Jump to content

Robert F. Smith

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18,406 Excellent


About Robert F. Smith

  • Rank
    Declares a Day of Rest

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They are all equal in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the law. If you are declaring that there are noble and great ones, fine, but that does not mean that they are given any sort of leg up. Why? Because where much is given, much is expected. There is no advantage to those who had a silver spoon their mouth. That only means that the test will be harder. And the opposite is true: Those who are born disabled may not even have to compete at all. D&C 130:20-21, "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
  2. Many people find the mere existence of the Book of Mormon preposterous, without even considering these new problems. On paper or vellum one can of course erase a mistake, or at least insert a correction in the margin or above the line. If the BofM plates were made of tumbaga, however, that might obviate any sort of erasure, and we actually have evidence of such a glaring error, as discovered by Grant Hardy[1] -- made when Mormon was engraving, not when Joseph's scribe was copying: This is the proper order restored. Alma 13:16, which clearly should have been inserted immed
  3. Cain was zero percent Perdition in pre-mortal life. You repeatedly wrest those same words. You are assuming what has to be proved. Jesus, just like Cain, had to be able to fail, had to have the same free agency as everyone else. The test had to be real. Otherwise His atonement would have been valueless. That is the NT doctrine of kenosis (Philipp 2:7). No guarantee that He would succeed. That was always the lie told against Black people, who were so frequently accused of not being valiant in premortality. That was always false doctrine.
  4. That is why a couple of guys on this board (Rajah Manchou and JarMan) suggest that a 16th or 17th century scholar composed the Book of Mormon based on then available information.
  5. Yes, that's what a scholar did when the Moabite Mesha Stone was found. It was particularly valuable when the Arabs who owned the stone decided to bust it up in order to make more money by selling it in pieces. However, we do have the Caractors Document:
  6. That's just the point: It isn't possible for Joseph to have worked out things on the fly, even with a Harvard PhD, and full access to the library. The complexities described by Grant Hardy make that impossible. Carmack compared Joseph's linguistic production (his holographs) with the grammar of the BofM. They are not similar.
  7. And yet, despite his current favor for the early 19th century sources for the Book of Mormon, in his Joseph Smith biography Richard Bushman took a hard look at this typical, oft-repeated claim and found it wanting. Bushman termed the Book of Mormon “almost postmodern in its self-conscious attention to the production of the text” (87), thus, by implication, lending itself well to analysis via the Documentary Hypothesis. Instead of the vast numbers of parallels claimed by anti-Mormons, Bushman shows how out-of-synch the BofM is with then contemporary thought: “the American story does not contr
  8. Some people claim that it is possible to pin down which edition of the KJV was actually used in the BofM. That would pretty much negate the notion of "superhuman feats of memory" which have been suggested. Moreover, there is no hint of rural 19th century syntax, but rather Early Modern English of several centuries before. Finally, the internal complexity of the text has led some, like Grant Hardy, to conclude that it could not have been a mere off-the-top-of-the-head composition. I have compiled a great many editorial techniques used in the creation of the text which make it clear that the
  9. You've highlighted those words before, and seem unable to understand that they do not state what you claim. You are interpreting them without benefit of the surrounding verses. All of us know that personality may be unique to each of us, but you are suggesting predestination not free agency. As though Cain had to go the wrong way. Yet any of us might go the wrong way. No one was neutral in Heaven. All took sides: All of us here took the correct side.
  10. Moses 5:24, "For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world," does not say what you claim. You are wresting scripture by taking it out of the context of surrounding verses, which say "the Lord said unto Cain: ...If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted, And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire." If he is already lost, why does the Lord make
  11. I reject that claim, and know of no reason to support it.
  12. No, I had no idea. So the joke is on me for innocently thinking that there actually will be sequels?
  13. I opted for cosmological balance under natural law -- which God Himself must obey. However, there is a guy online who claims that the LDS Church charges a membership fee for access to the Celestial Kingdom (in monetary terms, the full tithing which must be paid for access to temple and temple rites).
  14. Yes, we might define a seerstone as a crystalline virtual-state transducer with a light-emitting diode (LED) display, i.e., a solid-state semi-conductor which emits visible electromagnetic radiation in response to stimulating voltage. Indeed, the Nephite “Interpreters” are originally two stones molten from rock (Ether 3:1-6,22-24,28, 4:5), so that it might be well to note the recent development of solid state batteries, using solid glass electrolytes:
  15. I got the chance to fire a BAR when I was in Marine infantry. Slow and methodical.
  • Create New...