Please Explain This Scripture For Me

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17+Jan 31 2005, 03:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Jan 31 2005, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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.

But the Palmyra edition agreed with what was written on the original and printers manuscript. So, that can't be the problem.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 31 2005, 03:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 31 2005, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -huma17@Jan 31 2005, 03:11 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--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.

But the Palmyra edition agreed with what was written on the original and printers manuscript. So, that can't be the problem.

Jesus Christ is God from one perspective, the Son of God from another perspective, and both perspectives are true in the same way that a man is a man whether he is the son or the father of another man.

I believe the language from those scriptures in the Book of Mormon were clarified to show which person was being mentioned. The term “God” is normally used to refer to the father of our spirits, and the person being mentioned was Jesus Christ, so a reference to Mary as the mother of God was ambivalent as to the person being mentioned.

And btw, when we are born again through Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ becomes our Father and our God without detracting from our relationship with our other Father in heaven, referring to the original father of our spirits. Further, if we are fortunate enough to have our other father go to heaven and become as God, referring to the father who gave birth to our physical body on Earth, we have yet another Father in heaven, multiplied to infinity if we have all our other fathers go to heaven as our grandfather, great grandfather, great, great grandfather, etc.

The use of words is seldom adequate to convey ideas, don’t you think?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Ray+Jan 31 2005, 05:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Jan 31 2005, 05:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 31 2005, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by -huma17@Jan 31 2005, 03:11 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--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.

But the Palmyra edition agreed with what was written on the original and printers manuscript. So, that can't be the problem.

Jesus Christ is God from one perspective, the Son of God from another perspective, and both perspectives are true in the same way that a man is a man whether he is the son or the father of another man.

I believe the language from those scriptures in the Book of Mormon were clarified to show which person was being mentioned. The term “God” is normally used to refer to the father of our spirits, and the person being mentioned was Jesus Christ, so a reference to Mary as the mother of God was ambivalent as to the person being mentioned.

And btw, when we are born again through Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ becomes our Father and our God without detracting from our relationship with our other Father in heaven, referring to the original father of our spirits. Further, if we are fortunate enough to have our other father go to heaven and become as God, referring to the father who gave birth to our physical body on Earth, we have yet another Father in heaven, multiplied to infinity if we have all our other fathers go to heaven as our grandfather, great grandfather, great, great grandfather, etc.

The use of words is seldom adequate to convey ideas, don’t you think?

Thanks Ray! You did good!

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 31 2005, 04:37 PM

But the Palmyra edition agreed with what was written on the original and printers manuscript. So, that can't be the problem.

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.

[Ray]

Originally posted by huma17@ Feb 1 2005, 12:35 PM

Have you actually seen the copies of the original and printers manuscript? Didn't you say that both copies are not fully intact?

For anyone who hasn’t read much about Church History, I recommend reading a little more than what you may hear discussed this year during Sunday School. I myself find the subject particularly interesting and am delighted with the new toy I got for Christmas…a Pocket PC containing not only the Church History written by the Prophet Joseph, but also the Times & Seasons written by him, the History of Joseph Smith Jr. written by his mother, Church History and Modern Revelation written by Joseph Fielding Smith, a Doctrine & Covenants Commentary written by Hyrum Smith and Janne Sjodahl, the Comprehensive History of the Church written by B.H. Roberts, the Journals of Discourses, all of the standard works …and about 100 other books or volumes of books concerning the gospel. Heh, trying to read all the books about Church History at once to catch more of the details is keeping me busy, but it’s kinda fun too! J

And for anyone who doesn’t have one of these things, I wholeheartedly recommend that you GET YOURS NOW! A good Pocket PC can be had for about $200, and the software, called the Personal Gospel Library, cost about $40. Quite a nice little thing to be able to pull from your pocket!

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17+Feb 1 2005, 12:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Feb 1 2005, 12:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jan 31 2005, 04:37 PM

But the Palmyra edition agreed with what was written on the original and printers manuscript.  So, that can't be the problem.

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.

The printers manuscript is intact and rests in the RLDS archives. The original manuscript is a different story. The original manuscript was buried in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House when the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum were secretly buried there, temporarily, for safe keeping (I believe that is when it was buried. I do know that is where it was buried.) After Emma Smith remarried, her husband set about the task of finishing building part of the building for them to live in. At that time, he retrieved the manuscript, which had deteriorated so much that only about half of it was left. He took that manuscript and divided it between the RLDS and the LDS. The portion that was given to the RLDS continued to deteriorate as the Reorganization had just reorganized and did not have a place or way to keep manuscripts from further deteriorating. The part he gave the LDS is in better condition because they had better facilities at the time to store it.

