Please Explain This Scripture For Me

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 26 2005, 10:15 AM

I believe perfect means to covenant and remain faithful through a trial or test. When I test an automated system I will perform functional test to determine that a system will perform the correct functions in the proper sequence when everything is happening as it should. But I will also perform what are called anomaly testing. This is when we introduce failures or problems into the system to determine how the system will identify problems and recover. I believe Jesus was tested in much the same manner. Because he completed his trial or test by remaining faithful as a G-d he then became the Father of our covenant salvation. This then gives us an inheritance and the only way to the Tree of Life.

The Traveler

How was he perfect without sin and the only one? How did that happen? We are all brothers and sisters, zillions of us. Yet not but one is perfect?

There are thoughts which say we have different comings, such as the Adam God idea. It seems that it must be true if Christ was perfect and we were not. Don't you think? How else can you explain his perfectness?

We have come to believe in our day that "perfect" means without flaw or shortcoming. Anciently perfect meant something else (see Matt 5:48 Be ye there perfect....)

Perfect here has to do with covenant. Perfect in covenant means to complete all the covenants. There is two parts to completing a covenant. First is to willingly accept the covenant without whining. Second is to prove through a trial or test that one is loyal and worthy of the covenant. That is all there is to being perfect. In Matt 5:48 the reason Jesus could not use himself as an example is because when he spoke he had not completed his conventual trial. That would come later when he have himself as a sacrifice (atonement). You will note that in the Book of Mormon Jesus does offer himself as an example in that he had completed his coventual trial.

Let me give an example. Whenever a discussion about keeping the Sabbath holy comes up most people start off with a list of do's and don't's. But the problem I have is that often the do's and don't's are not really related to covenant. I always ask "What is your Sabbath covenant?" What promise do you have with G-d concerning your Sabbath activities?

If you talk to a Jew or Muslem about Sabbath covenants they have a very clear understanding. For some reason most Christians seem to be clueless and would rather argue about do's and don't's and tell everybody else what they are doing wrong. This then brings up the whole strain at a nat and swallow a cammel thing. In truth telling others what is wrong with them will not help perfecting one's own covenant. I believe this is one of the main things Jesus taught - that is to be right with your covenants before you even think about correcting others. Thus the command for those without sin to cast the first stone - or the command to be perfect.

Many think it is difficult to be LDS - but you know what? Our covenants are really quite easy and simple; even little children can be loyal to LDS covenants. It does not require a university degree to love G-d or your neighbor and that is all it really boiles down to. Since most of us have some problems the LDS is church (kingdom and priesthood) set up to help us become much more service orenited. So you see, being perfect is not going home teaching or vesiting teaching every month - it is learning to love others through service by covenant. And the nifty thing is when you figgure out a mistake - you just repent and correct it. The system is both easy and fail safe. Therefore perfect does not mean that you never stumble - it just means that when you stumble you just get up (repent) and move on.

The Traveler

The Traveler

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 26 2005, 05:59 PM

I believe perfect means to covenant and remain faithful through a trial or test. When I test an automated system I will perform functional test to determine that a system will perform the correct functions in the proper sequence when everything is happening as it should. But I will also perform what are called anomaly testing. This is when we introduce failures or problems into the system to determine how the system will identify problems and recover. I believe Jesus was tested in much the same manner. Because he completed his trial or test by remaining faithful as a G-d he then became the Father of our covenant salvation. This then gives us an inheritance and the only way to the Tree of Life.

The Traveler

How was he perfect without sin and the only one? How did that happen? We are all brothers and sisters, zillions of us. Yet not but one is perfect?

There are thoughts which say we have different comings, such as the Adam God idea. It seems that it must be true if Christ was perfect and we were not. Don't you think? How else can you explain his perfectness?

We have come to believe in our day that "perfect" means without flaw or shortcoming. Anciently perfect meant something else (see Matt 5:48 Be ye there perfect....)

