New Thread for Runewell

[runewell]

On 4/20/2017 at 3:54 PM, Anddenex said:

As you are an intelligent person, you will need to take more time regarding the 3,913 changes to the Book of Mormon (to be frank, you are drinking the koolaid of anti-Mormon literature without thinking through the content). There is only one volume of the Book of Mormon. Please review person0's comment again. He is clear in stating the Book of Mormon has not gone through a period of "apostasy" during corrections. To retort with the comment given shows intentional ignorance rather than a person trying to understand.

My point is that the Book of Mormon should never have been corrected, because according to Joseph Smith:  

"... we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.'" (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55)

So if the translation is correct, why has the church changed it at all?  It's reliability is completely suspect. 

Quote

There is only one volume of the Book of Mormon.

Yes, I meant to address the Book of Abraham as well but didn't know what term to use to combine your various scriptures.

Quote

Person0 did not hint nor condone that "feelings preempt truth." This is a personally implied attempt that anti-Mormons take to twist what someone actually said. Let's review what he actually said in comparison to an unfortunate knee jerk response, "Once you know the Book of Mormon is true by the power of the Holy Ghost, as I do..."  Truth is revealed by the Spirit of revelation and prophecy, by the power of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is truth, as God is truth, the Holy Ghost doesn't preempt truth -- he confirms it. There was no Bible when Adam walked the earth, how then was truth revealed? By the power of the Holy Ghost. 

Regarding the truth of the Book of Mormon:

Quote

 

LDS critics maintain that the BOM is a work of fiction created in the 19th century. Critics do not accept that the BOM relates an actual history of real people who came to the Americas and were steel-smelting, chariot-driving, Christ-worshipping, temple-building people multiplying into millions, yet left absolutely no trace of their existence. No archaeological, linguistic, genetic or any other evidence of Hebrew culture in the Americas has ever been found to support the existence of such a people portrayed in the BOM. The book also contains numerous anachronisms like horses, elephants, wheat, barley, steel, silk, etc., that scientists say didn't exist in the Americas during BOM times. 

 

So if the book of Mormon is not true, then it is possible that you might just think you feel the power of the Holy Ghost when in fact you are experiencing something different altogether. Again, there is no proof of truth in your statements, they are simply what you claim to believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[runewell]

On 4/20/2017 at 3:55 PM, person0 said:

It is only by the Spirit that you can know that Jesus is the Christ.  The Holy Ghost is able to teach all things.  If you do not acknowledge that the Holy Ghost bears witness of the real truth, and that God's ways are not our ways, then there is no point in discussing with you any further.  Since per your statement, it appears you choose to hold to earthly and temporal truth more than to the truth as revealed by God to each individual through His Holy Ghost, then we are at an impasse.  There is no point in debating or discussing with someone who denies the power of God.  Good day to you.

Ummm why are you in such a hurry to dismiss me with a blanket statement and leave?  I believe that the Holy Ghost plays a role as well, I just refrained from bringing this up because I'm concerned that people will skip truth and go straight to feelings which they perceive to be the Holy Ghost.  And maybe that is the case, I don't know each individual only God does.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

9 minutes ago, runewell said:

My point is that the Book of Mormon should never have been corrected, because according to Joseph Smith:  

"... we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.'" (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55)

So if the translation is correct, why has the church changed it at all?  It's reliability is completely suspect. 

Hi runewell, perhaps you missed my post?  Here are the highlights:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2002/changes-in-the-book-of-mormon

Basically, if you think a book that has been changed much in a few centuries gives you pause, there's no way on God's green earth you should ever give the Bible a second glance, as it stands condemned of that criticism by orders of magnitude.  

 

[runewell]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  Because, Joseph Smith (and the prophets after him) did not go to "The Ancient Greek Dictionary" or "The History of Biblical Word Permutations" or "The Scholarship of Biblical Studies" to glean the meaning of what is written in the Bible.  Rather, they get their interpretation of what got preserved and compiled by the early Christian church (which was in a period of apostasy) straight from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.  Remember, Joseph Smith was only a lad of 12 years old - a farm boy at that without much exposure to scholarship, when he was given the task of the restoration.  There is a reason God chose a juvenile farm boy instead of the expert Theologian to do this work.