The different manuscripts have been examined from time to time, and this is not new news. I am sure that you can find as much proof as you wish to find if you searched for it. Unless you wish to call me a liar, maybe you can do your own search and retract what you said.

You can interpret these scriptures any way you want, but your interpretation (as well as Ray's) is just that. One interpretation of those scriptures. Many others read it and come to differing conclusions.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 1 2005, 05:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 1 2005, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -huma17@Feb 1 2005, 12:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jan 31 2005, 04:37 PM

But the Palmyra edition agreed with what was written on the original and printers manuscript.  So, that can't be the problem.

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.

The printers manuscript is intact and rests in the RLDS archives. The original manuscript is a different story. The original manuscript was buried in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House when the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum were secretly buried there, temporarily, for safe keeping (I believe that is when it was buried. I do know that is where it was buried.) After Emma Smith remarried, her husband set about the task of finishing building part of the building for them to live in. At that time, he retrieved the manuscript, which had deteriorated so much that only about half of it was left. He took that manuscript and divided it between the RLDS and the LDS. The portion that was given to the RLDS continued to deteriorate as the Reorganization had just reorganized and did not have a place or way to keep manuscripts from further deteriorating. The part he gave the LDS is in better condition because they had better facilities at the time to store it.

The different manuscripts have been examined from time to time, and this is not new news. I am sure that you can find as much proof as you wish to find if you searched for it. Unless you wish to call me a liar, maybe you can do your own search and retract what you said.

You can interpret these scriptures any way you want, but your interpretation (as well as Ray's) is just that. One interpretation of those scriptures. Many others read it and come to differing conclusions.

Dawn,

Just a quick question before I blast off to Bishopric meeting....are you familiar with the concept of "Divine Investiture of Authority"?

A clear understanding of this principle will help clarify what we are discussing here.

More later....see ya!!

Oh...and you are so right...I dont think I would find much discussion about T's on the CoC board!!! LOL!

randy

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Feb 1 2005, 04:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Feb 1 2005, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by -huma17@Feb 1 2005, 12:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jan 31 2005, 04:37 PM

But the Palmyra edition agreed with what was written on the original and printers manuscript.  So, that can't be the problem.

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.

The printers manuscript is intact and rests in the RLDS archives. The original manuscript is a different story. The original manuscript was buried in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House when the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum were secretly buried there, temporarily, for safe keeping (I believe that is when it was buried. I do know that is where it was buried.) After Emma Smith remarried, her husband set about the task of finishing building part of the building for them to live in. At that time, he retrieved the manuscript, which had deteriorated so much that only about half of it was left. He took that manuscript and divided it between the RLDS and the LDS. The portion that was given to the RLDS continued to deteriorate as the Reorganization had just reorganized and did not have a place or way to keep manuscripts from further deteriorating. The part he gave the LDS is in better condition because they had better facilities at the time to store it.

The different manuscripts have been examined from time to time, and this is not new news. I am sure that you can find as much proof as you wish to find if you searched for it. Unless you wish to call me a liar, maybe you can do your own search and retract what you said.

You can interpret these scriptures any way you want, but your interpretation (as well as Ray's) is just that. One interpretation of those scriptures. Many others read it and come to differing conclusions.

Dawn,

Just a quick question before I blast off to Bishopric meeting....are you familiar with the concept of "Divine Investiture of Authority"?

A clear understanding of this principle will help clarify what we are discussing here.

More later....see ya!!

Oh...and you are so right...I dont think I would find much discussion about T's on the CoC board!!! LOL!

randy

No, but I could probably figure it out if I need to. But if you want to expound, I'll listen.

The problem I see, though, if I understand what you mean even without the benefit of an explanation, is that in order to come to the conclusion that Ray (and possibly you and huma17, as well as the rest of the LDS church), is that you have to assign differing identities to differing scriptures that have the same wording, depending on the context of them.

I realize that the concept of the Godhead is a hard one to grasp, and there is a mathematical theorum by Goedel that applies to this situation. This quote regards the mathematical theorum and how it applies to understanding the Godhead. It was written by a friend in a paper regarding Modalism and the Book of Mormon.

