What are your topics of interest in LDS history?

[rameumptom]

There are many non-Catholic writings from the 1st-2nd century. Origen, a major defender of Christianity, was later condemned as a heretic because of his teachings on the Trinity being separate beings.

Gnostic writings/teachings came about as early as Simon Magus in the book of Acts.

[JeepMoab]

"All it takes is for us to get a little bit self-important and narrow-minded. Toss in a little fussiness, a bit of dogma, and a bunch of pride and you've got yourself a bunch of people who wouldn't recognize the truth if it sat on them."

-- Robert Kirby

Actually, this is quite an interesting quote/point. Mark Twain also said something similar, It's not what people know that bothers me. It's what they know for certain that isn't true that does."

When we discount the truth (only that which can be verified by documentation and/or other tangible evidences) then we fall into the bove groups. And we all have done that before if not still doing it.

I believe, as BRM said, truth is always the same in every generation. What was once true is still true and always will be true."

If or when the truth ever changes it never was...and neither is the person who said it was true. Liars lie- they always have and they always will.

[JeepMoab]

I love church history as well!! Very exciting.

I've always wanted to know more about Porter Rockwell and his great love for the Prophet Joseph Smith. So much so that he was his bodyguard. Would love to hear his testimony!

I know there is a book about him- Son of thunder, Man of God (or vice versa- Man of thunder...). A friend of mine read it about 10 or 12 years ago.

[JeepMoab]

My landlord actually bought me the entire "History of the Church" set. I've been reading it for about a week and am still on the Introduction in Volume 1, LOL!!!

I own a paperback version and I read it often. I tend to skip around, tho. I've found some interesting and confusing stuff in there- I like to cross reference with other LDS historical/doctrinal books. But I found it pretty astounding when I read the HoC is 'the most accurate history the world has ever seen'. Joseph Fielding Smith said the same thing about the HoC's in his Doctrines of Salvation (DoS) series.

[JeepMoab]

I was wondering how many members here are into LDS history? (study, research, etc) The following topics are just some I feel more passionate about (but there are many more):

1. Blacks and the Priesthood ban

2. Post Manifesto Polygamy

3. Early days Temple ceremony

4. Mountain Meadows Massacre

5. Calling and election made sure

6. Joseph Smith and Emma Smith

What about you guys?

I've studied some of these and find them pretty blunt and horrifying and interesting. Many of them came from God, too, as his true, unchangeable and forever doctrines to his only true church on earth. Then most of them were changed...?? I've never got that part.

[Guest]

So Jeep, as a non-LDS Christian, what makes you so interested in LDS history that you've clearly read so much on the topic?

[JeepMoab]

I have a degree in history, and so do enjoy history. That said, I feel that many of the things on your list are one-offs. They are issues or often moments in Church history, but they often are just the shocking issues and moments, and do not define what a lot of Church history actually is.

It is like studying Egyptian archaeology by only studying the Pharaohs. Yes, it is history, but it neglects the bigger history of the average person, free or slave. Pharaohs did not build the pyramids. Slaves and regular folk built the pyramids. And we often miss major issues in history by only looking at the one-offs.

Actually, some of them did define the church in ways. For example in either the 1918 D&C Commentary or the Journal of Discourses it tells us that nothing could proceed with the church until polygamy was instituted. In fact, if memory serves (don't have time to look up right now) the LDS leaders said polygamy is the foundation of the church- sort of like the founding principle. That pretty well defines a lot.

I Will look it up later and post the 'exact' wording so everyone can see what I'm referring to.

[JeepMoab]

So Jeep, as a non-LDS Christian, what makes you so interested in LDS history that you've clearly read so much on the topic?

A couple things. First, being from Kentucky by way of Georgia I knew nothing of the LDS when I got here (1980). I live in Utah (St. George- the site of the first LDS temple west of the Mississippi) and I thought I would learn about the culture I live in- I've read and studied for over 25 years now.

