huma17

I don't think that the answers I'm looking for can come from you guys, nor from the scriptures. Such questions as the best time/person to marry for oneself, which would be the best school/career to attend to, if I'm on the right direction for temperal matters (not necessarily spiritual, because those could be answered by many), etc.

Anywhere I can get them - the same places as before. In my mind, as clear thoughts - not confused - from the still small voice, scripture, burning of the bossom, or an empty, cold feeling, through fast, whatever.

Maybe I'm not, but I used to, quite easily. The prayers I'm praying our for answers to specific questions - those that require advice from the Lord. Those aren't the only prayers that I pray, but those are the ones I'm talking about, because I don't get answers, when I really need them - and they are supposed to be answered by the Lord, for we have been counseled to seek the Lord in these matters.

I was a bit unclear last night about what was going on, and for that, I apologize. I was not questioning why the Lord lets things happen, or why he doesn't hear the crys of those who suffer, because I DO understand about free agency - that's the whole reason we are here. Nothing catastrophic, or traumatic has happened to me, leading to feel that the Lord has abandoned me. If I was being tortured, I would want the Lord to answer my prayer so that I knew he was aware and/or with me. When the Savior prayed in the Garden, the Father did not take away his pain, but he still answered him. I am frustrated with not getting answers - not matter what they are. I'm not looking for a certain answer, or expecting to get what I want. I am sincerely asking the Lord for answers to important aspects of my life, and don't get anything. I have felt left alone to make decisions on my own. Yes, I know that the Lord cannot/will not make decisions for us, that we must do what we can first. But, we have been counseled to inquired of the Lord - to seek his guidance in the decisions we make. I want to know why I should, if he doesn't answer? I am not in pain over something that requires counseling - we all go through pain everday - I just cannot rely on prayer anymore (at least I feel such), and it bothers me.

I'm sure that some of you will feel that I deserve what ever comes my way, because I'm not the most tactful person that has ever graced this board... Well, I apologize for that. All I have to say, is that I no longer believe in the power of prayer!! The Lord has abandoned me for far too long, and I don't think that I respect that. I have been a true admonisher of the Gospel my whole life, but I don't find it in my personal life anymore. Take that as you will, but I do not want to follow a Savior that will abandon me so freely. Yes, he went through so much - but remember, that was HIS choice!! It was required that someone be the Savior of this (these) worlds, but don't forget that there had to be SOMEONE willing to do such!! If there wasn't, then we would still be waiting for someone to step forward. Don't think that our Heavenly Father was so foolish to think that if the Lord did not step forward, that he would have had to rely on Lucifer to perform the act of Savior. He knew full well that Lucifer would not have been sufficient to fulfill the Plan of Salvation in the matter in which it needed to be. So, if the Lord had not stepped forward, then our Father would have had to have done something else. Why the Lord feels that he can abandon us with such regard is now beyond me!!

I am assuming that this means you remember when I posted here some months back - under the same name - correct? Actually, I've been on FAIR. I started out on the exmo board, then found this one after I was banned from there a couple of times. I then went to FAIR from here, and have not been posting here for awhile. I hardly ever post on the exmo board anymore, and I visit that site just about as often - so no, no trolling. I post under different names on the different boards, but I use the same one for each board I'm on.

Understood.But, like I said, I have never posted on this site under another name - just from different addresses. I was never banned from here.

Jenda-Why are you trying to look me up? Is that really necessary? I do not have internet access at home, so I log on at a public access site - hence numerous addresses.

My 'style of rudeness'? Please show examples...Besides, isn't your post 'rude'? You don't know me, and we have not conversed before. No, though, I have not posted here under another name.

I wasn't calling you a liar - hence my sincerity in actually wanting to see your link, or else I would have just called you a liar. I wasn't trying to be tactful, I honestly wanted to see if it really said JS 'only' saw the Lord, or not - even though I didn't believe that that was the case. It's not that I was calling you a liar, for you would have truly seen it as only the Lord appearing to JS in that version.I did visit the site, though, and Randy Johnson pretty much covered what I would have said. In the version, it does not state that the Father was not present, and in the 1st Vision that is accepted by LDS, the Savior is the one doing the talking anyway. And the question of how this document was aquired in the first place, leaves much to suspicion... By the way, thanks for the link.

Yes, but an affirmation would have helped also. What did JS consider a prophet to be? I feel the scriptures are pretty clear on what a prophet is, and what they do. Why are so many things 'up in the air' for you? Correct, there seems to be different versions - I have seen them. But, looks can be deceiving. Some of the accounts are given by third-parties that understood it incorrectly, or were only giving a part of the vision, but it was taken to be the whole vision itself. At other times, the vision was refered to in a generic sense, but that also was taken to be the whole account. For instance, one would refer to the first vision as the vision in which Christ appeared to JS (which is true), but they would not mention the Father (because the topic would be dealing with Christ at that time), so some people would take that as only Christ appearing to him, because the Father was not mentioned. Another example would be of the First Vision being referenced to when Angels, or messengers from Heaven visited JS. Again, people would assume that meant only an angel came in the 1st Vision, because the Father and the Son were not mentioned. But, it is making an assumption based upon a part, rather than the whole. Because, aren't the Father and the Son 'messengers from Heaven'? Didn't they come from Heaven with a message? And didn't angels actually come to visit JS as part of the Restoration? Why would people have such a hard time with that statement? It's really NOT that difficult to see. JS made one, and only one, account of the complete/whole vision that he had, and that is the one we use. That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus.