Perfect here has to do with covenant. Perfect in covenant means to complete all the covenants. There is two parts to completing a covenant. First is to willingly accept the covenant without whining. Second is to prove through a trial or test that one is loyal and worthy of the covenant. That is all there is to being perfect. In Matt 5:48 the reason Jesus could not use himself as an example is because when he spoke he had not completed his conventual trial. That would come later when he have himself as a sacrifice (atonement). You will note that in the Book of Mormon Jesus does offer himself as an example in that he had completed his coventual trial.

Let me give an example. Whenever a discussion about keeping the Sabbath holy comes up most people start off with a list of do's and don't's. But the problem I have is that often the do's and don't's are not really related to covenant. I always ask "What is your Sabbath covenant?" What promise do you have with G-d concerning your Sabbath activities?

If you talk to a Jew or Muslem about Sabbath covenants they have a very clear understanding. For some reason most Christians seem to be clueless and would rather argue about do's and don't's and tell everybody else what they are doing wrong. This then brings up the whole strain at a nat and swallow a cammel thing. In truth telling others what is wrong with them will not help perfecting one's own covenant. I believe this is one of the main things Jesus taught - that is to be right with your covenants before you even think about correcting others. Thus the command for those without sin to cast the first stone - or the command to be perfect.

Many think it is difficult to be LDS - but you know what? Our covenants are really quite easy and simple; even little children can be loyal to LDS covenants. It does not require a university degree to love G-d or your neighbor and that is all it really boiles down to. Since most of us have some problems the LDS is church (kingdom and priesthood) set up to help us become much more service orenited. So you see, being perfect is not going home teaching or vesiting teaching every month - it is learning to love others through service by covenant. And the nifty thing is when you figgure out a mistake - you just repent and correct it. The system is both easy and fail safe. Therefore perfect does not mean that you never stumble - it just means that when you stumble you just get up (repent) and move on.

The Traveler

The Traveler

What about the perfect expounded in Moroni 10:32-33? I have come to believe perfect is completely sin free through the atonement, and being filled with the charity/pure love of Christ as taught in Moroni 7:47-48.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 25 2005, 02:09 PM

No, I am not LDS. Let me rephrase my statement, then. It is only your church's opinion.

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...

...what I quoted above is the original edition of the BoM.

You quoted the WHOLE origianl BoM!?? Man! I really missed it...!

I am not suggesting anything about the verses that were changed.

Huh...? Your NOT...

Well, let's look at that again:

You:

Check out these changes that were made from the Palmyra edition to the Kirtland edition.

Palmyra edition 1 Nephi 3:58 And he said unto me: "Behold, the virgin which thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."

vs.

Kirtland edition 1 Nephi 3:58 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Palmyra edition 1 Nephi 3:62 And the angel said unto me: "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!

vs.

Kirtland edition 1 Nephi 3:62 And the angel said unto me, Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!

I don't know...maybe I'm just reading it all wrong...

Please check out things before stating that others are wrong.

Uhhh.....OK....

The quotes from the original BoM lead towards, not trinitarian, but modalist beliefs.

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.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 25 2005, 10:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 25 2005, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -pushka@Jan 25 2005, 08:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 25 2005, 07:15 PM

Using "Occum's razor" to make sense of the original BoM text and the "Kirkland" edition, it becomes pretty clear that as JS's theology of the Godhead evolved, the trinitarian view clearly espoused in the BoM was at odds with the "new view" of the Godhead, so the church had to try to make the two theologies mesh--they had to change the BoM in several places, which as been pointed out.

Do you think that those changes were made under the guidance of the Spirit? or just by the writers so that people did not get confused about the Trinity beliefs within the church? I just feel a little suspicious of changes being constantly made to the BoM, it sort of makes it less likely to be an inspired book if it constantly needed altering.

Have you ever spoken with someone who has done the translating of the BofM into another language? It is interesting to see just how many concepts are lost in the translation and must be edited until it is made clear in the new language.

