Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

JST relied on bible commentary by Adam Clarke, new research shows


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting comments on the past couple posts Robert, and I'm now thoroughly confused about your position.  You recommended polling the members to determine what they think of the JST, yet you also criticized the fact that an introduction "written by one guy" does not seemingly reflect your perspective.  Lastly you bring up that Rigdon, a second person working with one guy (Joseph) somehow may have tainted your impressions of the value of the JST.  I'm looking for some coherence here and not finding any.  

Historians know that the JST is a two-man product of biblical revision, and there is nothing at all odd about that.  Someone on this board made the unsupported statement that most LDS members think the JST is revelatory in nature, and I strongly doubt that.  However, a poll might tell us what they in fact think.  Does that seem illogical or incoherent to you?

Beyond that (perhaps this is a new concept for you), all introductions written for our Scriptures are just intros.  They are not canonical and are not revelatory, and they change with each new edition of Scripture.  We have had noteworthy changes in them in recent memory, some of them controversial, and we actually know who was in charge of some of those introductory comments.  Confusing an intro with the actual revelatory text is very bad practice.  Does that make any sense to you?

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you clarify how you would suggest that revelation be defined, is it by poll, is it by one guy, is it by multiple guys, what is your preferred method for designating legitimate canon for the church?  

Polls are used to gauge opinion on all kinds of issues, not just religious ones.  Scholarly and substantive definitions are not made by poll.  The only polls worth our attention are scientific samples of the population being polled.

Revelation and canon are not the same thing.  The LDS Church has an official Scriptural Canon, voted on and approved in General Conference.  It consists of the Bible as published by the LDS Church, insofar as it is translated correctly, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.  Some members refer to that as a Quad, though that is really just a reference to the quadruple books in one volume.  The introductory materials to those texts are never canonical.

"Revelation" is much broader in definition than "canon," and often involves personal preferences, including prophecy, inspiration, promptings, and the like.  Everyone seems to have his own definition.  Scholars are more particular about it, however, and entire books have been written on the subject:

Bevan, Edwyn, Sibyls and Seers: A Survey of Some Ancient Theories of Revelation and Inspiration, Oxford Speaker's Foundation for Biblical Studies 1927 (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1928).

Dulles, Avery, Models of Revelation (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983).

Van Dam, Cornelis, The Urim and Thummim: A Study of an Old Testament Means of Revelation (Kampen: Van Den Berg, 1986) = The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997); published dissertation.

If you want to closely examine "revelation" in an LDS context, I recommend the recent three part series, as follows:

Duane Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part One,” Interpreter, 26 (2017): 1-48, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-lengthening-shadow-is-quality-of-thought-deteriorating-in-lds-scholarly-discourse-regarding-prophets-and-revelation-part-one/ .  The other two parts follow in sequence.

The late Elder McConkie had a cautionary comment on revelation:

Quote

"I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation" - Bruce R McConkie, Letter to Eugene England, February 19, 1981, online at http://www.mrm.org/bruce-mcconkies-rebuke-of-eugene-england .

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Mentioned earlier, but worth repeating I think.  The books of Moses and JS Matthew in the POGP are canon for LDS folks, and these are part of his inspired bible translation.  I'm also persuaded, although some on this thread disagrees with me, that the portions of the JST integrated into the LDS published Bible as footnotes and endnotes, are also considered canon by the members. 

The JST footnotes and endnotes are just like any other notes accompanying the canonical text.  They are helps and clarifications, but not canonical.  They are very recent insertions (in the last actual edition).  There are likely LDS members just like you who see them as canonical, but we don't know what the percentage might be without taking a poll.  The Book of Moses is an independent production, and not an integral part of the JST, which is why it was made part of the Holy Canon (same for JS-Matthew).  Unlike those items, almost all of the JST was produced by Smith and Rigdon by taking an 1828 Phinney KJV Bible and making marginal changes as they read through it.  That Phinney Bible still exists, with the changes intact.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

As for Ridgon being involved, I'm not sure why that point is important.  Joseph didn't produce any scriptures on his own, he always had scribes and helpers that were involved in the process, some more than others, but you seem to imply that Rigdon's participation might somehow lesson the legitimacy of the JST in your perspective, could you clarify those comments?

