Original Book Of Mormon

[Blossom76]

11 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Being offended when none is intended is a personal choice. Offense wasn't intended but sharing my opinion was.
Taken off a anti-mormon website. Original ideas?

 

Again I have not looked at any anti mormon stuff.

1 Nephi is the FIRST BOOK in the Book Of Mormon, my husband and I were reading it together, him from his version (Kirkland 1837 he got from Community of Christ) and me from my LDS version, we were reading scripture together, that is how we found the differences, not from some website, from Scripture (for the first time too, I was very excited that he was reading the Book of Mormon for me to make me happy). I'm sorry I have not found any differences past 1 Nephi, that's all we have read together with both editions so far! - but when we read the rest of it I will be sure to let you know if I find any

I asked a fair question, I did not expect to be attacked like this, this is not christian love, this is a witch hunt

Edited December 6, 2017 by Blossom76
grammer and spelling

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Again I have not looked at any anti mormon stuff.

1 Nephi is the FIRST BOOK int he Book Of Mormon, my husband and I were reading it together, him from his version (Kirkland 1837 he got from Community of Christ) and me from my LDS version, we were reading scripture together, that is how we found the differences, not from some website, from Scripture (for the first time too, I was very excited that he was reading the Book of Mormon for me to make me happy)

I asked a fair question, I did not expect to be attacked like this, this is not christian love, this is a witch hunt

Everyone, let's get off @Blossom76's case.  She's been with us for a while, has proven herself as an honest investigator, and a very fine person.  Yes, those of us on the forum have heard anti-folks play troll / wolf-in-sheep's clothing with this very question 99 times.  But Blossom is NOT such a person.  Let us not turn away the 1 honest seeker just because we've seen 99 trolls.

[NeedleinA]

9 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I asked a fair question, I did not expect to be attacked like this, this is not christian love, this is a witch hunt

This is not a witch hunt. I am personally bowing out now, not out of spite but so that there is no further contention and you can learn from the others. I'm obviously not the right fit for your needs, perhaps others are. Again, "Best of luck in your reading and investigating", I mean that sincerely.

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by NeedleinA

[person0]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

I did not expect to be attacked like this, this is not christian love, this is a witch hunt

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

Everyone, let's get off @Blossom76's case.  She's been with us for a while, has proven herself as an honest investigator, and a very fine person.  Yes, those of us on the forum have heard anti-folks play troll / wolf-in-sheep's clothing with this very question 99 times.  But Blossom is NOT such a person.  Let us not turn away the 1 honest seeker just because we've seen 99 trolls.

Agreed.  However, while clearly not the preferred reaction to a sincere question, I invite you to empathize with the auto-defensive reaction by a people who are used to persecution and maliciousness in similar kind time and time again.

[NightSG]

40 minutes ago, person0 said:

If I recall correctly, I believe it was Cliff, the Third Cousin of God, once removed, on His Mother's side.  Or did you just edit that to make it easier for us to not misunderstand?  

I'm still busy trying to figure out if he was the one that slipped in that other Noahide law, or the one who edited it out for the Ten Commandments.

[Blossom76]

6 minutes ago, person0 said:

Agreed.  However, while clearly not the preferred reaction to a sincere question, I invite you to empathize with the auto-defensive reaction by a people who are used to persecution and maliciousness in similar kind time and time again.

I was raised very catholic, I'm used to being persecuted for my faith, I would never treat anyone the way I have been treated for asking questions about the catholic church.  It's unacceptable and there is no excuse for it.  I am sincerely wanting to know if the Book of Mormon is true, I am devoting a lot of my time to studying this faith, as is my husband, who is quite happy being Catholic but is studying the LDS faith and reading the Book of Mormon for me, being a supportive husband.   I do not - nor does anyone - deserve to be treated with such disrespect for asking a question.  

Edited December 6, 2017 by Blossom76

[JohnsonJones]

There ARE some other differences that you will come upon.  The ones you mentioned have already been addressed, in that the only thing that was done was clarifying which of the three the text was referring to so there were no mistakes in understanding who it was about regarding it.

