Please Explain This Scripture For Me

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 09:46 PM

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

Questions I asked you, but did not receive an answer to:

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

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?

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)?

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

This is what I found:

Today approximately 25 percent of the text of O survives:

The printer's manuscript is not an exact copy of the original manuscript. There are on the average three changes per original manuscript page. These changes appear to be natural scribal errors; there is little or no evidence of conscious editing.

The compositor for the 1830 edition added punctuation, paragraphing, and other printing marks to about one-third of the pages of the printer's manuscript. These same marks appear on one fragment of the original, indicating that it was used at least once in typesetting the 1830 edition.

In preparation for the second (1837) edition, hundreds of grammatical changes and a few textual emendations were made in P.

The original manuscript was not consulted for the editing of the 1837 edition. However, in producing the 1840 edition, Joseph Smith used O to restore some of its original readings.

Now, at the beginning of this thread, you showed how there have been changes made to the BoM. I stated that those changes were made due to printing errors - errors made due to the actual printing process of the BoM. You stated that that was false, for the original and printers manuscripts were the same, along with the first printing - the Palmyra. I then asked how it was possible to compare them, when the original and printers manuscripts aren't even intact, and if you had actually seen those copies. You responded by giving me two websites to look over - which I did. What I found, supports my theory/explaination of the changes in the BoM.

Only 25% of the O. manuscript is left - which makes it impossible to compare. The P. manuscript is not all intact either, and was NOT the same as the original ( three changes per page compared to the O.). These changes would have been made in rescribing the original - without the Lord's direct supervision - at the hands of men. Then, the printer, himself, made hundreds of additional changes to the P. manuscript, which show up on the first edition of the BoM - Palmyra. In the second edition, those changes made to P. were corrected. Then, the third (1940), JS made corrections that were changed in the P. from the O. manuscript.

Now, tell me how this is different from what I originally purported? The original and printers manuscripts were/are not the same as you have claimed.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 1 2005, 09:28 PM

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.

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

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 09:53 PM

It is some of the later "revelations" of Joseph Smith that I am referring to.

Which revelations are you refering to? Polygamy? Wasn't he a prophet of G-d? Isn't that what he is supposed to be doing - revealing the will of the Lord?

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.

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

[Jenda]

The quote you made in the above post clearly states that the minimal changes that were made between the original manuscript and the printers manuscript were natural scribal errors. That is a lot different than saying that the changes were purposeful theologic changes. There is no way "mother of the Son of God" to "mother of God" could be considered a transcribal error. If those were errors on the original and changed on the printers, a change like that would be noted in one of those papers. What was printed in the Palmyra edition, short of punctuation, etc., is what was on the original and printer's manuscript.

You are trying to make the assertion that what was in the Palmyra edition was an error in printing, and that is not an assertion you can, or should, make.

Have I, personally, seen the manuscripts? No. But many people have studied them. And they are not all wrong. You are wrong. Sorry to be so blunt.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17+Feb 2 2005, 11:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Feb 2 2005, 11:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 09:53 PM

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.

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

How can God give us a law today, and hold everyone in history accountable to it? That just doesn't make sense. All His laws are for all times. The law of Moses was specifically for the Israel because they refused to accept the law of love (the Celestial law), but the Celestial law is the law that everyone is held accountable to. God established, and re-established, that law many times over during the course of history, and it was the same each time.

You can't hold one group accountable to one law and another group accountable to another and call it fair.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 12:14 PM

The quote you made in the above post clearly states that the minimal changes that were made between the original manuscript and the printers manuscript were natural scribal errors.

Yes, and can you tell me for certain - 100% - exactly what those 'natural scribal errors' where?

That is a lot different than saying that the changes were purposeful theologic changes.

I never purported such, nor do the quotes I gave. They were not purposeful - or they would not be considered 'errors'.

There is no way "mother of the Son of God"  to "mother of God" could be considered a transcribal error.