Rigdon was a trained minister.  He was not Joseph's scribe.  He was a full participant in that process, and he was the primary writer of the Lectures on Faith.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Also can you clarify why you think the RLDS made a mistake by publishing the JST? 

The RLDS Inspired Revision is mostly a product of human efforts to clarify the biblical text, but (like the Amplified Bible) is not an actual translation.  Only small parts of it (JS - Matt, and Moses) are actually revelatory in nature.  They would have been better off employing modern Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scholarship to produce an improved translation -- which has already been done by others anyhow.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Lastly, I think studying the production of that JST is a great opportunity to review evidence for how Joseph Smith produced scripture.  I think it brings important insights that when compared with evidence from his production of the BoM and BoA, we can get a better picture for the mechanics of how these texts were created. 

I don't agree at all, although I don't mind scholarly efforts to find sources used by Rigdon & Smith.  Those factors are completely unrelated to production of the BofM and BofA.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Historians know that the JST is a two-man product of biblical revision, and there is nothing at all odd about that.  Someone on this board made the unsupported statement that most LDS members think the JST is revelatory in nature, and I strongly doubt that.  However, a poll might tell us what they in fact think.  Does that seem illogical or incoherent to you?

I have no problem with one, two or twenty people producing LDS scripture, its all in the canon we have today.  

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Beyond that (perhaps this is a new concept for you), all introductions written for our Scriptures are just intros.  They are not canonical and are not revelatory, and they change with each new edition of Scripture.  We have had noteworthy changes in them in recent memory, some of them controversial, and we actually know who was in charge of some of those introductory comments.  Confusing an intro with the actual revelatory text is very bad practice.  Does that make any sense to you?

You disagreed with some guy's introduction that states the JST is revelation.  I'm actually not even clear what introduction you're referring to specifically, but thats not relevant to my question. I was comparing your dismissal of one guy to your preference that the members be polled to determine what is revelation, and lastly to your emphasis on Rigdon's involvement in the process as if that somehow lessens its importance.  Perhaps we should create a list of all the people heavily involved in Joseph's creations of scripture, and then we could rate and rank the scriptures produced for legitimacy based on the people involved in their production?   

38 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Revelation and canon are not the same thing.  The LDS Church has an official Scriptural Canon, voted on and approved in General Conference.  It consists of the Bible as published by the LDS Church, insofar as it is translated correctly, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.  Some members refer to that as a Quad, though that is really just a reference to the quadruple books in one volume.  The introductory materials to those texts are never canonical.

I understand there is a difference between revelation and canon, I interchanged their use in one of my statements, but I know there is a difference and I understand how canon is defined.  I haven't referenced any introductory materials to try and make a claim that the JST is canon, I'm making the claim based on the following points.  1. The portions in the PoGP are canon (I haven't had anyone disagree on this point.  2.  The footnotes and endnotes in the Bible published by the church are considered canon.  My second assertion has been questioned by some, and I'm open that this is less clear, but I believe because of its publication by the church including integration with correlated materials and the way that church members use these integrated JST elements practically, that it is viewed as canon by your average member.  

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The late Elder McConkie had a cautionary comment on revelation:

Are you no conflating revelation with doctrine as those are two different things as well.  I'm not sure why this McConkie quote has anything to do with the topics we're discussing.  

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Lastly, I think studying the production of that JST is a great opportunity to review evidence for how Joseph Smith produced scripture.  I think it brings important insights that when compared with evidence from his production of the BoM and BoA, we can get a better picture for the mechanics of how these texts were created. 