However, there are some other changes which disturb some people FAR more than that.

I don't have a problem with the changes myself, but some do find the changes problematic.  Most of those that I can think of off the top of my head are addressed by the Link that was posted a few pages back though.

I think it's better to discuss these things and present the sides of the coin so that all is clear and present for you to make your choice and to better understand.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, NightSG said:

Ever been on a gaming forum?

And you believe that will generate "the most perfect book"?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I think it makes a very big difference, to call Jesus God and then to call him The Son of God is different, it is not the same, and it does not mean the same thing.

To us it means the same thing.  You have a problem with it because you don't understand it.  There is an old saying,"First seek to understand.  Then seek to be undestood."  I'd modify that here "First seek to understand.  Then declare your judgement."  Right now, all you have is an uninformed opinion based on pre-conceived notions.  This is not an insult.  It is a fact.  You're barely learning things and you've already declared that you know enough to see a contradiction where there is none.  You must unlearn what you have learned from man and listen to the Spirit.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Hi all, as a lot of you know my very Catholic husband has agreed to read the Book of Mormon!  He ordered one and it arrived the other day (its super pretty).  He said if Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture then he will read the text that he dictated.  I didn't really understand what he meant.

Now that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is here I understand.  It is very different, the text is places is very different.  The Book of Mormon used by the LDS Church today is not the same Book of Mormon Joseph Smith translated - and its not just spelling and grammar differences, I'm talking doctrinal differences in the text.

So my question is, if the Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written by Joseph Smith a true prophet of God then why isn't the original text that Joseph Smith dictated used by the LDS Church?

I’m not sure whether some of the links offered already mention this; but the BoM went through several editions in Smith’s lifetime.  Some of these editions included corrections/revisions made by committee and then loosely approved by Smith (e.g. Kirtland 1837); and others were the result of an intensive review Smith himself undertook (the Nauvoo edition of—I may be off on this, but I think 1844 or so).  Meanwhile, some of Smith’s associates were sent to do missionary work in England in the early 1840s, and they (based on a general instruction Smith mailed from the US, where he was still living) published an edition at Liverpool around 1840 based on the 1837 Kirtland edition.  When the Mormons were driven out of Nauvoo, the center of Mormon printing shifted to Britain for more-or-less the rest of the century; and thus through inertia future LDS editions of the Book of Mormon were based on the Liverpool edition (and thus, indirectly, the Kirtland 1837 edition) which lacked the edits Smith made to the Nauvoo edition.  This persisted until 1980, when that year’s edition made a conscious effort to “bring back” most of Smith’s corrections.  

This is a roundabout way of saying that we use the text that we use because Joseph Smith himself later decided, in many cases, that the 1830 translation could be improved upon.  We tend to assume that whatever “translation” Smith got through his interpreters was a word-for word text; and that he wrote the words exactly as he saw them.  I think it’s very possible that in many cases his “translation” was more a situation of ideas being conveyed to Smith and that he was given a certain degree of latitude to try to express those ideas in his own language, which was to some degree limited by his life experience (a farm boy in Protestant upstate New York, for example, may not have understood what a pregnant (pun intended) term Catholics consider “mother of God” to be; especially if he hadn’t studied Catholicism or met any Catholics).  

At any rate, as any student of Bible translations know, there often isn’t one “best” translation of a particular passage—one translation may preserve clearer imagery, another emphasizes preservation of syntax and linguistic/poetic forms from the root language, one may render ancient idioms literally while another looks for modern-English equivalents that convey the same meaning.  The “ideal” translation may change depending on what point you’re making and who your audience is; thus, the English BoM text is better considered as a “divine best-fit” or “lowest common denominator” text rather than the “One True Translation To Rule Them All” text—if Joseph Smith (or some other inspired, authoritative individual) wants to introduce a textual variant that in some ways works better than his 1830 rendition, there’s no absolute prohibition on his doing so.