How is this impossible? Someone writing down 'mother of the Son of G-d' forgets to add 'Son of' - you make it seem like such a scenario is impossible - but that's just your opinion. How could you know that such a mistake/error could not have been made?

If those were errors on the original and changed on the printers, a change like that would be noted in one of those papers.

Says who? Why would they have to have been? Does everything that happens in life get printed in the papers? This is just your assumption, which does not equate to fact.

What was printed in the Palmyra edition, short of punctuation, etc., is what was on the original and printer's manuscript.

No, the quote I gave clearly says 'textual amendations', and the other simply says changes - without giving specifics. Again, you are assuming here.

You are trying to make the assertion that what was in the Palmyra edition was an error in printing, and that is not an assertion you can, or should, make.

I shouldn't!? Isn't that exactly what happened? The Palmyra edition contained hundreds of printing changes (punctual and textual) made to the P. manuscript that were not in the O. The printers manuscript additionally contained - on average - three changes per page from the original (changes not specified), and those changes came in rescribing in preparation for printing. How is the Palmyra NOT in error from the original due to printing?

But many people have studied them.  And they are not all wrong.  You are wrong.  Sorry to be so blunt.

I am? OK...and this is so because...?

These 'many people', what exactly have they studied? The parts of the original and printers that don't exist?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17@Feb 2 2005, 11:42 AM

There is no way "mother of the Son of God"  to "mother of God" could be considered a transcribal error.

How is this impossible? Someone writing down 'mother of the Son of G-d' forgets to add 'Son of' - you make it seem like such a scenario is impossible - but that's just your opinion. How could you know that such a mistake/error could not have been made?

If those were errors on the original and changed on the printers, a change like that would be noted in one of those papers.

Says who? Why would they have to have been? Does everything that happens in life get printed in the papers? This is just your assumption, which does not equate to fact.

Because that is a major theological change. If it was different between the three (the original manuscript, the printers manuscript, the Palmyra edition) it would have been noted somewhere. The fact that it is not lends proof that it is not a "scribal error".

But many people have studied them.  And they are not all wrong.  You are wrong.  Sorry to be so blunt.

I am? OK...and this is so because...?

These 'many people', what exactly have they studied? The parts of the original and printers that don't exist?

If you care to take this stupid argument any further, take it up with those who have studied the differences and given us the benefit of those studies. I can supply you a name if you choose to do that.

Or better yet, why don't you go and look for yourself. That seems to be the only way you will be satisfied. Everything is on microfisch (or something readable), so just go and see for yourself.

And the only parts that I have even argued for (or against) is the parts where the manuscript is still available for studying. You did notice that, right? I only quoted from Nephi, which part of the original manuscript still exists.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 12:40 PM

How can God give us a law today, and hold everyone in history accountable to it? That just doesn't make sense. All His laws are for all times. The law of Moses was specifically for the Israel because they refused to accept the law of love (the Celestial law), but the Celestial law is the law that everyone is held accountable to. God established, and re-established, that law many times over during the course of history, and it was the same each time.

I'm going to assume that you meant to say 'and not (not added by me) hold everyone in history accountable'.

The law that was given to Moses was the lesser law. They could not handle the higher law. Those laws included only walking a certain numbers of steps on the Sabbath, or forbidding to eat certain foods, the law of an eye for an eye, animal sacrifices, etc... are we to obey these laws today? No, Jesus came to fulfill those laws, and the bring the new laws, such as the 'B' attitudes.

How about polygamy? It was OK in the OT, but not after, then OK at the Restoration, but not know. How about alcohol? Moses drank, Jesus and his Apostles drank wine, but we are commanded not to do so now, yet the Lord said he would drink wine with those who were faithful, which is to come. The Lord has always had different laws for different peoples and times - it doesn't change the Gospel, which is to come unto Christ, be obedient, prove our faithfulness, and return to our Heavenly Father, etc.