This.  If the production of the JST was called a "translation" but the authors made no acknowledgement of their use of outside books or commentaries, then it certainly bolsters the notion that the "translation" of the BOM likewise made use of external texts and writings (given the evidence and despite the claims of the translators).  Maybe this is already acknowledged by the Church and I'm behind the curve. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I have no problem with one, two or twenty people producing LDS scripture, its all in the canon we have today

No, it isn't.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

.......................................2.  The footnotes and endnotes in the Bible published by the church are considered canon.

They may be considered canonical by you, but that simply indicates that you are misinformed.  How many others share that false view is unknown without an appropriate poll.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  My second assertion has been questioned by some, and I'm open that this is less clear, but I believe because of its publication by the church including integration with correlated materials and the way that church members use these integrated JST elements practically, that it is viewed as canon by your average member. 

Your personal belief here is erroneous.  We do not actually know what the average member thinks without a poll.  However, erroneous beliefs do not make something canonical.  That requires a vote in General Conference.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you no conflating revelation with doctrine as those are two different things as well.  I'm not sure why this McConkie quote has anything to do with the topics we're discussing.  

Elder McConkie's quote speaks for itself, and should be easily understood.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You disagreed with some guy's introduction that states the JST is revelation.  I'm actually not even clear what introduction you're referring to specifically, but thats not relevant to my question. I was comparing your dismissal of one guy to your preference that the members be polled to determine what is revelation, and lastly to your emphasis on Rigdon's involvement in the process as if that somehow lessens its importance.  Perhaps we should create a list of all the people heavily involved in Joseph's creations of scripture, and then we could rate and rank the scriptures produced for legitimacy based on the people involved in their production?   

 

 

He was referring to the introduction and explanation of the JST published by the Church in the scriptures, as seen here:

 

Quote

The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the King James Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding.

Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any other Bible translation in the world. In this sense, the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/introduction.html?lang=eng

 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Gervin said:

This.  If the production of the JST was called a "translation" but the authors made no acknowledgement of their use of outside books or commentaries, then it certainly bolsters the notion that the "translation" of the BOM likewise made use of external texts and writings (given the evidence and despite the claims of the translators).  Maybe this is already acknowledged by the Church and I'm behind the curve. 

Sounds more like you and hope are playing blind man's bluff with an elephant.  :pirate:

Link to comment

The Germans have a concept called Volksphilosophie, "People's Philosophy," which describes the phenomenon where folks on the street and the coffee houses and the board rooms absorb from their environment certain concepts and notions from the Intelligentsia, dumbed down and in many cases highly altered from the original.  Volksphilosophie imbues day-to-day life and much of what we today say and believe and argue about comes from identifiable sources.  Those sources affect the language, vocabulary, and arguments of folk on the street.

JSJr's mis en scene was a place and time where cutting edge Protestant disagreements and scholarship were being broadcast and bandied about by barely educated travelling padres.  Their language, vocabulary and arguments necessarily make it into JSJr's work, whether that work be translation, revelatory, or oratory.  The stuff was in the air and water. 

We'll have to see what comes of this research, but we must be careful about making broadjumps where Volksphilosophie, the potentially simpler and more direct way of accounting for phenomena, will do the trick.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The JST footnotes and endnotes are just like any other notes accompanying the canonical text.  They are helps and clarifications, but not canonical.  They are very recent insertions (in the last actual edition).  There are likely LDS members just like you who see them as canonical, but we don't know what the percentage might be without taking a poll.  The Book of Moses is an independent production, and not an integral part of the JST, which is why it was made part of the Holy Canon (same for JS-Matthew).  Unlike those items, almost all of the JST was produced by Smith and Rigdon by taking an 1828 Phinney KJV Bible and making marginal changes as they read through it.  That Phinney Bible still exists, with the changes intact.

