You Must Not Add To The Bible

[selek]

Surely you understand the English language. It is mundane to you because you have answered it numerous times. Wrongly, in my opinion, but adequately. That's all.

If memory (and Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary) serves, "mundane' means "of, relating, to, or characteristic of the world" and "characterized by the practical, transitory, and ordinary". As such, this tired old chestnut does not qualify as mundane. "Passe' " perhaps, might apply, or even "gauche"- but not "mundane".

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Though you know how suspect you LDS are.

"Suspect"? Have I (or any one else on these boards) ever deliberately told you a falsehood?

Granted, we all subscribe to irony, hyperbole, and even occasionally, sarcasm.

But, "suspect"?

You wound me!

[Zakuska]

Ever read how wide the Divide.

This argument bit the dust a LONG time ago.

[auteur55]

I heard this argument on the doorsteps of Australia on a daily basis.

It got old real quick.

Two years trying to defend polygamy, priesthood ban and explain the way the Bible was compiled had its high and it's low points.

And not much inbetween.

[BCSpace]

Feel free!

I think that will a little image modification, you could come up with some great alterations on it - like the one BCSpace suggested.

Done! Though I seem to be missing the Barad-dur....

[Scott Gordon]

If I may modestly suggest a short article I wrote on the subject a few years ago.

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/AddOrTake.pdf

[selek]

If I may modestly suggest a short article I wrote on the subject a few years ago.

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/AddOrTake.pdf

Scott, don't you know it's guache to tout your own work!?

You and DCP need to sit down and have a long talk!

I've got a new wo-ord! I've got a new word!

[Hoops22]

If memory (and Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary) characteristic of the world" and "and ordinary".

This, of course, is what I meant. I think I"m still on target.

Since we haven't talked in a while, I'll be clear.

Of course I don't think anyone here has deliberately told a falsehood. I chose "suspect" because it is one of the few words that categorically does NOT apply. Just jabbin' atcha. I find the cast of characters here quite interesting, but dishonest? no.

You of course, are the exception that proves the rule. No falsehoods from you but to call you interesting would be to diffuse the word of its entire meaning.

Kidding you again!! Did you note the Darth Vapid picture above? Hasn't anything changed in the last few months?

[jwhitlock]

Surely you understand the English language. It is mundane to you because you have answered it numerous times. Wrongly, in my opinion, but adequately. That's all.

I don't consider this a game. Do you?

You can see selek's post correcting of your misunderstanding of the word "mundane". He covers it fairly well; I don't consider the OP mundane.

Methinks you protest too much about the word games you really play.

At any rate, the OP and its lack of quality does speak for itself; it is instructive to see the word games critics play in such cases to try to deflect the criticism back onto the Mormons themselves.

[Scott Gordon]

Scott, don't you know it's guache to tout your own work!?

You and DCP need to sit down and have a long talk!

I've got a new wo-ord! I've got a new word!

Of course it is! But then Dan and I are both Mormon apologists, so guache is probably one of the more positive terms used to describe us.

[jwhitlock]

Done! Though I seem to be missing the Barad-dur....

Post it and let's see what we've got to look forward to...

[BCSpace]

Done! Though I seem to be missing the Barad-dur....

Post it and let's see what we've got to look forward to...

A little of the dark side though I haven't been able to find an animated one yet. I could go just like the movie, but I fear an army of lawyers issuing from the gates of Minas Morgul.

[jwhitlock]

A little of the dark side though I haven't been able to find an animated one yet. I could go just like the movie, but I fear an army of lawyers issuing from the gates of Minas Morgul.

Ya gotta have the movement on it; that makes all the difference. Do you have the software to do .gif animations?

[BCSpace]

Ya gotta have the movement on it; that makes all the difference. Do you have the software to do .gif animations?

Alas no. Anything freeware?

[Jersey Girl]

Feel free!

I think that will a little image modification, you could come up with some great alterations on it - like the one BCSpace suggested.