You can't hold one group accountable to one law and another group accountable to another and call it fair.

Sure you can, the Israelites in the wilderness were not capable of following the higher law, but today, we are. Do you hold each person accountable the same, regardless of their personal knowledge? Would you expect a second grader to know Algebra? Would you expect a child in a third-world country to brush their teeth everynight, like you would for your own child? No, we are not all the same.

[Jenda]

Please don't make that assumption. What I wrote is what I meant to say.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 12:54 PM

Because that is a major theological change.  If it was different between the three (the original manuscript, the printers manuscript, the Palmyra edition) it would have been noted somewhere.

It states that the errors went unnoticed for some time. Besides, why would it be necessary to make a big fuss over errors. You are talking about major theological changes, but that's not what happened, errors were corrected - no Earth shattering news. If JS had changed, and suddenly stated that Christ DIDN'T come to the Americas, THAT would be a major theological change. But, since the original referenced the G-dhead to being three separate beings, and the Palmyra referenced the same - even with the errors - there wasn't a 'major theological change'. Just errors that needed correcting.

If you care to take this stupid argument any further...

It's 'stupid' now? Then why have you participated for so long?

Everything is on microfisch (or something readable), so just go and see for yourself.

Everything except for what has been lost...

And the only parts that I have even argued for (or against) is the parts where the manuscript is still available for studying.  You did notice that, right?

Yes, I noticed that. Did you notice that I said that other verses in those sections said Son of G-d already - in the Palmyra edition, found in the parts that still exist as well? Which goes to show, that the original and/or Palmyra did not point to a modalistic G-dhead as you claim, but that there were errors that needed to be changed. I have also refuted your claim that the original, printers, and Palmyra editions were the same, and that it could not have contained errors. There were errors, and the Kirtland edition contained the corrections.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 01:01 PM

Please don't make that assumption. What I wrote is what I meant to say.

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

[huma17]

Jenda-

You have not confirmed my assumption that you are RLDS/CofC. Will you, or anyone who knows, let me know.

Because, if you are, then why are we having this conversation in the first place. Don't you believe JS was a prophet? Don't you believe in the First Vision? If so, didn't he say G-d the Father, and the Son, where two separate personages? Why would he say that, if they really weren't?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17+Feb 2 2005, 12:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Feb 2 2005, 12:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 01:01 PM

Please don't make that assumption.  What I wrote is what I meant to say.

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

I did not contradict myself. You said, For the Lord to change laws, doesn't make him a respecter of persons, because he holds ALL people on Earth to that law. I was pointing out that if God changes a law (or creates a new law) there is no way he could hold everyone on earth accountable for that law. And for one group of people to be held to a law and not the rest of humanity makes God a respecter of persons.

Polygamy was only "OK" under the law of Moses, and only for a specific reason (death of a brother). It certainly was not OK in the celestial law. The wine issue is a different issue altogether because there was no purified water back then and they had to drink something. And Christ spoke of "new wine", which is often what grape juice is referred to.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17@Feb 2 2005, 12:22 PM

Jenda-

You have not confirmed my assumption that you are RLDS/CofC. Will you, or anyone who knows, let me know.

Because, if you are, then why are we having this conversation in the first place. Don't you believe JS was a prophet? Don't you believe in the First Vision? If so, didn't he say G-d the Father, and the Son, where two separate personages? Why would he say that, if they really weren't?

Yes, I am RLDS. (You did state to correct you if you were wrong, so, since you weren't wrong, I didn't correct you. B) )

And while we do believe that JS was a prophet, there are many things that are up in the air as to what we mean when we speak of someone being a prophet.

Yes, we believe that he had a 1st vision, but there are about 9 different accounts of the first vision. And the only one written in JS's handwriting states that when the vision opened, there was only one personage there, and he claimed to be Jesus Christ. If you want, I can link you to a copy of that account.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 01:45 PM

I did not contradict myself. You said, For the Lord to change laws, doesn't make him a respecter of persons, because he holds ALL people on Earth to that law. I was pointing out that if God changes a law (or creates a new law) there is no way he could hold everyone on earth accountable for that law.