When we cite Joseph Smith’s statement about the Book of Mormon as the “most correct book”, we need to note his context.  Smith didn’t utter this sentence as a boast about editorial pedantry, literary quality, or even factual comprehensiveness (I have always suspected that there’s a LOT of stuff Nephi makes it a point to omit).  Rather, Smith was speaking in the context of the Book of Mormon as a book that, specifically, would draw people nearer to God.  I’m always appreciative of attempts for greater accuracy; but I don’t really think the 1980 or 1844 or 1837 editions are any more effective at drawing me nearer to God than the 1830 edition was.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[lostinwater]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

I was raised very catholic, I'm used to being persecuted for my faith, I would never treat anyone the way I have been treated for asking questions about the catholic church.  It's unacceptable and there is no excuse for it.  I am sincerely wanting to know if the Book of Mormon is true, I am devoting a lot of my time to studying this faith, as is my husband, who is quite happy being Catholic but is studying the LDS faith and reading the Book of Mormon for me, being a supportive husband.   I do not - nor does anyone - deserve to be treated with such disrespect for asking a question.  

+1

@Blossom76 - if it makes a difference, i don't think it is out of malice.  Early church history and the book of mormon's origins are very tender topics - it's where most people who are out to land a punch on the mormon church start hitting  - and so anything that even remotely calls anything about it into question often triggers an offensive posture.  It must be defended at all hazards, because if it goes, then the whole thing crumbles to the dust - threatening to take the identity and relationship with God and Jesus of a member with it.  It doesn't help that a ton of little problems (flaws of the men who wrote it, if you prefer) are often not known by the average member, and completely surprise them when they hear them.  At least such it was for me while i was active.  

Edited December 6, 2017 by lostinwater

[Blossom76]

3 hours ago, lostinwater said:

+1

@Blossom76 - if it makes a difference, i don't think it is out of malice.  Early church history and the book of mormon's origins are very tender topics - it's where most people who are out to land a punch on the mormon church start hitting  - and so anything that even remotely calls anything about it into question often triggers an offensive posture.  It must be defended at all hazards, because if it goes, then the whole thing crumbles to the dust - threatening to take the identity and relationship with God and Jesus of a member with it.  It doesn't help that a ton of little problems (flaws of the men who wrote it, if you prefer) are often not known by the average member, and completely surprise them when they hear them.  At least such it was for me while i was active.  

Thank you for saying so, I appreciate it.

I think church history is important, my current faith has a very questionable at times history, (and it is encouraged strongly to study it), but that doesn't mean the people belonging to it now are responsible for that history, or have to be ok with that history, its just fact, and I don't think ignoring facts is ever a good idea.  And how can church history cause someones faith to crumble into dust?

I do find it very disturbing that the average active member is unlikely to know of these types of things, this is why I intent to study for 18 months, I don't want to get baptised, give 10% of my income and a lot of my time to a faith only to find out something in a few years time that can threaten my relationship with God and Jesus.

Speaking of history one thing I am having a very hard time getting my head around is the way Joseph Smith is portrayed in LDS movies like 'The Restoration' - Great movie and I really liked it a lot but Joseph only had one wife in that movie and we all know that's not true.  How can the church say its not hiding anything and not show the truth in that movie and others like it, it is portraying to anyone watching that movie that polygamy didn't exist in LDS history, and we all know it did.  Its deceptive and raises concerns (what else is being hidden by deception?) 

 

[Grunt]

7 hours ago, Bad Karma said:

Her sources are "Anti Mormon Sites" which ask the "investigator" to raise these points to refute our doctrine. 

That's because Jesus is **NOT** God, he is the SON of GOD.  There, a Mormon said it.  HOw are you coming along with your missionary lead lessons? Are they helping to answer your questions? Have you discussed a baptism date yet? 

I like you.  

Still, they are legitimate questions.  I had them myself, yet moved past them.  

I think this problem is made worse through advanced studying without the benefit of the Holy Spirit.  

Edited December 6, 2017 by Grunt

[Bad Karma]

17 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I like you.  

Still, they are legitimate questions.  I had them myself, yet moved past them.  

I think this problem is made worse through advanced studying without the benefit of the Holy Spirit.  