I am a firm believer that all religions cannot possible be from God. They vary so much from what God is to what he has said to his ability to change if he wants to to never changing to... I want to know the real God- which I believe everyone should- so I study a number of religions and their beliefs. I have JW books, a Koran, a number of Bibles- mold and new and 7 or 8 book of Mormon including a 1980 reprint of the 1830 edition (the 150th Anniversary of the first edition printed and published by the LDS church). And, I believe God will hold me accountable for not finding His true church when I face Him one day. I believe there is only one true church and that church is based on clear evidence.

I have found it interesting, confusing and fun to learn.

[estradling75]

I believe there is only one true church and that church is based on clear evidence.

What kind of evidence? Scientific? Historical?... Smarter and wiser and more capable people then you, I or anyone on this forum have tried that route for centuries and have utterly failed. Why would you suddenly succeed over them?

The LDS church's claim to be the one true church isn't based on that kind of evidence. It's based in people going to their knees and asking God what he would have them do. Then following it. Its based on a personal witness from God planted in the hearts and minds of those that seek him.

[JeepMoab]

What kind of evidence? Scientific? Historical?... Smarter and wiser and more capable people then you, I or anyone on this forum have tried that route for centuries and have utterly failed. Why would you suddenly succeed over them?

Scientific, yes but not likely. haha. Historical, certainly helps. How about prophecies that come true? The Bible predicted/prophesied about TVs, satellites, a 200 Million man army and so much more long before any of those things were possible. That is the kind of evidence I need. Men can't fake prophecies. They either come true or they are false- thus the man/men giving them, either way. It's easy to prove a true religion/church, get the facts. If there is a God out there somewhere then he knows us and knows he needs to prove himself somehow or we will find our own gods or have a million different religions/gods. The evidence- fulfilled prophecies- prove what no man could ever guess that God does know everything about everything before he created the first thing.

The LDS church's claim to be the one true church isn't based on that kind of evidence. It's based in people going to their knees and asking God what he would have them do. Then following it. Its based on a personal witness from God planted in the hearts and minds of those that seek him.

That could be dangerous. Deut. 18:20-22 and 1 John 4:1 tells us not to trust our feelings. In fact, no where in the Bible are feelings ever mentioned as a way to know someone or something is from God. That is a slippery slope indeed to travel. I trust facts, not feelings, because I know how quick feelings can change.

[Suzie]

That could be dangerous. Deut. 18:20-22 and 1 John 4:1 tells us not to trust our feelings. In fact, no where in the Bible are feelings ever mentioned as a way to know someone or something is from God. That is a slippery slope indeed to travel. I trust facts, not feelings, because I know how quick feelings can change.

Hi Jeep, keep in mind that you are in an LDS forum and the Bible isn't our only book of Scripture. Also, we believe in studying and researching:

118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. (D&C 88:118)

[estradling75]

What kind of evidence? Scientific? Historical?... Smarter and wiser and more capable people then you, I or anyone on this forum have tried that route for centuries and have utterly failed. Why would you suddenly succeed over them?

Scientific, yes but not likely. haha. Historical, certainly helps. How about prophecies that come true? The Bible predicted/prophesied about TVs, satellites, a 200 Million man army and so much more long before any of those things were possible. That is the kind of evidence I need. Men can't fake prophecies. They either come true or they are false- thus the man/men giving them, either way. It's easy to prove a true religion/church, get the facts. If there is a God out there somewhere then he knows us and knows he needs to prove himself somehow or we will find our own gods or have a million different religions/gods. The evidence- fulfilled prophecies- prove what no man could ever guess that God does know everything about everything before he created the first thing.

That could be dangerous. Deut. 18:20-22 and 1 John 4:1 tells us not to trust our feelings. In fact, no where in the Bible are feelings ever mentioned as a way to know someone or something is from God. That is a slippery slope indeed to travel. I trust facts, not feelings, because I know how quick feelings can change.

You believe in God and you believe in the bible. Why do you believe in the bible? There are many out there that can and do challenge every 'fact' and 'proof' that the bible is anything more then a poorly recorded set of mythology.

But you do believe it. Because at some point you made the choice to believe it... You took a leap of faith beyond the evidence... And found God lighting the path before you after you leapt. You need to find the courage to leap again. Don't trust me, trust God. Pray and ask him, like the bible clearly teaches. Expect the Lord to answer like the bible clearly teaches, and leap.