I find it amazing that there are relatively few of these kinds of editings.

pushka is talking about all the changes within the plain meaning in the English language, not a translation to another language. Several changes in the BoM completely change the meaning JS gave it--essentially a change in doctrine.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 25 2005, 08:15 PM

Using "Occum's razor" to make sense of the original BoM text and the "Kirkland" edition, it becomes pretty clear that as JS's theology of the Godhead evolved, the trinitarian view clearly espoused in the BoM was at odds with the "new view" of the Godhead, so the church had to try to make the two theologies mesh--they had to change the BoM in several places, which as been pointed out.

See my post above.

This charge is nonsense.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 25 2005, 10:42 PM

For clarity's sake since I can't edit my posts, my last statement should mean:

I find it comforting that there are relatively few editings in the BofM.

Yeah, just 4000 or so.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 25 2005, 08:24 PM

That could possibly be true, except that the "trinitarian view" clearly isn't espoused in the BoM. As I pointed out, the earliest editions of the BoM, as well as other scriptures that were never changed clearly point to a modalist view of the Godhead.

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.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 26 2005, 04:59 PM

I believe perfect means to covenant and remain faithful through a trial or test. When I test an automated system I will perform functional test to determine that a system will perform the correct functions in the proper sequence when everything is happening as it should. But I will also perform what are called anomaly testing. This is when we introduce failures or problems into the system to determine how the system will identify problems and recover. I believe Jesus was tested in much the same manner. Because he completed his trial or test by remaining faithful as a G-d he then became the Father of our covenant salvation. This then gives us an inheritance and the only way to the Tree of Life.

The Traveler

How was he perfect without sin and the only one? How did that happen? We are all brothers and sisters, zillions of us. Yet not but one is perfect?

There are thoughts which say we have different comings, such as the Adam God idea. It seems that it must be true if Christ was perfect and we were not. Don't you think? How else can you explain his perfectness?

We have come to believe in our day that "perfect" means without flaw or shortcoming. Anciently perfect meant something else (see Matt 5:48 Be ye there perfect....)

Perfect here has to do with covenant. Perfect in covenant means to complete all the covenants. There is two parts to completing a covenant. First is to willingly accept the covenant without whining. Second is to prove through a trial or test that one is loyal and worthy of the covenant. That is all there is to being perfect. In Matt 5:48 the reason Jesus could not use himself as an example is because when he spoke he had not completed his conventual trial. That would come later when he have himself as a sacrifice (atonement). You will note that in the Book of Mormon Jesus does offer himself as an example in that he had completed his coventual trial.

Let me give an example. Whenever a discussion about keeping the Sabbath holy comes up most people start off with a list of do's and don't's. But the problem I have is that often the do's and don't's are not really related to covenant. I always ask "What is your Sabbath covenant?" What promise do you have with G-d concerning your Sabbath activities?

If you talk to a Jew or Muslem about Sabbath covenants they have a very clear understanding. For some reason most Christians seem to be clueless and would rather argue about do's and don't's and tell everybody else what they are doing wrong. This then brings up the whole strain at a nat and swallow a cammel thing. In truth telling others what is wrong with them will not help perfecting one's own covenant. I believe this is one of the main things Jesus taught - that is to be right with your covenants before you even think about correcting others. Thus the command for those without sin to cast the first stone - or the command to be perfect.

Many think it is difficult to be LDS - but you know what? Our covenants are really quite easy and simple; even little children can be loyal to LDS covenants. It does not require a university degree to love G-d or your neighbor and that is all it really boiles down to. Since most of us have some problems the LDS is church (kingdom and priesthood) set up to help us become much more service orenited. So you see, being perfect is not going home teaching or vesiting teaching every month - it is learning to love others through service by covenant. And the nifty thing is when you figgure out a mistake - you just repent and correct it. The system is both easy and fail safe. Therefore perfect does not mean that you never stumble - it just means that when you stumble you just get up (repent) and move on.

The Traveler

The Traveler

First is to willingly accept the covenant without whining.

Guess that disqualifies most the women in the church

[huma17]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 25 2005, 08:47 PM

I just feel a little suspicious of changes being constantly made to the BoM, it sort of makes it less likely to be an inspired book if it constantly needed altering.