That is the crux of the problem, even reading the bible itself cover to cover, without the holy spirit to help me out, I find it sensational, whimsical, it makes my teeth itch. Alma carries on like one third of the old testament. I really am one of those maniacs that have read my scriptures cover to cover a few times, each time, I find myself about to scream senseless utterings. Fortunately, along comes the spirit to help me out. 

[NeedleinA]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'd modify that here "First seek to understand.  Then declare your judgement." 

Yes, then declare your judgement.

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

 Its deceptive and raises concerns (what else is being hidden by deception?)

Really...
Sorry, I know I said I would bow out, but really?
Right off the Church's website: Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

Quote

After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates. This principle was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration—for Joseph personally and for other Church members. Plural marriage tested faith and provoked controversy and opposition.

Yep, super deceptive.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Speaking of history one thing I am having a very hard time getting my head around is the way Joseph Smith is portrayed in LDS movies like 'The Restoration' - Great movie and I really liked it a lot but Joseph only had one wife in that movie and we all know that's not true.  How can the church say its not hiding anything and not show the truth in that movie and others like it, it is portraying to anyone watching that movie that polygamy didn't exist in LDS history, and we all know it did.  Its deceptive and raises concerns (what else is being hidden by deception?) 

"Portrayed."  Yes, "Portrayed."  That is what films do.  They give a "brief picture."  They are not the end all and be all of historical documentation.  The film was designed to give a central message which included his involvement in history, not document every aspect of his entire life.  We all know he went to the bathroom everyday. But did you see him going to the bathroom in any of the Church films?  Is that being deceptive?

And there is one fact that you're missing.  Yes, Joseph had many wives.  But because of the restrictions that Emma placed on him he rarely ever got to spend much time with any of them.  Yes, he spent time with them.  But not very often.  That is certainly a justification to portray him with Emma alone.  That was his natural and most common state.  Why wouldn't that be how he's portrayed in the film?

Again, your lack of knowledge is making you believe that you know.  But you don't know enough yet.  Stop making accusations and ask questions.  I hope you know the difference.

2 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I do find it very disturbing that the average active member is unlikely to know of these types of things, this is why I intent to study for 18 months, I don't want to get baptised, give 10% of my income and a lot of my time to a faith only to find out something in a few years time that can threaten my relationship with God and Jesus.

I find it disturbing that you believe the average member doesn't know these things.  That simply isn't true.  Who are you talking to?  12 year olds?  I can't think of any adult in my ward who has been active in the Church for more than four years (the Sunday School program cycles every four years) that does NOT know of these things.  It's covered in Sunday School.  How is that "hiding it"? or being deceptive?

Edited December 6, 2017 by Guest

[james12]

@Blossom76, As was previously noted a very detailed analysis of the Book of Mormon variants was completed by Royal Skousen. He wrote four volumes comparing and discussing all the differences. Here is a link to the online version of the first book: http://interpreterfoundation.org/books/volume-4-of-the-critical-text-of-the-book-of-mormon-analysis-of-textual-variants-of-the-book-of-mormon/part-one-1-nephi-1-2-nephi-10/. Most of the commentary is rather boring since it discusses very minor scribal errors or printer errors but I suggest you turn to it when you are wondering about why there is a difference. 

 

[Grunt]

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

"Portrayed."  Yes, "Portrayed."  That is what films do.  They give a "brief picture."  They are not the end all and be all of historical documentation.  The film was designed to give a central message which included his involvement in history, not document every aspect of his entire life.  We all know he went to the bathroom everyday. But did you see him going to the bathroom in any of the Church films?  Is that being deceptive?

And there is one fact that you're missing.  Yes, Joseph had many wives.  But because of the restrictions that Emma placed on him he rarely ever got to spend much time with any of them.  Yes, he spent time with them.  But not very often.  That is certainly a justification to portray him with Emma alone.  That was his natural and most common state.  Why wouldn't that be how he's portrayed in the film?

Again, your lack of knowledge is making you believe that you know.  But you don't know enough yet.  Stop making accusations and ask questions.  I hope you know the difference.

