An Angel Of Light

[MormonMason]

You quoted the same book that I have, how can you trust the quote that you provided? If seems hypocritical to blame me from quoting a book that you yourself quote, even if it is only the preface of the book.

This is the book that you quoted from, the same exact book that I have at home.

I can trust what I provided because I went through the preface and marked it up pretty well as I checked with my own eyes to make sure that the sources were accurate. I also altered the references to match up with most references of the LDS Church so as to facilitate the rest of my family's being able to look things up, should they ever decide to use the text. They know it contains errors as I have pointed them out from time to time. To date, however, none of my family besides my self has ever used this book for any reason--not even to consult it for anything.

The citation from the letter is accurate. I have checked and compared it with other sources containing the same text and find it accurate. That is why I can use it. Your use is hypocritical because you use it to castigate people for rejecting what it contains when it is not even a book binding in any way upon members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! That is the difference between you and me.

Further, you keep quoting from it and referencing it as "the JST" when, properly speaking, it is NOT the JST contained in the footnotes of the official LDS version of the KJV Bible! That is the JST members are familiar with and think you are referencing when you quote from the "JST", NOT what you actually are quoting.

Now, that said, it is true that the term JST has been applied to the New Translation or Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible. Even some few of the LDS Bible edition footnotes do that. But, you also have to keep in mind that the footnotes were not done by one person. They were done by hundreds of people from all over the country. Not all of them are accurate and they are not considered by the leaders of the Church to be official canon of the Church. They are helps and nothing more. Their value varies based upon who did them.

This is the second time that you have implied from your writing that I was never a member. Do you believe that I was never a member of the LDS church, or is it your way to give me a backhanded jab? In your answer please remember your own advice that "we appreciate it more when people are completely honest with us."

I do it because you post in such a way that shows that you had a very limited understanding of what LDS believe and teach, or even may not have been a member at all except in name, much like Sandra Tanner. It makes one wonder whether you really ever were a member or whether you really never paid attention to what you were taught, or even whether you believed a lot of the Mormon folklore out there rather than what the Church actually taught and teaches. This is why we keep questioning your honesty. Do I think you are a member? I am not so sure. If you were, you were not as knowledgeable of Church doctrine as you have tried to lead people to believe here.

In point of fact, there have been liars who have come here claiming to have been members, only for us to find out later that the person was lying to us the whole time. When you start spouting off stuff that sounds a lot like what they posted, how on earth do you expect us to believe you? Think on this for a while. You have to try to understand where we are coming from when we accuse you of being less than fully honest.

As far as owning a LDS Bible, yes I do own one. It is marked up heavily from my missionary days (IF I really did go on a mission).

OK. Good. Please start using it when you discuss the JST with us, because that is where the JST that most members of the Church think of when they hear the term JST may be found, if your Bible was printed in or after 1979. Check what you have. If page 1190 of your Bible looks exactly like the one I post below, you have the official LDS edition of the Bible. If not, you might want to go get one so you can at least look like you know what you are talking about when you refer us to a passage in the JST. I have seen them in paperback and other formats in Deseret Industry stores I have visited in the recent past for between $1.00 and $5.00.

Why do active members of the LDS church, including members of my own family, continue to rely on the JST book like the one printed by the Herald Publishing House the exact same book that YOU quoted, if that book is not reliable as you say? And why on earth does the BYU Bookstore sell this book if what you say is accurate that the many changes were not by Joseph Smith? This make absolutely no sense to me at all, because it is providing false information to it's members. Maybe you should call the BYU Bookstore at recommend that they discontinue to sell this book, if they haven't done so already.

I would say it is because they don't know any better, Billy. For the record, I know very few Latter-day Saints who actually have this book, much less use it. It is a rarety amongst those I know. Most never use it. Regardless, I have made the attempt in the past to get bookstores to know problems with certain books and that they need either to get an update or remove the book entirely. They never did.

Let me tell you something, Billy. A bookstore is in business to make money. So long as there is any demand for the book it will show up on the shelves of the BYU bookstore, just as it will elsewhere. It is economics and it is just that simple. Aside from this, have you really gone around and actually looked around the bookstore to see what is there? I have. They sell a lot of stuff relating to a lot of subjects. I have seen good stuff and I have seen crapola. I have seen everything in between as well. I also have been to the BYU bookstore a number of times in my life, including once in the not too distant past.

And, for the record, I do not rely on the content of the book. I have a typescript of the original manuscripts! Why would I have to rely upon such a printed work as the one we are discussing in this sub-thread? I have never even bothered to buy a newer, corrected edition of the Inspired Version for just that reason, although I may do so later for convenience. But whenever I ever make a claim that Joseph Smith translated something, I look first at my typescript to confirm that Joseph Smith indeed did translate that portion. That is just common sense.