OK, I understand now. I was not clear, then, on what I meant. When I refered to the Lord holding all people on Earth accountable, I was meaning all the people at that time, and subsequent generations - until the law is no longer required. It does not apply to those who were alive before the law was made - they wouldn't be held accountable.

And for one group of people to be held to a law and not the rest of humanity makes God a respecter of persons.

If he is holding all people on Earth - at given time - accountable, then he isn't separating groups and/or being a respecter of persons (which means that he doesn't exempt one person over the other - that are in the same said time). Not holding prior generations accountable is only fair and just.

Polygamy was only "OK" under the law of Moses, and only for a specific reason (death of a brother).

It was OK for more than those under the law of Moses - see Abraham and Issac.

It certainly was not OK in the celestial law.

Haven't they received a Celestial inheritance?

The wine issue is a different issue altogether because there was no purified water back then and they had to drink something.

So...it was OK in another time - regardless of the reason? And didn't Noah get drunk? He was a prophet, and was never rebuked for this...

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 01:52 PM

Yes, I am RLDS.  (You did state to correct you if you were wrong, so, since you weren't wrong, I didn't correct you.  B) )

Yes, but an affirmation would have helped also.

And while we do believe that JS was a prophet, there are many things that are up in the air as to what we mean when we speak of someone being a prophet.

What did JS consider a prophet to be? I feel the scriptures are pretty clear on what a prophet is, and what they do. Why are so many things 'up in the air' for you?

Yes, we believe that he had a 1st vision, but there are about 9 different accounts of the first vision.

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

And the only one written in JS's handwriting states that when the vision opened, there was only one personage there, and he claimed to be Jesus Christ.  If you want, I can link you to a copy of that account.

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17@Feb 2 2005, 03:29 PM

And the only one written in JS's handwriting states that when the vision opened, there was only one personage there, and he claimed to be Jesus Christ.  If you want, I can link you to a copy of that account.

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus.

Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful?

http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 2 2005, 05:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 2 2005, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--huma17@Feb 2 2005, 03:29 PM

And the only one written in JS's handwriting states that when the vision opened, there was only one personage there, and he claimed to be Jesus Christ.  If you want, I can link you to a copy of that account.

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus.

Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful?

http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html

Dawn,

You are most correct about the nine various versions. Do they contradict each other is the grand question at hand. I would say no, most definately they do not.

The 1832 versions states that JS saw "the Lord". Which is of course true.

The 1838 version states that JS saw "two beings, the Father and the Son, the Father introduced the Son...saying "this is my beloved Son, hear him".

Are these two versions at odds with each other? Again....I say...NAY NAY!!

The fact that JS in the first version states he "saw the Lord" does not in any way mean to say that God the Father was not present. Yes...I understand the logical argument of..."hmmm....God the Father present....not mentioned in first version....Hmmmmm....does not compute.

Let me offer the following...which you may already be aware of...seeing as how you are a pretty sharp troop:

We are discussing here about various details, details that some feel..if they happened at all...should have been important enough to be found in each successive version. Is there scriptural precedent to show that such is NOT the case? You bet.

I will let those who are sincerely interested look up, ponder, pray and COMPARE CLOSELY...the following:

Luke 24:4 and Matthew 28:2

Regarding Paul's vision on the road to Damascus compare the following:

ACTS chapters 9, 22, and 26 ...specifically...ACTS 9:7, 22:9 and 26:14 ask yourselves the obvious questions about the "details" of the 3 different accounts written the scholars say maybe as much as 24 years after the event.

I will be interested in your response...as always!!!!

randy

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 2 2005, 05:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 2 2005, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--huma17@Feb 2 2005, 03:29 PM

And the only one written in JS's handwriting states that when the vision opened, there was only one personage there, and he claimed to be Jesus Christ.  If you want, I can link you to a copy of that account.