I find it disturbing that you believe the average member doesn't know these things.  That simply isn't true.  Who are you talking to?  12 year olds?  I can't think of any adult in my ward who has been active in the Church for more than four years (the Sunday School program cycles every four years) that does NOT know of these things.  It's covered in Sunday School.  How is that "hiding it"? or being deceptive?

Even I know of these things and I’m a heathen.  

[zil]

3 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Its deceptive and raises concerns (what else is being hidden by deception?) 

If I were investigating a religion (religion is all about truth), and I believed the organization which constitutes that religion was deliberately hiding the truth (aka being deceptive), I'd drop them like a hot potato - because obviously, they're not about truth.  So I'm curious (sincerely curious, as I already know that 98.1% of the population don't think like me) why doesn't that make you drop them like a hot potato?

49 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I find it disturbing that you believe the average member doesn't know these things.  That simply isn't true.

Actually, it was @lostinwater (someone who, as near as I can tell, no longer believes what the Church teaches) who made that statement first, and I assume @Blossom76 accepted this as being accurate.  I think it might be more accurate to say that the average member knows the BofM has multiple editions with changes which Mormons consider minor, but does not know the details of all those changes.  But they do know that if they really wanted to, they could go find them.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Speaking of history one thing I am having a very hard time getting my head around is the way Joseph Smith is portrayed in LDS movies like 'The Restoration' - Great movie and I really liked it a lot but Joseph only had one wife in that movie and we all know that's not true.  How can the church say its not hiding anything and not show the truth in that movie and others like it, it is portraying to anyone watching that movie that polygamy didn't exist in LDS history, and we all know it did.  Its deceptive and raises concerns (what else is being hidden by deception?) 

 

It certainly is worth remembering, as a student of history, that the Church is going to focus on the aspects of Joseph Smith’s life that reinforce the way the Church views itself and inspire Church members towards certain courses of conduct.  All media do this to some degree—to my recollection the film Prince of Egypt doesn’t mention that Moses’ first request to Pharoah includes a disingenuous excuse about traveling three days into the wilderness to offer sacrifice; or that Israel’s military campaigns into the promised land and its environs that resulted in the deaths of children; or that some of the aspects of Mosaic law that many of us consider so problematic today; but no one accuses the producers of “deception” even as we all agree that Prince of Egypt is an incomplete rendering of the historical narrative.  

Nor, for that matter, do we usually as a culture get into the sex lives of our “great men” during films intended for a broad audience.  You don’t see a lot of documentaries in JFK covering Mimi Alford; shows about Churchill and Eisenhower and Roosevelt rarely mention their philandering.  Again—not necessarily a matter of outright “deception”; it’s just that the filmmakers chose to focus on other aspects of their subjects’ lives and if you want the *full* story you’ll need to broaden your horizons a bit.  

Edited December 6, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Midwest LDS]

@Blossom76 The average church member does know about the many changes in the Book of Mormon's text. In fact I would argue that you would be hard pressed to find a member who is unaware of those changes. To us, those changes are all minor and obvious clarifications so they just really don't concern us. That's not to belittle your question, they obviously concern you, but I think what I just stated may not be obvious to you and wanted to clarify. In addition, to add on too the excellent discussion on translation by @Just_A_Guy you have to remember that we truly believe we are led by living prophets. In Doctrine and Covenants 1:37 it states

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

We know there have been prophetic changes too scripture and it doesn't concern us. It's part of our core beliefs that God inspires his leaders constantly, as we know that God teaches us line upon line, and precept upon precept. He is always revealing new things, clarifying old things, and enlightening our understanding. That's the beauty of modern day revelation. 

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

@Blossom76 The average church member does know about the many changes in the Book of Mormon's text. In fact I would argue that you would be hard pressed to find a member who is unaware of those changes.

You think so? Not challenging you in the least, just interested in your thoughts. 

I think that the average member doesn't know about them-they've probably just read the updated version of the BoM. 