Now, of course, you can argue that your Holy Ghost is more authoritative than our Holy Ghost.  This would not be a discussion on translations anymore.  Rather, this would be a discussion on Authority.  The question would then be... which Christian Church has the proper Authority to dispense the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Not, which translation provides a "better reading" of biblical text.

I'm not interested in interjecting the Holy Ghost to give either person license to believe whatever they want.

The Bible goes back thousands of years and original manuscripts exist which confirm its historical nature.  Whether there was an apostasy or not is irrelevant.  

(I'm not giving the apostasy claim any merit here, I'm sure it's a debate in its own right but then how do you explain all the churches that went up between 500AD and 1800AD.)

Its more reliable than the book of Mormon, which talks about things that didn't even exist in America during the time period.
Besides, the LDS went through a period of apostasy in 1837 so that doesn't put them on any better footing.  

[runewell]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Basically, if you think a book that has been changed much in a few centuries gives you pause, there's no way on God's green earth you should ever give the Bible a second glance, as it stands condemned of that criticism by orders of magnitude.  

Yes but I'm talking the original source of the texts (Greek and Hebrew) not translations (necessary to put the Bible in the language of the reader).  If you're talking about different translations of the Bible that's different.

[Anddenex]

13 minutes ago, runewell said:

My point is that the Book of Mormon should never have been corrected, because according to Joseph Smith:  

"... we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.'" (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55)

So if the translation is correct, why has the church changed it at all?  It's reliability is completely suspect. 

Yes, I meant to address the Book of Abraham as well but didn't know what term to use to combine your various scriptures.

Regarding the truth of the Book of Mormon:

So if the book of Mormon is not true, then it is possible that you might just think you feel the power of the Holy Ghost when in fact you are experiencing something different altogether. Again, there is no proof of truth in your statements, they are simply what you claim to believe.

Read the Introduction to the Book of Mormon very carefully. Again, take the time to view the corrections made and NeuroTypical provided you with some sources to read. It's reliability isn't suspect at all. What is happening is an individual is implying terms and then saying, "If they don't fit my terms, it is completely suspect." If you want to believe this, it is your choice. The Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God. The translation is correct.

The Book of Abraham isn't a volume of the Book of Mormon. It would be similar to saying the New Testament is a another volume of the Old Testament. They are completely separate records.

Moses had critics. Noah had critics. Enoch had critics. Peter had critics. Jesus had critics. If you want to listen to critics that again is your choice. The Book of Mormon is true. It is scripture just like the Bible. Proof is evidenced by God. There is no evidence to Christ's resurrection. Jesus Christ is the Savior. Their is no proof or evidence that he is God or the Savior. Jesus Christ like the Book of Mormon are what they claim to be. Jesus is God. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. I don't need science to give me proof of the evidence of God. I don't need science to give me proof that Noah built an arch. I don't need science to prove Moses parted the red sea. I don't need science to testify, give evidence, that Adam and Eve were the first parents of God's sons and daughters. I know this by the power of the Holy Ghost, as Peter knew Jesus was the Son of God, not because man said so, but because the Father gave him witness. As Peter knew Christ was the Savior from the Father. I know the Book of Mormon is true from the Father through the power of his Spirit. If you want to claim otherwise, you can claim otherwise, it doesn't change what the Father has revealed to me.

But I do wish you the best in seeking to provide evidence of truth -- proof of truth -- of more than half of the events in the Bible. I assume then it must be just what people claim to believe, not true either?

[runewell]

21 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God. The translation is correct.

Which version are we talking?  1820?  1830? 1840? 1920?  1964? 1981?

[Just_A_Guy]

39 minutes ago, runewell said:

Yes but I'm talking the original source of the texts (Greek and Hebrew) not translations (necessary to put the Bible in the language of the reader).  If you're talking about different translations of the Bible that's different.

The autographs of the Bible are no more available for scholarly scrutiny than Joseph Smith's gold plates are.