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus.

Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful?

http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html

Hi Dawn,

I just went to your link to read that account. I read the whole thing a couple of times...and nowhere does it make mention that there was "only one personage" present. It simply states that the Lord "opened the Heavens" and that JS "saw the Lord". Both statements I agree with completely.

randy

[Guest curvette]

Huma: Your particular style of rudeness seems vaguely familiar. Have you posted here under another name in the past?

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 2 2005, 05:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 2 2005, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--huma17@Feb 2 2005, 03:29 PM

And the only one written in JS's handwriting states that when the vision opened, there was only one personage there, and he claimed to be Jesus Christ.  If you want, I can link you to a copy of that account.

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus.

Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful?

http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html

Hi Dawn,

I emailed you some info regarding the principle of "Divine Investiture of Authority."

If anyone else is interested....go to LDS.ORG, then GOSPEL LIBRARY...the MAGAZINES....select ENSIGN...then do a search on "Divine Investiture of Authority" and several talks will come up. Start with "Gospel Classics...The Father and the Son".

randy

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 2 2005, 05:41 PM

Huma: Your particular style of rudeness seems vaguely familiar. Have you posted here under another name in the past?

huma17, why are you posting from at least 3 different IP addresses?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Feb 2 2005, 06:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Feb 2 2005, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 05:09 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--huma17@Feb 2 2005, 03:29 PM

And the only one written in JS's handwriting states that when the vision opened, there was only one personage there, and he claimed to be Jesus Christ.  If you want, I can link you to a copy of that account.

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus.

Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful?

http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html

Hi Dawn,

I emailed you some info regarding the principle of "Divine Investiture of Authority."

If anyone else is interested....go to LDS.ORG, then GOSPEL LIBRARY...the MAGAZINES....select ENSIGN...then do a search on "Divine Investiture of Authority" and several talks will come up. Start with "Gospel Classics...The Father and the Son".

randy

Thanks, Randy, I'll look it over. :)

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 2 2005, 07:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 2 2005, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Feb 2 2005, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 05:09 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--huma17@Feb 2 2005, 03:29 PM

And the only one written in JS's handwriting states that when the vision opened, there was only one personage there, and he claimed to be Jesus Christ.  If you want, I can link you to a copy of that account.

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus.

Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful?

http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html

Hi Dawn,

I emailed you some info regarding the principle of "Divine Investiture of Authority."

If anyone else is interested....go to LDS.ORG, then GOSPEL LIBRARY...the MAGAZINES....select ENSIGN...then do a search on "Divine Investiture of Authority" and several talks will come up. Start with "Gospel Classics...The Father and the Son".

randy

Thanks, Randy, I'll look it over. :)

Dawn,

Yer a good girl!!

rj

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Feb 2 2005, 06:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Feb 2 2005, 06:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Feb 2 2005, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 05:09 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--huma17@Feb 2 2005, 03:29 PM

And the only one written in JS's handwriting states that when the vision opened, there was only one personage there, and he claimed to be Jesus Christ.  If you want, I can link you to a copy of that account.

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus.

Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful?

http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html

Hi Dawn,

I emailed you some info regarding the principle of "Divine Investiture of Authority."

If anyone else is interested....go to LDS.ORG, then GOSPEL LIBRARY...the MAGAZINES....select ENSIGN...then do a search on "Divine Investiture of Authority" and several talks will come up. Start with "Gospel Classics...The Father and the Son".

randy

Thanks, Randy, I'll look it over. :)

Dawn,

Yer a good girl!!

rj

This is a long article, I probably won't finish till tomorrow, so don't stay up waiting.

I do want to ask a question, though. Why are all the "of"'s in red? I keep wanting to emphasize them because they are red and the rest of the text is black. 'Tis a bit distracting.