One interesting characteristic of our condition is that any system, explanation, or set of codes cannot be both complete and consistent. There will always be loopholes and inconsistencies. The mathematical application of this principle was discovered by a German named Goedel in 1931. Before then, mathematicians searched for the set of axioms from which every other principle and theorem could be proven. Now they know that such a goal cannot be achieved. This means that any explanation of the Godhead cannot be complete and consistent. When people try to define it, they must either leave some things unexplained in order to maintain consistency or introduce inconsistencies in order to complete their definition. Restoration modalists take advantage of this condition, pointing out discrepancies in definitions of the Godhead that try to be complete and criticizing explanations of the Godhead that avoid inconsistencies by being incomplete.

It probably describes anyone's concept of the Godhead, not just a trinitarians or a modalists. So, what you see as a good, solid definition (or interpretation) of God from the scriptures, there can always be exceptions to that rule. I see numerous exceptions. However, if you want to describe "Divine Investiture of Authority" in more detail, I would read it to see how you get to where you are.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda@ Feb 1 2005, 04:34 PM

You can interpret these scriptures any way you want, but your interpretation (as well as Ray's) is just that. One interpretation of those scriptures. Many others read it and come to differing conclusions.

By saying that a person’s interpretation is “just that”, are you simply trying to avoid the issue of stating whether or not a person’s interpretation is right or wrong? Is that your idea of being tactful?

Personally, I’d rather hear someone tell me whether or not they agree with me, or that they need more time to consider what I’m saying before they decide whether or not they agree with me, rather than to say that what I’ve said is just my interpretation.

A person’s understanding truly is their interpretation, but it’s not “just that”, and to state only that doesn’t really do much to disclose how you feel about what they’re telling you. Although it does make it appear as though you don’t consider someone else’s opinion to be important.

When I hear someone tell me something, I see only 3 possibilities:

The person is right and correctly understands the truth, or

The person is wrong and does not understand the truth, or

The person simply hasn’t thought enough about the issue to make a decision.

When I understand an issue, and I see that someone else apparently doesn’t, I like to do what I can to share my understanding with them… while keeping the peace, of course. And by far the best result is always to come away from that discussion knowing that I and the other person are in agreement, and that we both know the truth. It doesn’t always happen that way, of course, but that’s the goal I believe we should always strive for.

And btw, in case there is any doubt about my interpretation or understanding, I say that Jesus and our heavenly Father are 2 separate persons, in no way combined except that they are alike. They are one in agreement, not one in substance, and they each have a separate body with parts and passions.

What do you say to that, Jenda?

[Jenda]

Ray, I don't feel the need to judge anyone's interpretation of their belief, especially the Godhead. I don't believe that anyone can truly understand it, and those who are really seeking will read what the scriptures say and come to the understanding that increases their faith. I don't believe it is a belief our salvation is based on.

We can discuss things, but if what you say doesn't ring true to me after I have read the scriptures and prayed about it, then that is all it will be, a good discussion. The fact that I don't accept it shouldn't impact you. The fact that I don't accept it does not mean you are wrong and I am right, nor does it mean that you are right and I am wrong.

The only important points of the Gospel are that we accept Christ as our Savior. That we repent of our sins. That we are baptized in His name and receive the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. That we endure to the end.

Everything else is up for grabs until that great day of judgment when God will reveal Himself to all of us.

As far as my personal belief about the Godhead, I believe in a "trinitarian modalistic" Godhead. That God is one god with three modes of expression. The BoM led me to that belief many years ago, and now that the early manuscripts are available to study, as well as copies of the Palmyra edition, we can see what was translated before they started changing things, and these have only added to my belief.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Ray@Feb 1 2005, 05:19 PM

For anyone who hasn’t read much about Church History, I recommend reading a little more than what you may hear discussed this year during Sunday School. I myself find the subject particularly interesting and am delighted with the new toy I got for Christmas…a Pocket PC containing not only the Church History written by the Prophet Joseph, but also the Times & Seasons written by him, the History of Joseph Smith Jr. written by his mother, Church History and Modern Revelation written by Joseph Fielding Smith, a Doctrine & Covenants Commentary written by Hyrum Smith and Janne Sjodahl, the Comprehensive History of the Church written by B.H. Roberts, the Journals of Discourses, all of the standard works …and about 100 other books or volumes of books concerning the gospel. Heh, trying to read all the books about Church History at once to catch more of the details is keeping me busy, but it’s kinda fun too! J

And for anyone who doesn’t have one of these things, I wholeheartedly recommend that you GET YOURS NOW! A good Pocket PC can be had for about $200, and the software, called the Personal Gospel Library, cost about $40. Quite a nice little thing to be able to pull from your pocket!

