament was a fulfillment of the Old Testament.

1) How do you know that Joseph corrected them to what was originally said? Which is more likely, that they were already correct, or someone who claimed to translate a papyrus to a story about Abrham was in fact using Eqyptian funerary texts that had nothing to do with the subject? 2) I respectfully disagree with you opinion that the wording is hugely difference. It is miniscule compared with the JST. So, how do most Christians interpret that verse?

From Philippians 1

No quite on the other end of the spectrum ... we believe in speaking in tongues and that all the gifts of the spirit can operate today (not a cessationist).

Yes but MANY MORE OTHERS know otherwise because the Spirit of God has told them so. No, you do not have to be perfect to receive the gifts of the Spirit or Revelation. Otherwise Jesus would have been the only such person. But the true story behind the book of Abraham has to put severe doubt on the credibility of Joseph Smith's writings.

And how do we know this by the way? A man who smoke, drank, married other peoples' wives, translated funerary documents, took interest in the Kinderhook plates, and ended his life in a gunfight?

So what you and JS are saying is that Jesus was wrong? The one who atoned for us had his facts about God confused?

Jesus doesn't say that "God is only a being of spirit". He says "God is a Spirit". https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/4-24.htm Actually what he says is shown in the interlinear version; an attempt to translate the first three words of the greek in that verse: "Spirit - God [is]". Really not far from just "God is a Spirit". There's no greek word for "promised" in that sentence or anything like the phrase "For unto such hath God Promised his Spirit". It's a big change: evidently what Jesus says doesn't fit with Joseph's theology, so Joseph erases the words of Jesus and inserts his own?

John 4:24 (KJV) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:26 (JST) For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/4-24.htm Here Joseph Smith changes the words of Jesus and tells us something entirely different.

Crazy Rich Asians - really liked it.

You're right about the renumbering - sorry but it took me awhile to actually find the JST version online to check, but I suppose I should have waited and found the answer. I also agree that you weren't suggesting it was a translation error and was merely confirming that.