OK, I understand now. I was not clear, then, on what I meant. When I refered to the Lord holding all people on Earth accountable, I was meaning all the people at that time, and subsequent generations - until the law is no longer required. It does not apply to those who were alive before the law was made - they wouldn't be held accountable. If he is holding all people on Earth - at given time - accountable, then he isn't separating groups and/or being a respecter of persons (which means that he doesn't exempt one person over the other - that are in the same said time). Not holding prior generations accountable is only fair and just. It was OK for more than those under the law of Moses - see Abraham and Issac. Haven't they received a Celestial inheritance? So...it was OK in another time - regardless of the reason? And didn't Noah get drunk? He was a prophet, and was never rebuked for this...

Jenda- You have not confirmed my assumption that you are RLDS/CofC. Will you, or anyone who knows, let me know. Because, if you are, then why are we having this conversation in the first place. Don't you believe JS was a prophet? Don't you believe in the First Vision? If so, didn't he say G-d the Father, and the Son, where two separate personages? Why would he say that, if they really weren't?

Then what you said contradicts itself, because you ask how G-d can give us laws and hold all people throughout time accountable (which is what I said originally), saying that doesn't make sense, then you go on to say how the laws given by the Lord have been for all people throughout time...do you see the problem? I was just trying to help, but if you want to leave it the way it is, then I guess you'll just have to do some expaining.

It states that the errors went unnoticed for some time. Besides, why would it be necessary to make a big fuss over errors. You are talking about major theological changes, but that's not what happened, errors were corrected - no Earth shattering news. If JS had changed, and suddenly stated that Christ DIDN'T come to the Americas, THAT would be a major theological change. But, since the original referenced the G-dhead to being three separate beings, and the Palmyra referenced the same - even with the errors - there wasn't a 'major theological change'. Just errors that needed correcting. It's 'stupid' now? Then why have you participated for so long? Everything except for what has been lost... Yes, I noticed that. Did you notice that I said that other verses in those sections said Son of G-d already - in the Palmyra edition, found in the parts that still exist as well? Which goes to show, that the original and/or Palmyra did not point to a modalistic G-dhead as you claim, but that there were errors that needed to be changed. I have also refuted your claim that the original, printers, and Palmyra editions were the same, and that it could not have contained errors. There were errors, and the Kirtland edition contained the corrections.

I'm going to assume that you meant to say 'and not (not added by me) hold everyone in history accountable'.The law that was given to Moses was the lesser law. They could not handle the higher law. Those laws included only walking a certain numbers of steps on the Sabbath, or forbidding to eat certain foods, the law of an eye for an eye, animal sacrifices, etc... are we to obey these laws today? No, Jesus came to fulfill those laws, and the bring the new laws, such as the 'B' attitudes. How about polygamy? It was OK in the OT, but not after, then OK at the Restoration, but not know. How about alcohol? Moses drank, Jesus and his Apostles drank wine, but we are commanded not to do so now, yet the Lord said he would drink wine with those who were faithful, which is to come. The Lord has always had different laws for different peoples and times - it doesn't change the Gospel, which is to come unto Christ, be obedient, prove our faithfulness, and return to our Heavenly Father, etc. Sure you can, the Israelites in the wilderness were not capable of following the higher law, but today, we are. Do you hold each person accountable the same, regardless of their personal knowledge? Would you expect a second grader to know Algebra? Would you expect a child in a third-world country to brush their teeth everynight, like you would for your own child? No, we are not all the same.

Yes, and can you tell me for certain - 100% - exactly what those 'natural scribal errors' where? I never purported such, nor do the quotes I gave. They were not purposeful - or they would not be considered 'errors'. How is this impossible? Someone writing down 'mother of the Son of G-d' forgets to add 'Son of' - you make it seem like such a scenario is impossible - but that's just your opinion. How could you know that such a mistake/error could not have been made? Says who? Why would they have to have been? Does everything that happens in life get printed in the papers? This is just your assumption, which does not equate to fact. No, the quote I gave clearly says 'textual amendations', and the other simply says changes - without giving specifics. Again, you are assuming here. I shouldn't!? Isn't that exactly what happened? The Palmyra edition contained hundreds of printing changes (punctual and textual) made to the P. manuscript that were not in the O. The printers manuscript additionally contained - on average - three changes per page from the original (changes not specified), and those changes came in rescribing in preparation for printing. How is the Palmyra NOT in error from the original due to printing? I am? OK...and this is so because...?These 'many people', what exactly have they studied? The parts of the original and printers that don't exist?