Also, please use terminology properly so that there will be no room for error in what we mean. You keep referring to Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible as though it were the JST. It is not. Please refer to the book's actual title or its proper abbreviation if you wish to continue using it. Also, if you continue using it here you should know that if there is an error in what you are citing, if I see it I will take pains to point the error out to you.

The book, Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible is a side-by-side comparison of the KJV and Inspired Version Bibles in portions of the text where the two differ from one another. Neither the book of this title nor the Inspired Version are the JST members of the Church refer to when they speak of such things. The JST most English-speaking members of the Church are acquainted with is comprised of an Appendix of excerpts too large to be inserted into the footnotes and the footnotes containing text from the Inspired Version Bible. The footnotes may or may not contain fully accurate information. Please try to remember that in future.

The unfortunate reality is that neither of these tell us just where Joseph Smith did and did not make alterations to the text. The footnotes of the JST and the appendix do try to point out differences by using italics but that simply is not enough. The book we have been discussing contains errors as I have said and has no mechanism to check where Joseph Smith actually made changes to anything. The only way one can know that is by either actually having access to the manuscripts themselves, having copies or photos, or by obtaining a typescript or printed edition of the manuscripts. If you buy or use the Inspired Version or the derivative work, Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible, you get not only what Joseph Smith worked on but you also get the errors of the editors and the verse divisions and insertions of text that the RLDS Church/CoC placed into the publication when they inserted material from the Phinney Bible to fill in what Joseph Smith did not so much as touch. They had to do that in order to have a more fully usable Bible but that masks what Joseph Smith actually did.

Am I correct in assuming that you also have the Herald House's Holy Scriptures: Inspired Version as well? I assume that because in a previous thread you made some time ago you mistakenly made mention that Joseph Smith "translated" the so-called Johannine Comma and left it identical to the KJV. Case in point, this is the very kind of error that one makes by assuming that the Inspired Version is the JST or was translated in its entirety by Joseph Smith.

Have I made my point clear yet? If you wish to make reference to the JST, please make sure you are referring to the footnotes and appendix in the official LDS edition of the Bible which you claim to possess marked up from your mission. Refer to the other books by their proper titles so we know what you are talking about and do not misread your actions in future. Ok?

[MormonMason]

You just are not getting it, Billy.

You make assertions about the Greek text and then tell us what is in it by your understanding. What do you want to call this your own assertions based not on YOUR translation, something you are making up in your own mind? Or are you making your assertions based on YOUR translation of the text? You can really twist things around.

Neither is the case, Billy. When I translate the text, I will tell you. When I make assertions about what is in the text, I also state what those assertions are. At times, I do provide the text and break it down but this is tedious for most readers here. I try to tailor my posts in such a way so that I can make a point and yet make it easy enough for people to understand what my point might be without having to spend time typing out detail for detail what most people will just skip over. If I did that with the text, I guarantee that you would skip over what I typed even more so than what you do now.

Please note that I also make reference to the text and encourage people to go check it out for themselves. That said, I here state that I do not need to make a translation of the text to know what it is doing, or how it is structured. One gains a feel for the text when one spends a lot of time with the text. That is all that is necessary--experience. I then share that experience and my observations on a given text by describing the tone of the text itself.

Translation into English cannot bring that out without considerably expanding the text beyond a word-on-word translation's capability. This is not coming up with stuff from one's own mind although, that, in reality is precisely what a translation is, Billy. The translator takes the basic meaning of the text and makes stuff up in his or her head to render it in such a way as to translate it into English. It is the only way in which we can get a translation--from our own heads. Then, others read what someone else made up in one's own head. How's that for subtle? Whether you believe it or not, it is the truth. If you could read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, you might know exactly what it is I am talking about, or if you have any experience translating from one language to another.

And, no, it is not me who is twisting things around. You are doing it. You know, if I didn't know better, I'd think your mind was like cement--all mixed up and permanently set!

I don't read Greek or Hebrew, and have no plans in the immediate future to do so.

I know you do not read it. You are forced to rely on an English translation that may or may not be correct. You also are forced to rely on faulty, craptacular commentaries like the one you cited above. And, you have zero idea that you are being misled thereby.

It is unfortunate that you do not plan to take the time to read the Bible in the tongues which have been preserved to us. Very unfortunate, indeed. I find that telling as well. The Bible is the only text you claim to rely yet you have no idea what it really says. You only know what other people tell you it says and then have to make a judgment as to which definitions you will have to follow. Well, I hope in future that you will take the time to learn. It will be worth your while because then you will be able to compare the existing Bible's manuscript readings for yourself and read the Dead Sea Scrolls versions of the Bible. That can be a real eye-opener to the careful reader!

Do you feel that all the experts in this field are incapable of making an accurate translation, and that only you can give us the nuances of the ancient text?