 

Just so we're all clear, this is what the Church teaches about the veracity and origin of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.  If anyone goes to the Church website and looks at Church publications and manuals to find out where it comes from and how trustworthy it is, this is what they will find:

Quote

A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible in English, which the Prophet Joseph Smith began in June 1830. He was commanded by God to make the translation and regarded it as part of his calling as a prophet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although it is not the official Bible of the Church, this translation does offer many interesting insights and is very valuable in understanding the Bible. It is also a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/joseph-smith-translation-jst?lang=eng

 

Quote

Joseph’s translation was not carried out in the traditional sense. He didn’t consult Greek and Hebrew texts or use lexicons to create a new English version. Rather, he used the King James Version of the Bible as his starting point and made additions and changes as he was directed by the Holy Ghost.

Although Joseph made many minor grammatical corrections and modernized some language, he was less concerned with these technical improvements than he was with restoring, through revelation, important truths not included in the contemporary Bible.

https://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-joseph-smith-translation-bible?lang=eng

 

Quote

In 1830 Joseph Smith began working on a correct translation of the Bible. Sidney Rigdon was his scribe. In preparing this translation of the Bible, Joseph was not translating from an ancient language, as he did with the Book of Mormon, but was restoring the Bible to its original meaning. As Joseph studied and pondered the Bible, he was inspired through the power of the Holy Ghost to correct errors in it.

https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-5-doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history/lesson-20?lang=eng

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I find the history around the JST and the LDS church's relationship with the RLDS church quite interesting on this subject.  It seems to me that the bad blood between the two institutions is more to blame for the LDS church's reluctance to canonize the JST, more than any other reasons.  We've canonized many other things after Joseph died, things that he spent much less time and effort producing than the JST.  We've even decanonized things that were canonized in Joseph's life and under his direction, like the Lectures on Faith.  Canon is a powerful distinction because it is what the institution designates as the official authoritative works for the church, but recognizing that this is just an arbitrary and changing definition over time is important.  

It seems to me that a prophet’s time and effort would be a poor measure for weighing whether to canonize his words. Do you have examples where this was the case? I’m not getting what definition you consider to be arbitrary and changing that would otherwise favor time and effort as the strongest variables to consider, but do you have examples where the prophet arbitrarily proposed new canon to be sustained and approved by common consent?

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The JST footnotes and endnotes are just like any other notes accompanying the canonical text.  They are helps and clarifications, but not canonical.  They are very recent insertions (in the last actual edition).  There are likely LDS members just like you who see them as canonical, but we don't know what the percentage might be without taking a poll.  The Book of Moses is an independent production, and not an integral part of the JST, which is why it was made part of the Holy Canon (same for JS-Matthew).  

I would be interested in seeing a poll result on LDS members opinions about the JST.  For your statement that the Book of Moses and JS-Matthew were independent productions, do you have any material to support that assertion?  I thought they were just part JST bible project, but I'm open to seeing the evidence otherwise.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Rigdon was a trained minister.  He was not Joseph's scribe.  He was a full participant in that process, and he was the primary writer of the Lectures on Faith.

This is getting more confusing unfortunately.  Is it Rigdon's prior background as a minister that causes you to discount the JST?  According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Rigdon was called specifically as a scribe to assist Joseph in the production of the JST.  

Quote

Rigdon, along with Edward Partridge, a young hatter who was interested in Mormonism, left almost immediately for Fayette, New York, to meet Joseph Smith. After their arrival, a revelation to Joseph commended Rigdon for his previous service, but called him to "a greater work," including that of scribe to the Prophet on his "new translation" of the Bible then under way (D&C 35; see also Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST)]). In December 1830, Smith, with Rigdon's help, worked on the manuscript that eventually became the seventh and eighth chapters of the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price.

Does his help with the Lectures on Faith (all of which were canonized and approved by Joseph Smith) bother you somehow?  Do you consider the scriptures produced while Rigdon was involved not to be revelatory, or do you just value it less than scriptures produced with others assisting. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The RLDS Inspired Revision is mostly a product of human efforts to clarify the biblical text, but (like the Amplified Bible) is not an actual translation.  Only small parts of it (JS - Matt, and Moses) are actually revelatory in nature.  They would have been better off employing modern Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scholarship to produce an improved translation -- which has already been done by others anyhow.

