huma17

Yes, that would be the case, but I do not see how this would create problems for you. There are different Mary's in the Bible - the one whom washed Jesus' feet with expensive oil, and was formerly quite immoral, and the Mary that was at the tomb of Jesus - quite different people, but needing distinction between the two, for some see them as the same. Also, there are two Peter's, one an Apostle, surnamed Simon, and the other one a different person. There are two Judas's, both Apostles, but one is Iscariot, the betrayer of Christ, and the other is not. Some of these people are refered to soley by their first name, but one must understand which is being spoken of...why does this cause problems for you? If there IS a G-d, G-dhead, then there IS only ONE complete and consistent definition, and we are - according to the Bible - commanded to know what that is - to know who G-d is.I absolutely do not agree with the mathematical theorem/application that you have provided. First, I cannot apply a theorem to the personality of G-d and/or the G-dhead - it just doesn't work. Second, there is no set of axioms to prove all other mathematical principles that we know of. Just as any scientist will attest to, nothing is proven, it is only so until proven false - there are no certainties when it comes to science. Just because it is not known at the present, does not mean it is not so. Finally, as I and many others see it, the definition of the G-dhead as three separate beings, but one in purpose, is consistant with all scripture, and does not create inconsistencies and/or loopholes. False interpretations of the truth cause that - such as one, being three different apparitions - it is abnormal and confusing (which is what the Lord does NOT want to be to us).

OK, I'm not sure that you have answered my questions, and if you have, I do not understand the point you are trying to make.You state that the printers manuscript is intact and rests in the RLDS archives...well, have you seen them? Are they open to the public view? You also relate the history of the original manuscript, and my above question applies to it as well. For, if the copy is of such a small remnant of the whole as you relate, then how is it possible to judge fully it's content, or to refute what I have earlier propositioned (in which you claim is not possible)? I have not called you a liar, nor have I intended to. I am merely asking for further information regarding the claims that you have made, which, in turn, have refuted my conclusions regarding the matter of changed scripture - according to you. That further information would, in essence, retract my statements itself - proving them inapplicable.

I have to admit, that I do not fully understand what you are trying to get across, or how it is pertinent to what you quoted of me.On the other hand, I agree that the information that you have at your hands is quite useful, and would benefit anyone interested in church history.

Have you actually seen the copies of the original and printers manuscript? Didn't you say that both copies are not fully intact?If it is truly as you claim it to be, which I am skeptical - seeing a lack of verifiable proof, then the answer given by Ray should be sufficient. What I was commenting upon - verses calling Jesus the Son of G-d - suggest that the original did not simply refer to a Modalistic G-dhead as you suggest, but rather three separate beings as I stated. I also mentioned, earlier in this thread, that Christ is our Father, our G-d, and the Son of our Heavenly Father, the Father of our spirits, at the same time, to which you replied that that was only my opinion - or of that of the Church. The original copy of the BoM would support me in this idea - with, or without, the changes made, and Ray has pointed that out to you, once again.

Now, Abraham paid his tithes, and he has received his throne. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but to give to the Lord what is the Lord's.We are not, though, to pay money for forgiveness or salvation - that is a separate thing. Tithing is a commandment, and an act of faith and obedience. Nobody is paying tithes to a 'building' 'church' or leader, but to the Lord. Nobody comes knocking on my door if I have not paid my tithing. I am still allowed to attend church, just not the Temple, because I am no longer living a Celestial Law, which requires full obedience to the Laws of the Lord.

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.

I think my skills 'of debate' are more than adaquate. On the other hand, I will not deny that I sometimes have a hard time getting my point across. This is so, because I am supprised that it is not gotten the first time. I feel that it is pretty clear and straight forward, and am suprised that it is not understood. Because, those that I am conversing with appear to be bright intellects, and I'm shocked that they do not see my point as clearly as I do (whether they agree or not is a different matter). This is something that I still need to work on - obviously. The translation was correct, but the printing was not - those are two separate things. JS did not perform the printing himself, someone(s) else would have. But the fact that he was a prophet, and the Church organization is led by modern revelation, those errors can be/were corrected.