[JeepMoab]

You believe in God and you believe in the bible. Why do you believe in the bible? There are many out there that can and do challenge every 'fact' and 'proof' that the bible is anything more then a poorly recorded set of mythology.

Because I simply can't get passed the evidence. There are about 2,000 prophecies that have been fulfilled to the most minute detail. No other book on earth has done that.

No one can argue with the fulfilled prophecies. Their arguments involve other, more insignificant even debatable, issues. They won't, can't and don't deal with the facts. That is what I find so strange about these groups. They know the facts but intentionally skirt them and hit on foggy issues.

But you do believe it. Because at some point you made the choice to believe it... You took a leap of faith beyond the evidence... And found God lighting the path before you after you leapt. You need to find the courage to leap again. Don't trust me, trust God. Pray and ask him, like the bible clearly teaches. Expect the Lord to answer like the bible clearly teaches, and leap.

I do believe the Bible...when God is speaking. What I mean is, I have found mistakes in the Bible. But, they are manmade mistakes, not God made. One example I often use is the OT speaks of a war that killed 24,000 people but Paul speaks of the same war and says 23,000 died. Men make mistakes but when it comes to God...His words, doctrines, revelations and prophecies there are no mistakes and no changes. For God to change makes Him a liar and a fraud. Any change, even a single one, makes the speaker/leader/god a false one (Deut. 18:20-22). God never changes, lies or makes mistakes- remember, God knows 'everything' about 'everything' before He created 'anything'. So, how could He possible need to change? Only men change (D&C 3:1-3, D&C 76:3, 4).

I do pray and ask God for guidance. But God never intended for us to simply forego the truth- what we can prove is true- and accept what we feel is true. That's insane. When I used to use cocaine I felt like I was the center of the Universe. Was I? Or, was I allowing me 'feelings' to control my life instead of reality, the evidence. I like to say, I follow the facts- whatever they say and wherever they lead. Sadly, too few people do that, I've noticed. Feelings are fickle and certainly aren't facts and that is why the Bible never mentions feelings as a way to know the truth about God. Only personaly research can teach us the truth about God or listening (then testing- 1 Jn. 4:1) those who have researched God (Acts 17:11).

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi Jeep Moab--

In point of fact, Mormonism also doesn't insist on blind reliance on feelings. D&C 8 teaches us that revelation comes through a conjunction of the heart and the mind. So in that regard, I daresay we aren't as far apart as you may think.

That said, I would quibble with the notion that the Bible prohibits revelation via "feelings". Indeed, the scripture you cite in 1 John kind of undermines that position. If God never manifests Himself via "spirits", why doesn't John just tell us to avoid all spirits (rather than urging us to "try" them)? And in Galatians 5 Paul talks at length about living after the Spirit and then explains the fruits of so living: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. These are attributes, yes; but also feelings.

Do I love and respect the Bible? Yes. Do I think it contains bona fide prophecies that have been or will be fulfilled? Absolutely.

On the other hand, I'm skeptical of some of the purported "fulfillments" of Biblical prophecy that my Evangelical brethren press upon me. It seems strange that none of the major churchmen of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries seem to have spent much time sermonizing about how someday we could see moving pictures in a box, or machines that flew in the sky with the stars; and I fear we (Mormons included) do ourselves a disservice when we try to bolster the credibility of our foundational scriptures by somehow shoehorning modern developments into a particular verse--or acting like an interpretation of the verse that somehow eluded theologians for the past two millennia is somehow the only conceivable natural, common and logical interpretation of that verse.

[JeepMoab]

Hi Jeep Moab--

In point of fact, Mormonism also doesn't insist on blind reliance on feelings. D&C 8 teaches us that revelation comes through a conjunction of the heart and the mind. So in that regard, I daresay we aren't as far apart as you may think.

I've read some things in Mormon doctrine that was called 'God-breathed' that today are either denied or shunned. Not starting a fight but how can that be if God is always the same and never varies or changes?