The picture of this board dominated by all kinds of bizarre little eyeballs searching around would not only fuel most of the critics' preconceived notions that we Mormons are weird - it would drive the mods to distraction.

But I'm not going to tell anyone what to do...

Oh, I already tried to steal it but got exactly nowhere.

[hearserve]

The last few verses of the Bible clearly state that, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Why then did you add the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?

Hi Samova,

I would be very interested in hearing your response to what was presented in response to your opening post. You were interested in hearing those responses, weren't you? Were they in any way informative, or even persuasive? What prompted you to post that question? Samova? Are you there? Hello, Samova? Yoo-Hoo Samova, we're waiting to hear back from you. Please.

[jwhitlock]

Alas no. Anything freeware?

See if Gimp would work for you. You can get it at www.gimp.org.

[Hoops22]

You can see selek's post correcting of your misunderstanding of the word "mundane". He covers it fairly well; I don't consider the OP mundane.

Methinks you protest too much about the word games you really play.

At any rate, the OP and its lack of quality does speak for itself; it is instructive to see the word games critics play in such cases to try to deflect the criticism back onto the Mormons themselves.

Mr. Selek is free to correct me any time he feels the need. And I will listen to him. On this point, however, I have used the word correctly and had chosen it carefully.

If you wish to disregard the OP because it lacks your predetermined "quality" that is your prerogative. However, I don't play word games. I try to write what I mean as clearly as possible. Though I may fail, that is my intention. As happens too often, the defenses/professions here are above the silly questions brought by those who may be earnestly seeking an answer. Of course, you are free to choose what is beneath your sharpened and complex thinking.

[jwhitlock]

Oh, I already tried to steal it but got exactly nowhere.

I use Firefox; you should be able to right click on the avatar in any of my posts and save it as a .gif file.

From there, you can use an image modification program to juice it up any way you want, and then you can upload it to the board in the usual manner.

[cjcampbell]

I see, the OP asked a question, mundane though it may be, and that is considered an attack. OF course, all of you are able to read "attack" into anything you wish, and often do. But, be that as it may, the language then used to castigate a huge portion of Christendom becomes acceptable?

Curiouser and curiouser.

I did not consider the OP's post an attack. The fact is, 'Christianity' suppressed the Bible for more than 1000 years, forbade, on pain of death, the common people from reading it, and killed anyone who tried to translate it, print it, or distribute it. When they could not do that, they simply created a limited 'approved' version and a creed that superseded it.

The whole point was to bring the Church under political control. Politicians and priests and scholars cannot control prophets. Prophets are regarded by the establishment as dangerous loose cannons, so it was important to declare that the heavens were closed and that there were no prophets.

When the gospel was restored, 'Christianity' resorted to all kinds of bogus arguments that would have shocked the writers of the Bible. 'Christianity' elevated the Bible above the revealed word of God, making an idol of the Bible, and it fought against the will of God in order to maintain political and doctrinal control of the Church. 'Christianity,' which should have celebrated the restoration of the gospel, instead reverted to the patterns it had already followed for more than a millennium, persecuting and attempting to suppress those whom it could not control.

They would have burned Joseph Smith at the stake if they could. They did eventually kill him. 'Christianity,' given the opportunity, would put every 'Mormon' to the sword and burn every copy of 'Mormon' scriptures. These people have not changed at all in over 2000 years. They have always acted like this and the always will.

We are not out to destroy 'Christianity.' We allow all men to worship as the please. It would be real nice if the favor was returned, but so far it has not.

[jwhitlock]

Mr. Selek is free to correct me any time he feels the need. And I will listen to him. On this point, however, I have used the word correctly and had chosen it carefully.

If you wish to disregard the OP because it lacks your predetermined "quality" that is your prerogative. However, I don't play word games. I try to write what I mean as clearly as possible. Though I may fail, that is my intention. As happens too often, the defenses/professions here are above the silly questions brought by those who may be earnestly seeking an answer. Of course, you are free to choose what is beneath your sharpened and complex thinking.

Still playing the word games.