[person0]

50 minutes ago, runewell said:

Yes but I'm talking the original source of the texts (Greek and Hebrew) not translations (necessary to put the Bible in the language of the reader).  If you're talking about different translations of the Bible that's different.

Considering the autographa are no longer in existence, your point is invalid.  The extant source texts are all copies, or copies of copies and no two match completely:

Quote

The original manuscripts of the New Testament books have not survived. The autographs were lost or destroyed a long time ago. What survives are copies of the original. Generally speaking, these copies were made centuries after the originals from other copies rather than from the autograph. . .  None of the original documents of the New Testament is extant and the existing copies differ from one another.
(Wikipedia - Biblical Manuscript)

So, we have two books of scriptural claim.  One with no original source available (the Bible), and the sources that are available are copies of copies that do not even match one another, copied by people who also could have made modifications or corrections (obviously they did since not all copies match).  On the other hand we have the other (the Book of Mormon), also without the original source (the plates), which has gone through minor grammatical and clarificatory revisions. However, because of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the original printers manuscript is available to everyone in the world.  So any revisions to the Book of Mormon are irrelevant, because, anyone can also say that the original source text is the most correct version, and that version does exist.

54 minutes ago, runewell said:

Its more reliable than the book of Mormon. . .

Obviously this is false.  An objective atheist would conclude that both books are equally fallacious documents having the effect of suppressing the people due to false truth they were led to believe, regardless of historical significance.  One can only truly know the truthfulness of the Bible by the power of the Holy Ghost, same as the Book of Mormon.  Regardless, however, you simply want to establish a rationale to continue in your current belief and reject and strive to disprove ours.

For this particular argument, you are trying to say that the Church isn't true because it changed the text.  However, in another thread you also make claims that would lead one to see that you believe Joseph Smith is a false prophet (looks like the moderators have removed your post).  So that means that even if the Church had not made any adjustments at all, you would still believe it is false because you do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.  Sounds to me like you have a personal conundrum at your hands.  Once you decide Joseph Smith was a true prophet, everything else will eventually fall into place (and it is evident you already know how to find out).

EDIT:  By the way, remember when I claimed that the Spirit of God bore witness of your malintent.  You've done an excellent job of settling the matter.  I guess I must be a true prophet, so now you know you can listen to me when I tell you the Book of Mormon is true!  

Edited April 24, 2017 by person0

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, runewell said:

Which version are we talking?  1820?  1830? 1840? 1920?  1964? 1981?

Please review your dates; otherwise I am not sure if you are typing too quickly or simply being intellectually disingenuous.

In answer though, doesn't matter which date the corrections were made the Book of Mormon is still the most correct of any book that leads to Christ, and I am wondering if you even read the links you were provided. As to the dates provided, I am pretty sure you didn't.

Let's just review the 1920 edition and what was provided, "The 1920 edition included double-column pages, revised references, a pronouncing vocabulary, an index, and many grammatical improvements." (emphasis added) The 1920 edition corrected grammatical issues -- oh boy -- totally false now, unreliable, and suspect -- totally. It is amazing to me people would even present this as an argument.

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Anddenex

[runewell]

3 hours ago, person0 said:

EDIT:  By the way, remember when I claimed that the Spirit of God bore witness of your malintent.  You've done an excellent job of settling the matter.  I guess I must be a true prophet, so now you know you can listen to me when I tell you the Book of Mormon is true!  

Ah, but that's where you're wrong!

It's not malintent.

 

[runewell]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Please review your dates; otherwise I am not sure if you are typing too quickly or simply being intellectually disingenuous.

In answer though, doesn't matter which date the corrections were made the Book of Mormon is still the most correct of any book that leads to Christ, and I am wondering if you even read the links you were provided. As to the dates provided, I am pretty sure you didn't.

Let's just review the 1920 edition and what was provided, "The 1920 edition included double-column pages, revised references, a pronouncing vocabulary, an index, and many grammatical improvements." (emphasis added) The 1920 edition corrected grammatical issues -- oh boy -- totally false now, unreliable, and suspect -- totally. It is amazing to me people would even present this as an argument.