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.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 05:34 PM

The printers manuscript is intact and rests in the RLDS archives.  The original manuscript is a different story.  The original manuscript was buried in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House when the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum were secretly buried there, temporarily, for safe keeping (I believe that is when it was buried.  I do know that is where it was buried.)  After Emma Smith  remarried, her husband set about the task of finishing building part of the building for them to live in.  At that time, he retrieved the manuscript, which had deteriorated so much that only about half of it was left.  He took that manuscript and divided it between the RLDS and the LDS.  The portion that was given to the RLDS continued to deteriorate as the Reorganization had just reorganized and did not have a place or way to keep manuscripts from further deteriorating.  The part he gave the LDS is in better condition because they had better facilities at the time to store it.

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)?

Unless you wish to call me a liar, maybe you can do your own search and retract what you said.

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.

[Jenda]

You know how to use the search option in the overhead tool bar, right?

You can find out all the answers to your questions about the manuscripts and earlier editions that way. If you disbelieve what I said, then google away.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 06:10 PM

The problem I see...,is that you have to assign differing identities to differing scriptures that have the same wording, depending on the context of them.

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?

This means that any explanation of the Godhead cannot be complete and consistent.

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).

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 07:37 PM

That we are baptized in His name and receive the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit.

I am not aware of other religions/denominations that require this of salvation...please inform me.

Everything else is up for grabs until that great day of judgment when God will reveal Himself to all of us.

He has already revealed much more than you are willing to accept.

[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.

Wrong! There is a plethora of websites that will gladly point out the changes. You can examin them for youself.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 08:55 PM

You know how to use the search option in the overhead tool bar, right?

A little condescending...don't you think?

You can find out all the answers to your questions about the manuscripts and earlier editions that way.  If you disbelieve what I said, then google away.

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.

If you disbelieve what I said, then google away.

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.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17+Feb 1 2005, 08:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Feb 1 2005, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 07:37 PM

That we are baptized in His name and receive the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. 

I am not aware of other religions/denominations that require this of salvation...please inform me.

Well, we believe it. That's another one. Unless you are just lumping all restoration churches together.

Everything else is up for grabs until that great day of judgment when God will reveal Himself to all of us.

He has already revealed much more than you are willing to accept.

Well, that is debatable. I don't believe that anything that goes against already-existing scripture is true. God does not change, he is the same yesterday, today and forever.

[Cal]

Originally posted by huma17+Jan 31 2005, 03:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Jan 31 2005, 03:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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.

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.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 1 2005, 09:23 PM

Wrong! There is a plethora of websites that will gladly point out the changes. You can examin them for youself.

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).

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 09:25 PM

Well, we believe it. That's another one. Unless you are just lumping all restoration churches together.

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 believe that anything that goes against already-existing scripture is true.

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.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 1 2005, 09:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 1 2005, 09:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -huma17@Jan 31 2005, 03:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--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.

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.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17@Feb 1 2005, 08:24 PM

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.

I haven't seen a simple straight-forward question. All I have seen are statements that doubt that what I posted was true.

If you disbelieve what I said, then google away.

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.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/b...ditions_eom.htm

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=352

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17+Feb 1 2005, 08:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Feb 1 2005, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 09:25 PM

I don't believe that anything that goes against already-existing scripture is true.

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.

It is some of the later "revelations" of Joseph Smith that I am referring to. And if God's laws for the earth don't always stay the same (although I am not really sure what you mean by "earth", I would say man) that that makes God a respecter of persons, and He has stated too many times that he is not a respecter of persons to just throw it aside.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 1 2005, 09:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 1 2005, 09:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -huma17@Feb 1 2005, 08:16 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 07:37 PM

That we are baptized in His name and receive the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. 

I am not aware of other religions/denominations that require this of salvation...please inform me.

Well, we believe it. That's another one. Unless you are just lumping all restoration churches together.

Everything else is up for grabs until that great day of judgment when God will reveal Himself to all of us.

He has already revealed much more than you are willing to accept.

Well, that is debatable. I don't believe that anything that goes against already-existing scripture is true. God does not change, he is the same yesterday, today and forever.

He is the same, but is our understanding and knowledge given of him the same? I think you have confused the two.