That said, I would quibble with the notion that the Bible prohibits revelation via "feelings". Indeed, the scripture you cite in 1 John kind of undermines that position. If God never manifests Himself via "spirits", why doesn't John just tell us to avoid all spirits (rather than urging us to "try" them)? And in Galatians 5 Paul talks at length about living after the Spirit and then explains the fruits of so living: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. These are attributes, yes; but also feelings.

I see God as dealing with acts not feelings. I've never found a verse that says to trust them- quite the opposite in fact. John is saying if you test 'them' you will know which is/are true and which is/are not. I've never seen any scientist in any field ever feel this or that took place and they were ccepted as good scientists, doctors, etc. You have to 'know' what medicines to give or what Generals fought which wars and where, not feel. That's guessing.

On the other hand, I'm skeptical of some of the purported "fulfillments" of Biblical prophecy that my Evangelical brethren press upon me. It seems strange that none of the major churchmen of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries seem to have spent much time sermonizing about how someday we could see moving pictures in a box, or machines that flew in the sky with the stars; and I fear we (Mormons included) do ourselves a disservice when we try to bolster the credibility of our foundational scriptures by somehow shoehorning modern developments into a particular verse--or acting like an interpretation of the verse that somehow eluded theologians for the past two millennia is somehow the only conceivable natural, common and logical interpretation of that verse.

Me, too. I question everything until I see proof. I can show a number of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible that most have no idea are even there. Personal research- reading a lot!- is the only way to learn. You can't feel truth you have to learn it- just like Proverbs tells us- sometimes with great difficulty and sorrow.

Take Alexander, the Great for example. The Bible predicted, precisely, what he would do to Tyre hundreds of years before he did it AND it happened 'after' the Prophet who wrote it down was hundreds of years dead. If the things you can prove come true as predicted/prophesied then the more ambiguous or mundane things must be true as well, it stands to reason. Also, a nuclear bomb/radiation is prophesied in both Testaments- long before any nation had one. In fact, there are only about 8 nations that have the technology today yet the Bible predicted a catastrophe from it thousands of years ago. These are why I believe, not from the hyped-up myths or stories. The things I can prove are the proof the Bible is from the only God.

[Just_A_Guy]

I've read some things in Mormon doctrine that was called 'God-breathed' that today are either denied or shunned. Not starting a fight but how can that be if God is always the same and never varies or changes?

That's a whole other thread. Feel free to start it up under "Gospel Discussion", if you wish.

I see God as dealing with acts not feelings. I've never found a verse that says to trust them- quite the opposite in fact. John is saying if you test 'them' you will know which is/are true and which is/are not.

The implication being that there are true feelings--or "spirits", as John calls them--which squares with the whole idea of the manifestations from the Day of Pentecost and gifts of the Spirit found elsewhere in the Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular.

I've never seen any scientist in any field ever feel this or that took place and they were ccepted as good scientists, doctors, etc. You have to 'know' what medicines to give or what Generals fought which wars and where, not feel. That's guessing.

It would be interesting to hear where "faith" comes into play with this approach to scripture, religion, and God. Again--feel free to start a thread under "Gospel Discussion" and I'm sure you'll get a lot of interesting responses.

[rameumptom]

Actually, this is quite an interesting quote/point. Mark Twain also said something similar, It's not what people know that bothers me. It's what they know for certain that isn't true that does."

When we discount the truth (only that which can be verified by documentation and/or other tangible evidences) then we fall into the bove groups. And we all have done that before if not still doing it.

I believe, as BRM said, truth is always the same in every generation. What was once true is still true and always will be true."

If or when the truth ever changes it never was...and neither is the person who said it was true. Liars lie- they always have and they always will.

Be careful on stating such broad statements. Elder McConkie was flat wrong on some of his statements regarding blacks and the priesthood. Does that make him a liar, simply because he chose to believe LDS tradition over the facts and truth?

[rameumptom]

I own a paperback version and I read it often. I tend to skip around, tho. I've found some interesting and confusing stuff in there- I like to cross reference with other LDS historical/doctrinal books. But I found it pretty astounding when I read the HoC is 'the most accurate history the world has ever seen'. Joseph Fielding Smith said the same thing about the HoC's in his Doctrines of Salvation (DoS) series.