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.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 26 2005, 12:22 AM

I think that "Only Begotten of the Father" means that Jesus Christ is G-d the Son and is conceived and begotten by the Father.

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.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 26 2005, 11:15 AM

How was he perfect without sin and the only one? How did that happen? We are all brothers and sisters, zillions of us. Yet not but one is perfect?

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.

[Cal]

Originally posted by huma17+Jan 27 2005, 04:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Jan 27 2005, 04:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 25 2005, 08:47 PM

I just feel a little suspicious of changes being constantly made to the BoM, it sort of makes it less likely to be an inspired book if it constantly needed altering.

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.

Oh really--just recently the church changed the wording of a scripture dealing with a controversial section that refered to the Lamanites saying the would become "white" and delightsome (I think it said)..... the church changed the word to "pure".... for the obvious reason to deflect the accusations that the church considered the lamanites somehow inferior if they weren't white. Look it up for yourself---you can find lots of references to it on the internetm and then read it for yourself.

There are plenty of sites that are more than happy to point out the other changes.

[Cal]

Originally posted by huma17+Jan 27 2005, 04:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Jan 27 2005, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jan 26 2005, 12:22 AM

I think that "Only Begotten of the Father" means that Jesus Christ is G-d the Son and is conceived and begotten by the Father.

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.

That's not what Brigham Young taught. Look it up.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17+Jan 27 2005, 04:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Jan 27 2005, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jan 25 2005, 08:24 PM

That could possibly be true, except that the "trinitarian view" clearly isn't espoused in the BoM.  As I pointed out, the earliest editions of the BoM, as well as other scriptures that were never changed clearly point to a modalist view of the Godhead.

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.

If you looked at the scriptures I quoted from the original edition of the BoM, as well as the original manuscript and the printers manuscript, the theology espoused is that of a modalistic Godhead. What it was changed to was a more trinitarian viewpoint. It has never espoused the concept of three Gods. Never.

huma17, you need to learn to approach these discussions in a more adult fashion. Studying things before speaking about them shows maturity.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 27 2005, 07:46 PM

If you looked at the scriptures I quoted from the original edition of the BoM, as well as the original manuscript and the printers manuscript, the theology espoused is that of a modalistic Godhead. What it was changed to was a more trinitarian viewpoint. It has never espoused the concept of three Gods. Never.

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.

huma17, you need to learn to approach these discussions in a more adult fashion.  Studying things before speaking about them shows maturity.

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.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 27 2005, 05:22 PM

That's not what Brigham Young taught. Look it up.

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

[huma17]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 27 2005, 05:20 PM

Oh really--just recently the church changed the wording of a scripture dealing with a controversial section that refered to the Lamanites saying the would become "white" and delightsome (I think it said)..... the church changed the word to "pure".... for the obvious reason to deflect the accusations that the church considered the lamanites somehow inferior if they weren't white. Look it up for yourself---you can find lots of references to it on the internetm and then read it for yourself.

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?

There are plenty of sites that are more than happy to point out the other changes.

No doubt, there are sites that will say ANYTHING - doesn't mean I need to see them all...

[Jenda]

huma17, if you look back through this thread, you will see that you have argued with just about every person who posted in it. How can every single one of us be wrong and you be right? That is something you need to think about.

And as I pointed out earlier, you're posting as if you are a teenager. If you are, you need to learn to respect others. If you aren't, then grow up. None of us know everything, you included.

As far as my part of the discussion, yes, I only quoted 2 of the verses that were changed. There are others. If you looked, you could find them yourself without someone else doing the work for you. Yes, there are some verses that refer to God the Father and the Son, but there are many which refer to both of them that state right out that they are one in the same. Look those up, too. It is all right there. If you opened your eyes, you would see it.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 27 2005, 04:08 PM

The Traveler

First is to willingly accept the covenant without whining.