Disregard the OP? Now that's a new introduction; I don't believe I ever said that.

Earnestly seeking an answer? Do you really think that was what the OP was doing? Please.

Sharpened and complex thinking? You really shouldn't try to project the way you envision yourself onto me.

Word games are played in order to give a false impression about something. Trying to downplay the intention and inference of the OP is indeed a word game, though you decline to recognize it as such.

[Hoops22]

I did not consider the OP's post an attack. The fact is, 'Christianity' suppressed the Bible for more than 1000 years, forbade, on pain of death, the common people from reading it, and killed anyone who tried to translate it, print it, or distribute it. When they could not do that, they simply created a limited 'approved' version and a creed that superseded it.

The whole point was to bring the Church under political control. Politicians and priests and scholars cannot control prophets. Prophets are regarded by the establishment as dangerous loose cannons, so it was important to declare that the heavens were closed and that there were no prophets.

When the gospel was restored, 'Christianity' resorted to all kinds of bogus arguments that would have shocked the writers of the Bible. 'Christianity' elevated the Bible above the revealed word of God, making an idol of the Bible, and it fought against the will of God in order to maintain political and doctrinal control of the Church. 'Christianity,' which should have celebrated the restoration of the gospel, instead reverted to the patterns it had already followed for more than a millennium, persecuting and attempting to suppress those whom it could not control.

They would have burned Joseph Smith at the stake if they could. They did eventually kill him. 'Christianity,' given the opportunity, would put every 'Mormon' to the sword and burn every copy of 'Mormon' scriptures. These people have not changed at all in over 2000 years. They have always acted like this and the always will.

We are not out to destroy 'Christianity.' We allow all men to worship as the please. It would be real nice if the favor was returned, but so far it has not.

I don't even know where to begin with this. I haven't counted but it could be that every sentence contains a distortion, bias, misconception, or outright falsehood (though unintentional). But considering your first response, this will be as it is.

Do you honestly believe this? Maybe my sarcasm radar is on the fritz.

[Hoops22]

Still playing the word games.

Disregard the OP? Now that's a new introduction; I don't believe I ever said that.

Earnestly seeking an answer? Do you really think that was what the OP was doing? Please.

Sharpened and complex thinking? You really shouldn't try to project the way you envision yourself onto me.

Word games are played in order to give a false impression about something. Trying to downplay the intention and inference of the OP is indeed a word game, though you decline to recognize it as such.

I make no claim of having superior thinking skills, but you do. In that the OP's question is beneath your time and degree of learning.

Same tired, old, non-critically thought out questions.

I made no qualitative assessment of the OP, other than to write that you may consider it mundane, which is up to you.

[cjcampbell]

I don't even know where to begin with this. I haven't counted but it could be that every sentence contains a distortion, bias, misconception, or outright falsehood (though unintentional). But considering your first response, this will be as it is.

Do you honestly believe this? Maybe my sarcasm radar is on the fritz.

Show me even one distortion or falsehood. Calling me a liar does not make me a liar. Prove me wrong.

[Hoops22]

'Christianity,' given the opportunity, would put every 'Mormon' to the sword and burn every copy of 'Mormon' scriptures.

I did not call you a liar. You are simply mistaken.

[jwhitlock]

I make no claim of having superior thinking skills, but you do. In that the OP's question is beneath your time and degree of learning.

Same tired, old, non-critically thought out questions.

I made no qualitative assessment of the OP, other than to write that you may consider it mundane, which is up to you.

From my statement of "Same tired, old, non-critically thought out questions", you move on to make claims that I think:

I have superior thinking skills.

The question is beneath my time.

The question is beneath my degree of learning.

And you claim to not play games. Really. Your omniscience of being able to know my motivations is stunning.

And the word games continue: "I made no qualitative assessment of the OP" - of course, your statement of it as "silly questions brought by those who may be earnestly seeking an answer" doesn't really count - even if the first part of it was possibly meant facetiously.

Well, I'm done for the evening. Good night.