Not all translators are experts. Some definitely are. No, I make no claim that only I can give the nuances of the texts. You want to make that for me. But, frankly, because I can read these texts I do not need to appeal to authority on the issue. I can be my own authority, whether you wish to accept it or not.

Sometimes I do cite other translations because they are good enough as they stand. Surely you have seen that in my use of the NLT and TEV, have you not? Or, do you just conveniently forget about them when you want to try weakly to discredit my abilities? I have at my fingertips a number of translations of the texts. But, I am not bound by them as you are bound by them.

Now, I have repeatedly posted text above in going on three posts now, which you conveniently seem to keep ignoring. The scholars who worked on that text share my views on the subject--and no they were not Mormon, if you want to pull that old ad hominem argumentation on us here. Here is the commentary again, this time being given in a link to the posting where I posted it with a more correct transliteration of the Greek text.

Post containing posted text from commentary on Greek text

Please go back and re-read it again and again to get the point about this young man.

By the way, I think the reason you keep skipping over what I have posted above is that you mistakenly think that what I have posted is somehow my own translation of a text. If so, no, no, no. Transliteration is not translation. Just thought you should know that the two terms mean very different things. Translation is the conversion of text from one form to another, whether across languages or not. Transliteration is the conversion of another language's characters to English alphabetic characters. Here is an example of both using Jesus' response to the question "Are there few being saved?"

An example of transliteration (Luke 13:24):

Greek NT Text: ̉αγωνίζεσθε ε̉ισελθε̃ιν δὶα τ̃ης στεν̃ης θ́υρας, ·́οτι πολλοί, λ́εγω ύμιν, ζητ́ησουσιν ε̉ισελθε̃ιν κὰι ο̉υκ ̉ισχ́υσουσιν.

Transliteration: agōnizesthe eiselthein dia tēs stenēs thuras, hoti polloi, legō humin, zētēsousin eiselthein kai ouk iskhusousin.

I wanted to point out that my font does not seem to display correctly for the word hoti. I haven't figured out the problem with the Verdana font yet but it is supposed to represent the rough breathing mark. Anyway, now here are examples of translation.

Some examples of translation of Luke 13:24 (all translations by MormonMason):

Greek NT text: ̉αγωνίζεσθε ε̉ισελθε̃ιν δὶα τ̃ης στεν̃ης θ́υρας, ΄́οτι πολλοί, λ́εγω ύμιν, ζητ́ησουσιν ε̉ισελθε̃ιν κὰι ο̉υκ ̉ισχ́υσουσιν.

Word-on-word: Struggle to enter in through the narrow door, for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter in and shall not be able.

Thought-for-thought: Work hard to enter in through the narrow door, I tell you, because many shall seek to enter therein and shall not have the strength.

Expanded translation: "Work to the point of exhaustion to get yourselves into and through the narrow door," I am telling you, "because many people will seek to enter therein but shall not have strength enough to make it through."

Each translation of the Greek is quite correct in its own right. However, my expanded translation brings out the fullest meaning of the Greek sentence and the underlying meanings of the Greek words in their own cultural contexts. Such is not as apparent in a more or less literal word-on-word translation.

Just thought you should know the differences. One must first learn to read the text and then learn to get a feel for the nuances of the text. By the way, what do you think of Jesus' teaching about this? You have yet to answer.

Do you believe that Christ is all knowing? Don't you think that Christ knew ahead of time what the reaction would be by this rich ruler by what He said? Technically you are correct the the ruler went away on his own accord, but Christ knew by what he said what would happen.

No, I do not believe that Christ at that time was all-knowing. Even Jesus himself said that there were certain things he did not know. For instance, he did not know the timing of his own second coming!

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

(Mark 13:32, TNIV; bold emphasis mine)

There are examples in the scriptures of Jesus' being astonished and marvelling at people's reactions. Astonishment and wonderment are what are known as "surprise" reactions to external stimuli. One who is truly all-knowing in mortality cannot experience a surprise reaction, having already known in advance the outcome of the situation.

In addition, the Greek text of Matthew itself has Jesus express surprise at the man's reaction. There is much feeling behind Jesus' words after this episode. Jesus knew the man's heart and knew the potential reaction he could have. This I believe. But, the man had a choice and Jesus knew as much as well.

But, Jesus did not turn the man away. The man turned himself away. The offer of discipleship was genuine. The man's claims to having kept in his adolescence the commandments Jesus listed was genuine. It is for that very reason that Jesus loved and admired the man. There was genuine admiration there on the part of Jesus for the man. There would have been no such reaction had the man truly been there trying to boast.