 

OK we'll strike that one.  

1820?  1830? 1840? 1964? 1981?

 

Quote

One with no original source available (the Bible)

Are you quite sure?  Then why use it?

[Anddenex]

14 minutes ago, runewell said:

OK we'll strike that one.  

1820?  1830? 1840? 1964? 1981?

Are you quite sure?  Then why use it?

You will want to "fact" check your dates a little closer, then the argument might be taken more seriously; however, if you want to study the 1830 edition, or the 1981 edition, truly up to the individual. You won't loose anything and it still remains, "the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

I believe you must have been responding to a different individual regarding no original sources; although in answer to your question "Are you quite sure?" Yes. "Then why use it?" The answer is pretty simple, even a child is able to understand, the Bible is the word of God.

[Vort]

56 minutes ago, runewell said:

1820?

LOL. Why is anyone bothering with this joker?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

LOL. Why is anyone bothering with this joker?

runewell

• Advanced Member
•  
• 
• Banned
•  8
• 90 posts

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

LOL. Why is anyone bothering with this joker?

I was just going to write something along these lines.  Then I saw

9 hours ago, Eowyn said:

runewell

• Advanced Member
•  
• 
• Banned
•  8
• 90 posts

Gee, I wonder what on earth he could have said or done that would have gotten him banned.

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, runewell said:

I'm not interested in interjecting the Holy Ghost to give either person license to believe whatever they want.

The Bible goes back thousands of years and original manuscripts exist which confirm its historical nature.  Whether there was an apostasy or not is irrelevant.  

(I'm not giving the apostasy claim any merit here, I'm sure it's a debate in its own right but then how do you explain all the churches that went up between 500AD and 1800AD.)

Its more reliable than the book of Mormon, which talks about things that didn't even exist in America during the time period.
Besides, the LDS went through a period of apostasy in 1837 so that doesn't put them on any better footing.  

Okay, if you're going to use secular logic to determine spiritual truths then there's really no reason for us to keep discussing this.  You can't prove there is a God, let alone that Jesus Christ is His Divine Son, and the existence of a Holy Ghost through secular logic and historical readings of ancient text.  Just not possible.  I mean, you can read it in original Hebrew or Greek or whatever is the original manuscript... there's no difference between the stories written by Dan Brown and the stories written in Genesis in that respect.

And no, the LDS Church herself did not go through a period of apostasy in 1837.  Several leaders (about 1/3 of the leaders, as a matter of fact) apostasized against the Church in 1837 which caused them to either leave the Church  or get excommunicated from the Church, thereby losing their authority.  Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the rest of the leaders that remained in the Church retained their authority and continued to lead the Church, passing apostolic authority to the next generation all the way to today.

So, if you're going to claim that the early Christian Church did not go through a period of Apostasy, then how about you explain to me who received Apostolic authority of the Christian Church after the death of John the Revelator?

Edited April 25, 2017 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

mormondiscussions.com is a great place to argue and fight.  

mormonhub.com, not so much.  

 

[wenglund]

On 4/24/2017 at 6:19 AM, runewell said:

Yes salvation is an event.  Repentance is a pre-requisite yet not considered "works".  But apart from this one "work" nothing else is necessary.  You can die five minutes later (like the criminal on the cross) and enjoy the fullness of Heaven.  LDS seem to believe that some combination of works and worthiness will get them into a higher kingdom.  In Christianity there is only one kingdom, doing God's work is of course our goal, and we recognize that we are in fact not worthy of anything at all.  The fact that Jesus comes into the equation is not because we need that extra bump but because we are hopelessly lost without Him.

After the event has occurred, you will see things differently.  I can't speak for everyone but before that event you are spiritually dead and afterwards you are spiritually alive.  It becomes possible to commune with God.  Your desires change.  No fear of death.  It is a big change but it's not like you get hit with a lightning bolt.  It is a very inward change.  The event is more or less permanent but that is another can of worms.

There are a couple of important things I neglected to mention in my first response to this post.