Again, not challenging you,  you are probably right. Huge respect for you @Midwest LDS. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

@Blossom76 lets talk about the addition of "Son Of God" in first 1 Nephi

First and fore most since you have read the Book of Mormon far enough to get there therefore I assume you understand the Context... Because context is important.  For those following along the context in Nephi getting the interpretation of the Tree of Life.  Thus Nephi is shown the virgin Mary and how she is/will be the Mother of the Son of God.  Nephi says with a few variations that Mary will give birth to the "Eternal Father" and Joseph Smith added variations of " 'Son of' the Eternal Father"   Now clearly from the context of the passage of Scriptures Nephi is talking about Jesus Christ the Son of God... therefore Joseph Smith's addition is clarifying and in keeping what Nephi was talking about in the manor that we modern readers who have heard of the Trinity understand.

So the question becomes why didn't Nephi do it?  Why did he not use Son Of  And the answer to that is simple. Nephi is/was a Jew that lived in the 600 BC.  And Jews back then and even to this day are not Trinitarian.  Lets break down further how the Trinitarian concept got started and lets begin with the Jews.

Abraham the father of Jew was righteous and entered into ta Covenant with God who identified himself as "I AM."  Moses when commanded by God to free Israel he has who should he tell the people sent him and God answered 'tell them I AM sent you."  Latter on Israel learned another name for I AM and held it sacred that we are not sure how they pronounced it but modern translation is JEHOVAH.

The Israelites/Jews believe in the Great I AM/JEHOVAH and maybe his spirit...  No Father, Son, Holy Spirit.  Then Isaiah and prophecies that the Great I AM/JEHOVAH will be born of a virgin and he will redeem his people aka a Messiah..    Now enter Nephi.  He has no Father, Son, Holy Spirit indoctrination because it does not yet exist.  He sees the Great I AM/JEHOVAH being born of Mary and calls him the Eternal Father because that is how he knows them, and thus his statement is exactly what we should/would expect from a Jew versed in the knowledge of his people.  Thus in my mind Joseph Smith's edit absolutely reinforces the claim that the Book of Mormon was ancient Jewish record.

Now lets move on to the establishment of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Jesus is born and he begins to preach as recorded in the New Testament I am going to reference John 8

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

In verse 56 that is Jesus Speaking

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

In verse 57 the Jew clearly do not understand him, not understanding his Eternal Nature

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Now to our eye verse 58 does not seem like that big of a deal, but that is because we do not have the Jewish understanding.  In the context of talking to Abraham Note the very last two words.  I AM.  In verse 58 Christ declares himself the Great I AM that spoke with Abraham and was before him.  Don't believe me... then believe the Jew's reaction in the very next verse.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy...  Jesus declared himself to be the Great I AM the mighty JEHOVAH and so the Jews tried to kill him.  And they never stopped until they got him murdered by the Romans.

It is not until Jesus Christ the Great I AM the mighty JEHOVAH reveals a hidden mystery and starts talking about having a Father and him doing the will of the Father, that the Trinitarian concept begins to form.  Of course Jesus claiming to be the Great I AM who in the Old Testament claims that there is no other God and yet also claims to have a Father is another level of blasphemy to the Jews.

To the modern Christians who don't make the connection of Christ/I AM/JEHOVAH who do not understand why the Jews were so murderously upset, run into the same problem... how can Christ/I AM/JEHOVAH whom there is no other God claim to have a Father... so instead they force the Father into the Role of I AM/JEHOVAH selectively ignoring the scripture that link Christ to his pre-mortal role.

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by estradling75

[Midwest LDS]

@MormonGator I think that is the problem when I use the word average as we all can only go by who we know so that may be mistaken terminology on my part. My ward is mostly made up of converts like myself and we are generally aware of stuff like this because we spent a lot of our church lives defending the church from evangelical arguments so maybe my average is different than other areas of the church.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

@MormonGator I think that is the problem when I use the word average as we all can only go by who we know so that may be mistaken terminology on my part. My ward is mostly made up of converts like myself and we are generally aware of stuff like this because we spent a lot of our church lives defending the church from evangelical arguments so maybe my average is different than other areas of the church.

Great points. Like I mentioned  wasn't challenging you, just wanted to hear more of your thoughts.