What's so different about the JST production that wasn't also human about the BoA or BoM productions?  What makes the JS - Matthew and Moses elements revelatory?  You earlier called me out for conflating canon and revelation, and now it looks like you're confusing the terms.  They are canon, but what makes them revelation in your opinion?  And what excludes other portions of the JST as revelation in your mind?  You seem to be taking subjective opinions and treating them as objective facts.  I think we can agree on how canon is defined by the church.  I'm having a harder time understanding your seeming disdain for Rigdon's involvement as well as your seeming blanket acceptance that whatever the LDS institution has canonized is automatically revelatory, and whatever they've selectively not canonized is not revelation.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't agree at all, although I don't mind scholarly efforts to find sources used by Rigdon & Smith.  Those factors are completely unrelated to production of the BofM and BofA.

If you want to study Joseph Smith and his production of scripture, studying all of his efforts in this vein seems to be important. He didn't transform into a different person when he produced a section in the D&C, vs. BoA, vs. JST.  Its all related, which is a point made in the paper linked in the OP.  

Link to comment

"Someone on this board made the unsupported statement that most LDS members think the JST is revelatory in nature..."

I think age probably has a lot to do with opinion on this.  Those of us who remember when it was not included in the scriptures and some of the commentary on what the RLDS might have done to it might be more cautious in putting it on level with The Book of Mormon.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Gervin said:

This.  If the production of the JST was called a "translation" but the authors made no acknowledgement of their use of outside books or commentaries, then it certainly bolsters the notion that the "translation" of the BOM likewise made use of external texts and writings (given the evidence and despite the claims of the translators).  Maybe this is already acknowledged by the Church and I'm behind the curve. 

I don't think the church officially acknowledges anything of the sort.  Traditional correlated teachings don't get into the complexities of the production efforts of the JST or any other scriptures.  By the power of God is the explanation typically given from official sources, although the church's essay on the BoA should be reviewed if you haven't read it yet.  It essentially gives a multitude of choices for how someone might consider the production of the BoA taking place, including the so called catalyst theory.  

I think many members would be surprised to know that Joseph was borrowing from material in his surrounding environment to produce these texts.  The most common apologetic that I see used by regular members is this idea that Joseph couldn't possibly have produced these things without divine supernatural intervention, and that Joseph was an uneducated farm boy.  

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No, it isn't.

Of course it is.  D&C 76 was a joint vision.  The BoC was edited by an assigned committed as they prepared to publish the 1835 D&C.  Oliver was intimately involved in many texts, and so were others throughout the early church.  Many people were involved.  

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

They may be considered canonical by you, but that simply indicates that you are misinformed.  How many others share that false view is unknown without an appropriate poll.

Its your opinion against mine.  At least I'm not pretending that my opinion is superior while also maligning yours.  The condescending tone can get a little tiresome.  

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your personal belief here is erroneous.  We do not actually know what the average member thinks without a poll.  However, erroneous beliefs do not make something canonical.  That requires a vote in General Conference.

My personal belief here is not erroneous.  Its my observation based on personal experience.  Its also not backed up by any empirical data (I never claimed it was), and neither is your opinion backed up by any data. 

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Elder McConkie's quote speaks for itself, and should be easily understood.

I didn't understand why you used it, which is why I asked what your point is.  Sounds like you don't want to answer, which is your prerogative.  

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

He was referring to the introduction and explanation of the JST published by the Church in the scriptures, as seen here:

 

 

 

Interesting, thanks for sharing this.  Sounds like the introduction is calling the JST revelation.  I think thats interesting and certainly illustrative of how average members would also characterize the JST.  

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Someone on this board made the unsupported statement that most LDS members think the JST is revelatory in nature..."