JFSmith was an apostle and prophet. He was NOT a historian. His view of history was to leave out the stuff that may denigrate LDS history, or worse, the history of his family (Joseph and Hyrum, etc). His writing of "history" was like today's reporters writing fluff pieces on their favorite politician. The HoC is not the most accurate history the world has ever seen.

[JeepMoab]

JFSmith was an apostle and prophet. He was NOT a historian. His view of history was to leave out the stuff that may denigrate LDS history, or worse, the history of his family (Joseph and Hyrum, etc). His writing of "history" was like today's reporters writing fluff pieces on their favorite politician. The HoC is not the most accurate history the world has ever seen.

JFSmith didn't write or compile the HoC. It was done by George A. Smith and Wilford Woodruff. This is what they said about the Church's history:

"In publishing the History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it is felt that a solemn duty is being performed to the saints and to the world. The events that make up the history of the Church in this age are the most important that history can chronicle. It is due therefore both to the Saints themselves and to the world that a faithful and complete history of the facts in which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had its origins." (Volume 1:Preface- 1)

"It is important, too, that so far as possible the events which make up the history be related by the persons who witnessed them, since such statements give the reader testimony of the facts at first hand; and there is placed on record at the same time the highest order of historical evidence of the truth of what is stated." (Ibid)

"From the first the Prophet JS had a CLEAR apprehension of the importance of keeping a faithful record of events" (1:Preface- pg. IV)

"We are indebted for the minute completness of our church annals" (Ibid)

"The manuscript annals of the church are astonishingly free from errors of dates, relation of facts, or anachronisms of every description. " When the Church historians George A. Smith and Wilford Woodruff completed their publication of the History of Joseph Smith, down to the 8th of August, 1844, which history was published in instalments in the Desertet News, Utah, and in the Millennial Star, England, they expressed themselves upon correctness of what they had published in the following manner:

"The history of Joseph Smith is now before the world, and we are satisfied that a history more correct in its details than this was never published. To have it strictly correct, the greatest possible pains have been taken by the historians and clerks engaged in the work. They were eye and ear witnesses of nearly all the transactions recorded in this history, most of which were recorded as they transpired, and, where they were not personally present, they have had access to those who were" (1:Preface, pg.V)

"We, therefore, hereby bear our testimony to all the world, unto whom these words shall come, that the history of Joseph Smith is true and is one of the most authentic histories ever written". (1:Preface, VI--End of WW and GS comment).

The very next statement says, "Their statement is true." (1:Preface, VI)

This is from my computer files- I have thousands of files on many religions (I copy them from the religion's books so I have them readily available for reference. I like to give references to what I say). I have had the fortune to be able to study and learn the truth about many things. I just repeat things the exact way others say them. I take their word that they are telling the truth. Why would they lie? Surely, they have nothing to hide.

Why are you going against your church and denying the HoCs veracity?

Edited April 16, 2013 by JeepMoab

[Just_A_Guy]

There's a subtle difference between pointing out that a historical work uses a flawed methodology-or even that it reflects the biases of its producers-versus denying its "veracity" or impugning the integrity of its authors.

The HC was a painstaking labor of love produced by fundamentally honest men. They also lacked access to some source materials that we have available now, and their closeness to their material gave them a skewed perception of what future historians would deem "important". That's part of the reason that this year's edition of the LDS scriptures - slotted for release in print this fall, and available online now - has removed a huge number of HC references from the Doctrine and Covenants section headings, preferring to cite to earlier source material where available.

[bytebear]

I have to say, of all religious movements of the 19th century, none have had their history recorded in greater detail than the LDS Church. I find the historical records of the LDS church far more complete and available (because of the efforts of the church) than any other source. Yes, you can pick apart the history by pointing out various statements that are politically incorrect today, but can you look at the records of your own church leaders at the time and find anything at all? What we do know is that you can find some fairly egregious things written or spoken about blacks for example, by Abraham Lincoln. I can't imagine what the general body of protestantism was saying at the time, but I am sure it wasn't pretty. But, since the LDS Church is hierarchical and apostolic, we carry our history with us. It's far easier to dismiss a prominent pastor of the 1830s than it is an LDS Apostle. You simply say, they guy wasn't of my Christian bend. Well, I say poppycock. If we have to embrace our religious history, then you have to embrace yours, thorns and all.