First, because LDS view Christ as saving them from far more things than do most other Christians, then Christ the Lord factors into a broader spectrum of our lives, and we are far more beholding to him, and he is far more significant and of value to to our faith. We have far more for which to be grateful to him.

Second, for the same reason, we often factor into our own salvation and the salvation of others. Many of the things we are saved from involve personal agency and action ("works") as well as Christ. For example, salvation from ignorance not only entailed Christ setting forth his gospel of truth, but it involves personal study, pondering, and praying in the Spirit. It also involves sharing the truth with others (when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren).

Salvation from spiritual death not only involves cleansing of sin through Christ's redeeming sacrifice, but it also involves personally burying our sins and raised anew--i.e. born again of the water and Spirit. In other words, it requires personally receiving saving ordinances, but also authoritatively administering those ordinances upon others.

The same is true for salvation from orphanage and familial disintegration. Not only did Christ need to marry the Church and conifer the powers to bind in heaven what is bound on earth and send down the powers to unite the fathers to their children,  but his children must receive and authoritatively administer the ordinances through which those powers are activated.

Even salvation from sin involves some measure of personal agency and action ("works"). Think of sin as analogous to drowning.  There are at least 3 ways to be saved from drowning. First, someone can rescue us from that helpless situation. This is where Christ is solely involved. He alone can cleans us of our sins. Second, we can be saved from drowning by staying away from the water/sin.  We won't drown in sin if we avoid sin. And, we can avoid sin by choosing to avoid it and doing things ("works") that will keep us away from sin. Third, we can save ourselves from drowning by learning to swim, or learning to overcome temptation and sin. Learning to live in the world, but not of the world, while exemplified by Christ, also involves personal agency and action ("works").

I could go on and on, but the point being that when LDS are asked whether works are necessary for salvation, and whether salvation can be "earned" or "merited," we nay honestly and rightly answer "No and Yes"--it depends upon which type or element of salvation one has in mind, and this because we have a far broader understanding of things we are being saved from.

Does this help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

On 4/24/2017 at 9:18 PM, Eowyn said:

runewell

• Advanced Member
•  
• 
• Banned
•  8
• 90 posts

Banned? This is unfortunate. A lost opportunity. I was enjoying our reasoned discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, wenglund said:

A lost opportunity.

Opportunity for what?

[wenglund]

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Opportunity for what?

An opportunity to respectfully share our beliefs and expose ourselves to differing perspectives. I learn a lot about and am strengthened in my own faith when challenged formidably by others. I develop far less in an echo chamber.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

57 minutes ago, wenglund said:

An opportunity to respectfully share our beliefs and expose ourselves to differing perspectives. I learn a lot about and am strengthened in my own faith when challenged formidably by others. I develop far less in an echo chamber.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I theory I agree. Except I wasn't seeing much "respect" coming from him. And I don't mean that in tone, etc., which we all struggle with sometimes. I mean the clear and obvious malice he held towards us and our beliefs. Not respectful.

[Guest]

On 4/26/2017 at 10:34 AM, wenglund said:

Banned? This is unfortunate. A lost opportunity. I was enjoying our reasoned discussion.

I thought you were being facetious until I read this:

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

An opportunity to respectfully share our beliefs and expose ourselves to differing perspectives. I learn a lot about and am strengthened in my own faith when challenged formidably by others. I develop far less in an echo chamber.

So, here's what I think:

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In theory I agree. Except I wasn't seeing much "respect" coming from him. And I don't mean that in tone, etc., which we all struggle with sometimes. I mean the clear and obvious malice he held towards us and our beliefs. Not respectful.

Seriously, this was almost verbatim the thoughts that went through my mind.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I thought you were being facetious until I read this:

So, here's what I think:

Seriously, this was almost verbatim the thoughts that went through my mind.

I'm a big believer in trying to get to know someone. I threw him (Runewell) a bone by asking in a PM "Hey, what religion are you? What brought you here?" and got no response. He obviously had an agenda to follow and was only interested in preaching, not talking or listening. 

Edited April 27, 2017 by MormonGator