AHHHH........YES! That's him - BAT!!!Maureen, this is who I was refering to. I was meaning that you two usually were on the same track when it came to your posts, and that you two usually posted in the same threads.

On this thread, six other people have posted besides me. I have, what you would consider, argued/debated with two of them, you and Cal. Now, do you think exaggeration is something a 'mature' person like yourself should/would be doing? I rather think most of the comments on this thread are right. Some of the other posters had questions, and/or didn't understand something fully, so I attempted to answer them. Traveler brought up a point that I had never thought of, and I actually like. Amillia seems to have a good head on her shoulders, she just asked a couple of questions. I definately don't think that everyone is wrong and I'm right - I am far from knowledable of all things - very far. There are just some things that I do know, and one of them happens to be what we have been talking about. I don't think you are wrong, just that I don't think you understand what I have been trying to say. And for someone that comes across as very intellectual and wise, I become frustrated that you cannot see what I'm trying to say. Instead, rather, you have resorted to putting me down - more than once. Again, is that the sign of someone who is mature? Maybe you need to read posts from someone who really IS a teenager - there would be quite a difference. I do find it odd, though, that you would accuse someone of being a teenager simply because they don't agree with you. Besides, if I'm so silly, immature, and uneducated, why have you felt that belittling is your only recourse at this point? You speak as if I'm 10, and you are all over 50, and I must respect my elders. Well, that is not the case, and you will only get my respect if you earn it. I definately have a hard time respecting someone that feels they should automatically get the respect of others because they have posted for awhile. Sorry, that's not how it works. Never said, claimed, or thought I did. I don't recall asking anyone to look anything up for me...? And yes, I have seen the other verses, but those aren't the ones I'm talking about. Throughout this whole thread, you either truly don't understand what I'm talking about, or you are just refusing to acknowledge them, and instead have tried to deflect the issue by putting me down. Yes, on both counts - its the same in the Bible, but those aren't the scriptures that I'm refering to. There are verses in both, that clearly state them as separate beings, and others that would refer to them as one in purpose. With those two situations, all of the scriptures are in harmony. With the idea that there is only one, who changes forms to be something else, not only doesn't allow us to know the true G-d (which we are commanded to do), but it also puts alot of confusion to many other scriptures. I don't know about you, but I choose not to be confused. But I DO see them. Will you not see my posts, to see what it is I'm talking about? You have admitted that you only referenced two different verses that were changed from one copy to the next - and yes, there are other verses that are the same, I have seen/read them. But, what I have been trying to say this whole time, is that in the original - which you quoted from, that has the verses before they were changed - there are other, separate verses that refer to the Lord as the Son of G-d - in that original copy. As I have said, you, and Cal has affirmed this thinking, believe that they were changed because the Church changed its stance on the image/personage of the G-dhead. So, they needed to change scriptures in the BoM to be consistant with that thinking - since the BoM originally pointed to a Modalistic Godhead (as you, and others, believe). But, what I am trying to get to, is that because there were already scriptures stating that Christ was the Son of G-d - and not G-d the Father - the verses you quoted wouldn't have been changed for the reason you suggest, but because they were printed incorrectly in the first printing, and thus needed to be changed. The BoM does not suggest a Modalistic/Trinitarian Godhead, as you believe/suggest, but that there are three separate beings that are one in purpose - which is the same for the Bible. Does this make sense to you? You might not agree, but do you understand what it is I've been trying to say this whole time?

Yes, yes, we know all about it. It sure did change the whole meaning, though, didn't it? I mean using a different word that pretty much means the same...the Gospel's false! Let everyone know, cause it now says 'pure'.By the way, what do you think pure means in that scripture anyway? No doubt, there are sites that will say ANYTHING - doesn't mean I need to see them all...

You mean that's not what you 'think' he taught. Yes, I have looked it up.