[JeepMoab]

There's a subtle difference between pointing out that a historical work uses a flawed methodology-or even that it reflects the biases of its producers-versus denying its "veracity" or impugning the integrity of its authors.

Did you read what the church leaders said? They were eye witnesses or first hand accounts of what happened. So please explain how their methodology was flawed or how they were biased. Also, if that great work- said to be the most correct history ever- isn't then why should we believe anything the LDS church says is true- like the BoM, which is 'said' to be the most correct book on earth?

And, with no evil intent here, they were either telling (writing) the truth or lying. There isn't any other way to look at it. The HoCs as originally published are true or church leaders and a soon-to-be church Prophet led the church astray- and both BY and WW (the one who helped compile the HoCs) said God would never allow the leaders to do that.

The HC was a painstaking labor of love produced by fundamentally honest men. They also lacked access to some source materials that we have available now, and their closeness to their material gave them a skewed perception of what future historians would deem "important". That's part of the reason that this year's edition of the LDS scriptures - slotted for release in print this fall, and available online now - has removed a huge number of HC references from the Doctrine and Covenants section headings, preferring to cite to earlier source material where available.

Really? They were living at the time and they had the past and present church records readily available. How did they 'lack' access? Also, there wasn't near as many records to sift through so it was, really, an easy thing for them to do. But you say they got it wrong. So do you really think, with almost 200 years worth of records to sift through they will get it any more right 'this' time? What about next time when they say this time was...something? Another motto of mine is, never use an excuse for an escape. Honesty is the best policy the first time or you end up changing your unchangeable God's words, doctrines and your own recorded history over and over as we see happening now with the church.

[JeepMoab]

I have to say, of all religious movements of the 19th century, none have had their history recorded in greater detail than the LDS Church. I find the historical records of the LDS church far more complete and available (because of the efforts of the church) than any other source. Yes, you can pick apart the history by pointing out various statements that are politically incorrect today, but can you look at the records of your own church leaders at the time and find anything at all? What we do know is that you can find some fairly egregious things written or spoken about blacks for example, by Abraham Lincoln. I can't imagine what the general body of protestantism was saying at the time, but I am sure it wasn't pretty. But, since the LDS Church is hierarchical and apostolic, we carry our history with us. It's far easier to dismiss a prominent pastor of the 1830s than it is an LDS Apostle. You simply say, they guy wasn't of my Christian bend. Well, I say poppycock. If we have to embrace our religious history, then you have to embrace yours, thorns and all.

If that is true why are some here acting like the 'new' stuff (which I didn't even know about) has changed some things? According to LDS doctrine the truth is the same in every generation (Mormon Doctrine (MD) 810). It never changes and if it does it wasn't true when they said it was.

Whoa. I wasn't picking anything apart I was just saying what the church said- its history is the most correct ever written.

I agree with people saying bad things from all religions but...the LDS church is different insofar that it is run directly by God. Christian churches are guided by the Bible, not by revelation straight from God as the LDS is. That's the difference. There have always been bad Christians in high positions. But a bad LDS in a high position was 'Called' to be there by God. See the diff?

I don't dimiss any 'leader' from any church from any time period. If they were bad they should be called bad. But when its an LDS that says or does bad it falls to the feet of the LDS God because he knows everything (the future included) and he called this guy knowing he would act/speak that way.

I fully embrace my history. It seems the LDS are always wanting to change theirs and make excuses for it then demand everyone else accept the new as true. I don't do that for anything in life- I follow the facts, whatever they say and wherever they lead whether it's agreeable to me, you or whoever. That is the nature of truth- we don't always like it but truth never changes or cares about what we 'think' or 'feel' about it.

[Anddenex]

If that is true why are some here acting like the 'new' stuff (which I didn't even know about) has changed some things? According to LDS doctrine the truth is the same in every generation (Mormon Doctrine (MD) 810). It never changes and if it does it wasn't true when they said it was.

Whoa. I wasn't picking anything apart I was just saying what the church said- its history is the most correct ever written.