I think age probably has a lot to do with opinion on this.  Those of us who remember when it was not included in the scriptures and some of the commentary on what the RLDS might have done to it might be more cautious in putting it on level with The Book of Mormon.

I think this is a good point.  I'm too young to have been privy to the back and forth disagreements between the two groups.  (I'm in my early 40s).  There is some historical baggage that I've read about, but haven't experienced.  I wonder if this would influence any poll about whether members would consider the JST to be canon or not.  I perhaps older members would have a lower percentage than younger members.  

Link to comment
20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 Lastly once people completely shed their supernatural beliefs, then they can realize that old ways of believing how the universe works, including superstition and magic, contradict our modern knowledge.  We need to own up to the present, and reformulate religious thinking to not conflict with actual empirical evidence.  I think this can be done without completely throwing out religion, but it requires a redefinition of many things including revelation, prophets and scripture, and a discarding of supernatural thinking.  

I think the Church is a wonderful example of this balance of attitude.

Does the recognition and admission that the explanations of some phenomena are beyond the current scientific understanding or the currently recognized laws of nature (isn’t this why scientists do what they do, because they embrace their ignorance?) constitute supernatural thinking?

Can you identify any supernatural thinking in the following definitions?

Revelation: https://www.lds.org/topics/revelation?lang=eng

Prophets: https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

Scripture: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/scripture

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems to me that a prophet’s time and effort would be a poor measure for weighing whether to canonize his words. Do you have examples where this was the case? I’m not getting what definition you consider to be arbitrary and changing that would otherwise favor time and effort as the strongest variables to consider, but do you have examples where the prophet arbitrarily proposed new canon to be sustained and approved by common consent?

Interesting, why wouldn't time and effort be factors in determining what is worthy of canonization?  Maybe the fact that we have canonized scripture talking about the commandment to Joseph to translate the bible, should also be considered.  If not, what factors would you use?    We have many revelations that Joseph made that were never canonized.  We also have revelations that are canonized that were never intended for canonization by Joseph.  

When they canonized multiple D&C sections in the late 1800s, what criteria did they use to canonize these sections and who determined what would be included and what would be left out?  I know Orson Pratt was heavily involved in that project, but I don't know specifics about criteria used.  

Link to comment
23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Awfully snarky & condescending. I suppose we can be certain that evidence Joseph plagiarized the commentary into an "inspired translation" would not affect the way you attend church regularly and pay a full tithe.

And you would be right, Heavenly Father saving my wife's life trumps   supposed  evidence. of lies by Joseph Smith.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

And you would be right, Heavenly Father saving my wife's life trumps   supposed  evidence. of lies by Joseph Smith.

I hope you don't believe that God only saves the lives of those who attend church and pay tithing.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I hope you don't believe that God only saves the lives of those who attend church and pay tithing.

Knowing Rod I am pretty certain he only meant he is heart and soul committed to the Gospel, not that such earned his wife such a blessing.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I hope you don't believe that God only saves the lives of those who attend church and pay tithing.

 

this is what I was thinking too.  That so many people are saved each day may not have anything to do with Joseph Smith.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Knowing Rod I am pretty certain he only meant he is heart and soul committed to the Gospel, not that such earned his wife such a blessing.

Thank you. I'm in a hurry to get back to work.and i am a lousy communicator which is why I have posted any thing in a long time.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Of course it is.  D&C 76 was a joint vision.  The BoC was edited by an assigned committed as they prepared to publish the 1835 D&C.  Oliver was intimately involved in many texts, and so were others throughout the early church.  Many people were involved.  

non sequitur.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its your opinion against mine.  At least I'm not pretending that my opinion is superior while also maligning yours.  The condescending tone can get a little tiresome.  

My personal belief here is not erroneous.  Its my observation based on personal experience.  Its also not backed up by any empirical data (I never claimed it was), and neither is your opinion backed up by any data. 

I didn't understand why you used it, which is why I asked what your point is.  Sounds like you don't want to answer, which is your prerogative.  

invincible ignorance.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...