Original Book Of Mormon

[zil]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

1830 version

Apparently, it's the 1837 version (at least, some of the posts here call it that - others do call it the 1830 version).

[Jane_Doe]

@estradling75, I think you and I are going to be at opposite ends of the table on this.  We've both said our views, and I don't see any point in belaboring this further.  

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

Apparently, it's the 1837 version (at least, some of the posts here call it that - others do call it the 1830 version).

I've been a member almost 20 years and I didn't bother reading that version.  There's just no point in it.  I can answer the regular questions about that version, though.  But, as you can see, when you understand something, those things become irrelevant because they are not confusing at all.  I mean, just the OP's confusion about the change from God to Son of God making her believe it is different doctrine is... Godhead Pirnciples 101.

Edited December 6, 2017 by anatess2

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.  Since you're apologizing, I'll graciously accept.  But I'm not sure if you understood what I was saying.

You've only been involved with the Church for a few months from what I can tell.  Yet you chose to make such a broad-ranging judgment such as "Most of your average Mormons..."  Finish it how you like.  But do you really feel like you've met enough Mormons and given them a Church Knowledge quiz sufficiently to make such judgments and declarations?

FWIW, he said he was a member for 27 years, then left the Church, but only partly (not sure what that means).

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

FWIW, he said he was a member for 27 years, then left the Church, but only partly (not sure what that means).

Active?

I've known people who said they were born and raised in the Church and didn't leave into their 30s or 40s.  Still they really didn't know even basic doctrines and beliefs.  Yet they knew all the anti-Mormon rubbish.  I wonder how that was.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Guest

[NeedleinA]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

Apparently, it's the 1837 version (at least, some of the posts here call it that - others do call it the 1830 version).

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Active?

I've known people who said they were born and raised in the Church and didn't leave into their 30s or 40s.  Still they really didn't know even basic doctrines and beliefs.  Yet they knew all the anti-Mormon rubbish.  I wonder how that was.

He didn't specify.  Nor did he specify whether those were his first 27 years, or 27 adult years after conversion, or what.  Just letting you know the factoid I remember.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

@estradling75, I think you and I are going to be at opposite ends of the table on this.  We've both said our views, and I don't see any point in belaboring this further.  

@Jane_Doe It is one thing to have difference of opinion and different view....  It is entirely another for you to personally attack me by calling me uncharitable.

The simple fact of the matter is no matter if she intended to our not @Blossom76 is on the path of anti questions..  We as members of the forum can handle such questions (especially if we think the asker is sincere)  Understanding how and why she might be on that path is beneficial to both her and us on the forum in both how questions get asked and how they get answered.

[zil]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I've been a member almost 20 years and I didn't bother reading that version.  There's just no point in it.  I can answer the regular questions about that version, though.  But, as you can see, when you understand something, those things become irrelevant because they are not confusing at all.  I mean, just the OP's confusion about the change from God to Son of God making her believe it is different doctrine is... Godhead Pirnciples 101.

I have perceived the same thing you have described in the last few posts, and it worries me.  But I fear trying to explain that further, or use an analogy will just make matters worse (similar things have), so I'm thinking I need to go play with a fountain pen instead.

[Jane_Doe]

 

42 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

@Jane_DoeThe simple fact of the matter is no matter if she intended to our not @Blossom76 is on the path of anti questions..  We as members of the forum can handle such questions (especially if we think the asker is sincere)

Then let us handle such questions and such people with welcome, warmth, and love.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

The let us handle such questions and such people with welcome, warmth, and love.

It goes both ways...  no one should think they can attack the faith of another (which anti questions are) and not expect to provoke..  And when the provoked reaction comes try to hide or complain that we are not welcoming, warm or loving rather then saying I am sorry for the misunderstanding and trying to correct why they attacked the faith of another even if accidentally

[lostinwater]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.  Since you're apologizing, I'll graciously accept.  But I'm not sure if you understood what I was saying.