OK, Jenda, let's go over this one - more - time. The quotes you used were from only TWO (2) verses - not ALL the verses - some of them using the SON OF G-D in the same printing!!! Why can't you understand this?? And no, it never espoused the concept of three G-ds, only that the Father, Son, and HG are separate. Why do people resort to put downs as a last resort? I can assure you, and my posts will attest, that my approach to these dicussions are more than adequate. And I can assure you that I have done plenty of studying. Besides, if I have to see things the way that you do to be 'mature', I'll pass. For only those that become as little children shall inherit the kingdom of G-d. The Lord will use the unlearned to confound the wise.I'm glad your so mature o' wise one.

That's good to know. Does he plan to post again?

None of us had the power of being a G-d. Jesus also didn't have much of a veil - he knew what was going on pretty much from the beginning.

Yes, Jesus was the only one who had Heavenly Father's seed - in flesh - used in creating his mortal, Earthly body - the Only Begotten. And no, this doesn't mean HF had intercourse with Mary, it was put in her by the HG.

How did it 'constantly' needed to be altered? The original printings where full of printing errors and mistakes, which needed to be changed. After that, there were no 'alterations' to the BoM.

I guess you would think that, just like many think the Bible says the same thing. It is merely a mis-understanding and a mis-interpretation. For one can clearly see that both say no such thing - if you look close enough.

See my post above.This charge is nonsense.

ahh...yes, that explains it.But, it's not only the 'Church's' opinion - I think the Lord, and our Heavenly Father might feel the same as me here... You quoted the WHOLE origianl BoM!?? Man! I really missed it...! Huh...? Your NOT... Well, let's look at that again: You: I don't know...maybe I'm just reading it all wrong... Uhhh.....OK.... Now, I shall go over this more slowly, OK? What I was saying that you forgot to mention, was that found throughout the full copy of the original BoM, are found verses stating the Lord as the 'Son of G-d'. Now, since you are showing verses that have been changed, and you are assertaining the the original BoM pointed towards three-in-one (basically the Trinity), but was changed - suggesting this was done because the First Vision was changed, so the BoM needed to be so that they would be consistant. I am trying to show that the verses that point to a modalist belief - as you suggest - where wrong in the original (seeing as the rest of the book stated 'Son of G-d' already), and needed to be changed for that reason. See? That's not so hard.

When I came back here, I saw that you were on, so I assumed that you hadn't left. At least I'm not the only one who did.I just remember quite a few posters on whenever I logged on - not now. Who was the poster who usually posted with you? Ray is gone too, but I think he posts over at FAIR - even though I haven't seen him for awhile over there too.

Are you LDS?Because it's not just MY 'opinion'. Your quotes seem to suggest that the original conformed with the thinking of the time - the theory of the 'Trinity', but was later changed to have the wording conform more with the First Vision of JS. I 'could' be wrong here, but... Anyway, if that IS what you are trying to suggest, then you WOULD have forgotten to mention that the original already referenced the Lord as the Son of G-d. Which would seem to suggest that some of those verses that had been changed didn't have the right words to begin with.

You forget to mention that the original copies/publications of the BoM have the Son of G-d, in reference to the Lord... Yes, because he IS the Father - of our flesh, this Universe... He IS NOT our Heavenly Father - who created/organized our spirits.

Yes, Jesus is the Lord G-d - he is the G-d of the OT, and he is the G-d of this Earth. He then became known as the Son of G-d because he was born of flesh. He is the Father of all of us, because he created our flesh - our bodies, he created the Heavens and the Earth to which we deal with - he created all that we know of. He is the Son, because he is the son of our Heavenly Father - the Father that sent him, the Father of all of our spirits. They are one in purpose. The Savior said '...if you have seen me, you have seen the Father, for he sent me...'

Where did Ray go? Wasn't it Ray A - instead of just Ray? And does the poster that always posted with Maureen - can't remember name - hang around?

Ahhh...this does make sense. That is what happened on the RfM board - I really don't go there anymore. I used to be able to debate without getting sensored, but after getting banned enough times, it gets old. I mean they really started to crack down on the 'trolls'. First, my posts would get deleted, then the whole thread, then they just started banning me. After some of the bigger posters left - such as bensen and others (even Bob doesn't post very often) - I found no joy in it.