I agree with people saying bad things from all religions but...the LDS church is different insofar that it is run directly by God. Christian churches are guided by the Bible, not by revelation straight from God as the LDS is. That's the difference. There have always been bad Christians in high positions. But a bad LDS in a high position was 'Called' to be there by God. See the diff?

I don't dimiss any 'leader' from any church from any time period. If they were bad they should be called bad. But when its an LDS that says or does bad it falls to the feet of the LDS God because he knows everything (the future included) and he called this guy knowing he would act/speak that way.

I fully embrace my history. It seems the LDS are always wanting to change theirs and make excuses for it then demand everyone else accept the new as true. I don't do that for anything in life- I follow the facts, whatever they say and wherever they lead whether it's agreeable to me, you or whoever. That is the nature of truth- we don't always like it but truth never changes or cares about what we 'think' or 'feel' about it.

Not really, what you are doing is implying your personal interpretation to LDS doctrine and then trying to say that everyone should agree to your personal interpretation. A flawed and illogical debate.

In the BoM, we read many times written something to this nature, "And this was the biggest war the Nephites had known."

We later read another similar statement regarding the Nephite and Lamanite wars, "And this was the biggest war the Nephites had known."

If we are to follow your logic skills then we would assume the BoM isn't true because one author lied. Did they?

According to their knowledge and according to their understanding at the time, the record they provided was the most accurate record according to their knowledge and according to what was available to them. This also applies to the HoC.

Lead astray? Typical anti-Mormon argument posted all over youtube. Old news. Same argument. Same responses. You aren't going to convince anyone here, and since you think you know everything about the "minds" and "hearts" of the people who wrote those words, you must be correct.

[JeepMoab]

Not really, what you are doing is implying your personal interpretation to LDS doctrine and then trying to say that everyone should agree to your personal interpretation. A flawed and illogical debate.

Actually, I am only repeating what the church has taught and taking it to its logical conclusion. Please be more detailed in how I am personally interpretating what the church said.

In the BoM, we read many times written something to this nature, "And this was the biggest war the Nephites had known."

We later read another similar statement regarding the Nephite and Lamanite wars, "And this was the biggest war the Nephites had known."

If we are to follow your logic skills then we would assume the BoM isn't true because one author lied. Did they?

That wasn't my intent or desire. In your scenario each successive war could have been bigger than the last. But to say our historical records are true when there are only a few years worth of records (1929-1844) then say they aren't is someone changing something, That is obvious and it has nothing to do with being personal or anyone's individual interpretation. In fact, I have found quotes from my 1918 D&CC (D&C Commentary)where the church had put something in its history (HoC) only to check my modern (paperback) HoCs and find that it was taken out of the HoC. That's changing your history, isn't it? If not, what do you call that? The records (HoCs and the words of the church leaders who put them together) stand for themselves. If they were wrong back then, show/say how don't just say it and move on as if nothing was ever said. That is , at least, misleading people who haven't studied the church like I have.

According to their knowledge and according to their understanding at the time, the record they provided was the most accurate record according to their knowledge and according to what was available to them. This also applies to the HoC.

What?! They had all of the reords of their church in their hands. They 'lived' through the times or they had trusted men who did . How can you even 'think' such a thing?

Lead astray? Typical anti-Mormon argument posted all over youtube. Old news. Same argument. Same responses. You aren't going to convince anyone here, and since you think you know everything about the "minds" and "hearts" of the people who wrote those words, you must be correct.

Hey, now, name calling is undeserved. If you can't refute or explain your churches changes to its history, doctrines and prophecies without name calling and being mean then maybe you should not reply. And, maybe you should study your history and teachings more.

I don't know everything about anything especially my own religious beliefs or yours. But what I do know is what your church/leaders said their God told them was his forever, true and unchanging doctrines many of which are either denied, hidden or outright rejected these days. I'm not looking for a fight I am just trying to figure out why all the changes from an 'all-knowing' God. If you can't answer then allow someone who knows to answer but don't start name-calling because you don't like the truth or can't defend your churches teachings. That is wrong every time.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Eowyn
Unnecessary and offensive