Guess that disqualifies most the women in the church

Women? I had specifically worded that post in your behalf :) LOL

In truth I believe it applies to us all. Few it is that receive councle from G-d with joy and celebration. I love the line in fidler on the roof that went something like "Can't someone else by your chosen people once in a while?"

There have been a number of things that have taken me years to learn to accept without whining.

The Traveler

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 28 2005, 10:52 AM

The Traveler

First is to willingly accept the covenant without whining.

Guess that disqualifies most the women in the church

Women? I had specifically worded that post in your behalf :) LOL

In truth I believe it applies to us all. Few it is that receive councle from G-d with joy and celebration. I love the line in fidler on the roof that went something like "Can't someone else be your chosen people once in a while?"

There have been a number of things that have taken me years to learn to accept without whining.

The Traveler

I am glad you said you were only kidding! I don't believe there are many who can say they have never whined.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 27 2005, 09:35 PM

huma17, if you look back through this thread, you will see that you have argued with just about every person who posted in it. 

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?

How can every single one of us be wrong and you be right?

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?

And as I pointed out earlier, you're posting as if you are a teenager.

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?

If you are, you need to learn to respect others.

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.

None of us know everything, you included.

Never said, claimed, or thought I did.

If you looked, you could find them yourself without someone else doing the work for you.

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, there are some verses that refer to God the Father and the Son, but there are many which refer to both of them that state right out that they are one in the same.

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.

If you opened your eyes, you would see it.

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?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17@Jan 28 2005, 02:16 PM

And as I pointed out earlier, you're posting as if you are a teenager.

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.

I did not accuse you of being a teenager because you disagreed with me. It was because your skills of debate seemed non-existent. If you weren't getting your point across, you should change approaches to show your point in a different manner. You just kept repeating the same thing, and if it didn't get your point across the first time, it wasn't the second or third, either. Sorry.

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?

OK, now that you have described your POV so I understand it.............

If that is true, then how do you explain the presence of the language in the original manuscript that was supposedly given to us right from God's lips to Joseph Smith's eyes? The translation process was described as, the words in the stone did not change until the scribe wrote them down exactly as they were on the stone.

[pushka]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 27 2005, 04:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 27 2005, 04:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -huma17@Jan 27 2005, 04:09 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 25 2005, 08:47 PM

I just feel a little suspicious of changes being constantly made to the BoM, it sort of makes it less likely to be an inspired book if it constantly needed altering.

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.

Oh really--just recently the church changed the wording of a scripture dealing with a controversial section that refered to the Lamanites saying the would become "white" and delightsome (I think it said)..... the church changed the word to "pure".... for the obvious reason to deflect the accusations that the church considered the lamanites somehow inferior if they weren't white. Look it up for yourself---you can find lots of references to it on the internetm and then read it for yourself.

There are plenty of sites that are more than happy to point out the other changes.

Cal...thank you for addressing this question back to Huma17...I must admit, having not read the BofM for a while, nor visited those sites you refer to for a while either, I was relying on my memory regarding changes that had been made...thank you for acknowledging them. Huma17 I am sorry that I cannot argue whether there are further alterations which change the doctrine or not, so I shall keep away from this subject until I am in a better position! :)

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 28 2005, 03:55 PM

It was because your skills of debate seemed non-existent.      If you weren't getting your point across, you should change approaches to show your point in a different manner.  You just kept repeating the same thing, and if it didn't get your point across the first time, it wasn't the second or third, either.  Sorry.

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.

If that is true, then how do you explain the presence of the language in the original manuscript that was supposedly given to us right from God's lips to Joseph Smith's eyes?  The translation process was described as, the words in the stone did not change until the scribe wrote them down exactly as they were on the stone.

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.

[huma17]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 28 2005, 04:35 PM

Cal...thank you for addressing this question back to Huma17...I must admit, having not read the BofM for a while, nor visited those sites you refer to for a while either, I was relying on my memory regarding changes that had been made...thank you for acknowledging them. Huma17 I am sorry that I cannot argue whether there are further alterations which change the doctrine or not, so I shall keep away from this subject until I am in a better position! :)

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.