You've only been involved with the Church for a few months from what I can tell.  Yet you chose to make such a broad-ranging judgment such as "Most of your average Mormons..."  Finish it how you like.  But do you really feel like you've met enough Mormons and given them a Church Knowledge quiz sufficiently to make such judgments and declarations?

Thanks.  First 27 years in the church.  But, you are right, i can't speak for everyone - i'll preface comments like these with 'my perception of XX' in the future.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

It goes both ways...  no one should think they can attack the faith of another (which anti questions are) and not expect to provoke..

Asking a question is not anti anything.   What is anti is refusing to listen to answers and making accusations regardless (this goes for anti anything).    Someone who listen to the answers, studies, prays, and respects people (even when opinions disagree)-- that's Christ-like and to applauded.  That's Blossom.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Asking a question is not anti anything.   What is anti is refusing to listen to answers and making accusations regardless (this goes for anti anything).    Someone who listen to the answers, studies, prays, and respects people (even when opinions disagree)-- that's Christ-like and to applauded.  That's Blossom.

Question from Anti sources generally toxic which is why the church does not encourage anyone to seek them out.  Everyone including Blossom would be wise to heed that council.

When we have to evaluate the possibly of a new investigator doing something incredibly unusual like a detailed side by side comparison of different versions of the Book of Mormon and homing on the anti sources talking points... Its totally understandable that many will think there is an outside force (like anti sources) streamlining the efforts.  Now you are right Blossom has not behaving like the standard anti whom the moderators quickly remove.  But she also admits that these are her husband's points and findings that she seeks to understand.  So if and when Blossom understands that her husband's talking points are not unique or baffling to us then may be the tone of her questions will change from "WHAT IS UP WITH THIS" to "Ok here is another one"

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

Question from Anti sources generally toxic which is why the church does not encourage anyone to seek them out.  Everyone including Blossom would be wise to heed that council.

Asking any question itself is not toxic.

The reason anti stuff is toxic is not because it asks questions but because it gives false answers (most commonly from spinning things), discourages a person from seeking God for Truth, and/or listening to actual doctrine to things straight.  

That's why the difference between being anti or being truth a truth seeker is not defined by asking questions (questions are how we learn), but what a person does with the answers.  A truth seeker seeks truth and listens (such as Blossom).  An anti person does not.

(All this goes for anti anything, nothing LDS specific)

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

Asking any question itself is not toxic.

The reason anti stuff is toxic is not because it asks questions but because it gives false answers (most commonly from spinning things), discourages a person from seeking God for Truth, and/or listening to actual doctrine to things straight.  

That's why the difference between being anti or being truth a truth seeker is not defined by asking questions (questions are how we learn), but what a person does with the answers.  A truth seeker seeks truth and listens (such as Blossom).  An anti person does not.

(All this goes for anti anything, nothing LDS specific)

Which while true totally misses the point.

Many fourm members have repeatedly gone the round with people who are Anti and Toxic and they have a certain pattern of questions.  Therefore when this pattern is recognized even if the user of said pattern is not anti themselves, it is totally reasonable and prudent to warn said user (like Blossom) that their source is most likely toxic.  In this case given what she has described it is most likely would be whatever source her husband is drawing from.  And when she learns this for herself she will be less likely to give them any kind of credibility

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Asking any question itself is not toxic.

The reason anti stuff is toxic is not because it asks questions but because it gives false answers (most commonly from spinning things), discourages a person from seeking God for Truth, and/or listening to actual doctrine to things straight.  

That's why the difference between being anti or being truth a truth seeker is not defined by asking questions (questions are how we learn), but what a person does with the answers.  A truth seeker seeks truth and listens (such as Blossom).  An anti person does not.

(All this goes for anti anything, nothing LDS specific)

Can you show an example of such behavior in this thread?

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Can you show an example of such behavior in this thread?

That's Blossom's seeking truth?  (I'm seeking clarification of what behavior you're asking about).

Edited December 6, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Jane_Doe]

13 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Which while true totally misses the point.