Which revelations are you refering to? Polygamy? Wasn't he a prophet of G-d? Isn't that what he is supposed to be doing - revealing the will of the Lord? Yes, I could have said 'Man', but I was trying to imply that the laws we are given are for us - here on this Earth - for our present time. For the Lord to change laws, doesn't make him a respecter of persons, because he holds ALL people on Earth to that law. A law that we have today, might not be the same as a law from before, but we weren't there for that law, and all those who lived then, where expected/commanded to obey it. Those people are not expected to be held accountable for laws given to us - in the present - but all us of today, are commanded to obey.

Like I asked you earlier, what do you think the term 'pure' refers to? If they were cursed with dark skin due to their disobedience, and then would be made pure upon their rightousness, what do you think that means? Yes, it doesn't say 'white' anymore - political correctness - but how has the meaning of the scripture changed? It hasn't!

Questions I asked you, but did not receive an answer to: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/b...ditions_eom.htmThis is what I found: Today approximately 25 percent of the text of O survives: The printer's manuscript is not an exact copy of the original manuscript. There are on the average three changes per original manuscript page. These changes appear to be natural scribal errors; there is little or no evidence of conscious editing. The compositor for the 1830 edition added punctuation, paragraphing, and other printing marks to about one-third of the pages of the printer's manuscript. These same marks appear on one fragment of the original, indicating that it was used at least once in typesetting the 1830 edition. In preparation for the second (1837) edition, hundreds of grammatical changes and a few textual emendations were made in P. The original manuscript was not consulted for the editing of the 1837 edition. However, in producing the 1840 edition, Joseph Smith used O to restore some of its original readings. Now, at the beginning of this thread, you showed how there have been changes made to the BoM. I stated that those changes were made due to printing errors - errors made due to the actual printing process of the BoM. You stated that that was false, for the original and printers manuscripts were the same, along with the first printing - the Palmyra. I then asked how it was possible to compare them, when the original and printers manuscripts aren't even intact, and if you had actually seen those copies. You responded by giving me two websites to look over - which I did. What I found, supports my theory/explaination of the changes in the BoM. Only 25% of the O. manuscript is left - which makes it impossible to compare. The P. manuscript is not all intact either, and was NOT the same as the original ( three changes per page compared to the O.). These changes would have been made in rescribing the original - without the Lord's direct supervision - at the hands of men. Then, the printer, himself, made hundreds of additional changes to the P. manuscript, which show up on the first edition of the BoM - Palmyra. In the second edition, those changes made to P. were corrected. Then, the third (1940), JS made corrections that were changed in the P. from the O. manuscript. Now, tell me how this is different from what I originally purported? The original and printers manuscripts were/are not the same as you have claimed.

Cal is refering to one change that has been made recently, and I will not try to defend or explain why it was done. I merely pointed out to Cal that it does not change the meaning of the text in any way. All the changes that were made to the BoM before that, where made after the original printing - many mistakes (such as puncuation, as well as words that were used when they shouldn't have (like G-d being used instead of Son of G-d). But, I appriciate your honesty in not wanting to discuss this topic due to not knowing all the peculiarities. Not change the meaning? Then why did the church change it? Of course it changes the meaning. Are you trying to say that "white" doesn't mean white. The book of mormon makes a big point to saying that God brought a "curse" of dark skin on the lamanites, and that if they would repent they would get light again. By changing the word white, to pure, the church avoids the embarrasment of explaining why there is anything wrong with NOT being white. I'll get back to you later, I have to go.

OK, I think I'm getting it - forgive me for the lateness. You stated that you are not LDS, but you say 'we' - I am now assuming that you are RLDS - correct me if I'm wrong. If that IS the case, then it would change my approach and thinking towards some of the discussion. I don't see any modern revealation after JS as going against any other scripture. Yes, G-d is the same, so is his Gospel, but laws for this Earth don't always stay the same.

Cal-First off, isn't this post a bit late in response? Second, you already stated this same thing in an earlier post as a reply. Third, I already replied to THAT post - but will do so again, if you wish. There are many websites out there that purport many things, which doesn't mean that I should visit them all. Also, I am not suggesting that there haven't been changes made - I am well aware of that fact - and I have seen them for myself - I do not need to do so over and over again. Finally, as I have stated before, there were numerous changes made - most dealing with puncuation - but the BoM has not gone through changes since (besides the white/pure incident that you have already pointed out, to which I replied does not change the meaning).

A little condescending...don't you think? I am not asking you for to give me a discourse on this thread, but to merely answer a couple simple, straight forward questions. Why will you not do this? It appears as if you are redirecting this conversation to my lack of willingness to search for myself, which shouldn't be required. It isn't a matter of my disbelief of you, but rather my challenging your claim that my assertations of the changes in the BoM are false, according to the information found in the original and printers manuscripts that you refer to.

I am not aware of other religions/denominations that require this of salvation...please inform me. He has already revealed much more than you are willing to accept.