Many fourm members have repeatedly gone the round with people who are Anti and Toxic and they have a certain pattern of questions.  Therefore when this pattern is recognized even if the user of said pattern is not anti themselves, it is totally reasonable and prudent to warn said user (like Blossom) that their source is most likely toxic.  In this case given what she has described it is most likely would be whatever source her husband is drawing from.  And when she learns this for herself she will be less likely to give them any kind of credibility

If you wish to warn, that's fine, but don't accuse.  A good approach would be like "just so you know, there are anti-Mormon sites out there which misrepresent LDS beliefs.  Some of these even have "Christian" labels on them and may be put out by other Christians groups.  Since their focus is on flaming, they're not a good place to learn.  I would recommend staying away from such sites and screening your sources very carefully."

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

If you wish to warn, that's fine, but don't accuse.  A good approach would be like "just so you know, there are anti-Mormon sites out there which misrepresent LDS beliefs.  Some of these even have "Christian" labels on them and may be put out by other Christians groups.  Since their focus is on flaming, they're not a good place to learn.  I would recommend staying away from such sites and screening your sources very carefully."

I did not accuse..  And I really wish you would apply some of that warmth, kindness, you are so keen on the members of this forum using to your own posts toward me.

When she said that she didn't go to anti-sites I believed her.   I then speculated that maybe her husband in his desire to help his wife come closer to God had.  (as a Catholic an anti-mormon source is not going to do him any harm and he would not have the necessary understanding to see that is a pack of lies and falsehoods)... And then you rip into me as if I suggested her husband was some kind of abusive monster.. (No warmth and kindness in that post either).  Please @Jane_Doe be the kind of poster you are trying to shame everyone else into being.

[Blossom76]

5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

In regards to "The Restoration" video specifically, if I recall correctly it focuses on the events in New York, when Emma was Joseph's only wife (polygamy didn't come into the picture until much later). 

Please believe me I mean no offence when I say this (you are one of the nicest people on this forum) but that movie is an LDS movie and the first screen is a timeline that says 'The historical events represented in this story are true and occurred on the American Frontier from 1805 to 1845' Joseph Smith died in 1844, so he was married to other women and this movie doesn't show that, to someone watching this movie it appears that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist.  I find that deceptive - because it is. Polygamy was ordered by God, there is no reason to hide it in the movie.  

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I did not accuse

Suffice it to say I had a very different understanding of your words.

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Please believe me I mean no offence when I say this (you are one of the nicest people on this forum) but that movie is an LDS movie and the first screen is a timeline that says 'The historical events represented in this story are true and occurred on the American Frontier from 1805 to 1845' Joseph Smith died in 1844, so he was married to other women and this movie doesn't show that, to someone watching this movie it appears that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist.  I find that deceptive - because it is. Polygamy was ordered by God, there is no reason to hide it in the movie.  

I don't remember that video really going past the events in New York (such as moving to Kirkland, Missouri, or Nauvoo).  Am I misremembering?    Such is very possible- I can go rewatch it.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Blossom76]

8 hours 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?

Actually when I first started going to the ward I am now I quickly discovered that the majority of the women there had no idea Joseph Smith was a polygamist, they all thought it was something Brigham Young started.  So I watch what I say at LDS church now so I don't offend anyone.  That is why I ask questions here.  And I am not 'making accusations' I am asking questions - but I am allowed to have an opinion on things I find disturbing.

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Actually when I first started going to the ward I am now I quickly discovered that the majority of the women there had no idea Joseph Smith was a polygamist, they all thought it was something Brigham Young started.  So I watch what I say at LDS church now so I don't offend anyone.  That is why I ask questions here.  And I am not 'making accusations' I am asking questions - but I am allowed to have an opinion on things I find disturbing.

Polygamy is hard for many people to accept..  And the Church commands its members to study and learn... the commandment to start polygamy/plural marriage is found in the 132 section of the D&C https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

The Sunday School program in the church covers the D&C once every four years which would include section 132...   Yet members still some how don't know... so the church has put out additional resources like https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

Personally I am baffled by the idea that a faithful LDS member can be studying the scriptures and not at least consider the idea that Joseph was a polygamist even if they do not know the details.   I guess denial is not just a river in Egypt