Remember what he said and how he reacted when the Jews tried to boast that their father was Abraham? Come on, Billy, what was his reaction to their boasting? Now, try in vain to find such a reaction from Jesus here. As soon as the man said he kept the commandments, Jesus knew his heart AND LOVED HIM. He also knew there was one evil there lurking in his heart that was keeping him from moral perfection. He tested him then and there. The guy failed the test and turned himself away in genuine agony over what he had to decide. The text leaves it open as to what the rich man did afterward. We are not told. All that we know is that Jesus was upset at what happened. That much we can gather from the Greek text itself

You yourself know full well that when people's hearts were not right Jesus did not hesitate to let them know. None of the usual epithets used at those time are in evidence here. Your point, no matter how doggedly you wish to hold it in order to bolster a false theology and corrupt soteriology, does not stand.

So for different people there are different rules for exaltation. So do you have to sell everything and give everything to the poor? How about the LDS leaders, have any of the current leadership sold everything that they have and given it to the poor? If you say no, why not? (Recall that even in the law of consecration this was not even required)

We are not presently bound under the command at this time, so no. I have covenanted to consecrate everything I am and have to the building up of the kingdom of God and I am doing that. But the actual full law of consecration and stewardship of property is not in effect at this time. If it were and Jesus commanded me to do it but I refused, then in no case could I receive exaltation.

Have the leadership of the Church done so? I have never asked any of them, so I cannot say that I know the answer. But, that is between them and their God.

You keep forgetting that the article you reference is faulty. It leaves out the full details of the Law of Consecration and Stewardship of Property. Please make a note of it. Or, you can continue pretending I said nothing about it and keep quoting it deceptively. You will only add to the level of disdain that people begin to have for you when they think you are using deception.

You say "Jesus told him what he needed to do in order to reach relative moral perfection. . ." So this man needed moral perfection to become a disciple of Christ and for exaltation?

Yes, this man did. Tell me, Billy, if Jesus was standing in front of you right now, and he gave you a task to do that was not asked of anyone else, a task that you really did not want to do, would you do it anyway? If you did do it, you would be eligible for exaltation. If you refused, you would not, for you would then be showing your level of love for the Savior! "If ye love me, keep my commandments," the Savior said. Refusing to carry out your Savior's desires would affect your reward in heaven, Billy. Exaltation is a reward not a right.

By the way, you never gave me your reaction to Paul's teaching to Timothy regarding his command to the wealthy under his jurisdiction. What say you? Are you going to pull out another one of your craptacular commentaries?

[MormonMason]

Ok, I'm getting really tired of posting text only to have Billy skip it over each time thinking that it is my translation and intimating that I might be tinkering with the words. So, here are the pages from which I quoted in the commentary, both of which include additional context. This way, hopefully people will get the idea that I am not just pulling the stuff I say about the Greek text out of my rear-end.

Scan of p. 249 of volume 1 of The Expositor's Greek Testament.

Scan of p. 250 of volume 1 of The Expositor's Greek Testament.

And, now, I am headed back to bed...

[Cadizita]

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I think Paul was sexist. Really. Jesus loved and respected women, I doubt he would ever had said something like that. I have known other church leaders to be racist, etc. People have flaws. And yet, I know Paul was a disciple of Christ, just like my racist church leaders. People aren't perfect.

BTW, the reason Paul said this was because, just like now, more women were joining the church than men, and were growing increasingly strong, insomuch that they were taking over the church, with no regard to authority, so instead of equalling things out, Paul just shut them up. Thanks Paul. That coupled with the Catholic church's veneration/fear of the all-powerful Virgin (the feminine) put women in a real dark little corner for ages. Thank you Joseph Smith, Emma, and the RS for restoring to women much of what was lost!!

[Billy]

What we are told by the Greek of the passages is that he was not self-righteous. . .

Can you give me a translation, besides your own, that you got this one from?

I asked a simple question, is there a Biblical translation that backs up your point that this rich young ruler "was not self-righteous" as you stated?

Why do you think that no Biblical translation states that this man was not self-righteous as you said above?

Your answer to my question below did not answer my question. I did look through both scans that you provided and it was not in either of the two that you posted, but those are not translations so they would not count anyway.

Neither is the case, Billy. When I translate the text, I will tell you. When I make assertions about what is in the text, I also state what those assertions are. At times, I do provide the text and break it down but this is tedious for most readers here. I try to tailor my posts in such a way so that I can make a point and yet make it easy enough for people to understand what my point might be without having to spend time typing out detail for detail what most people will just skip over. If I did that with the text, I guarantee that you would skip over what I typed even more so than what you do now.

It is unfortunate that you do not plan to take the time to read the Bible in the tongues which have been preserved to us. Very unfortunate, indeed. I find that telling as well. The Bible is the only text you claim to rely yet you have no idea what it really says. You only know what other people tell you it says and then have to make a judgment as to which definitions you will have to follow.

Do you think that a person has to know Greek and Hebrew to be able to understand what the Bible is saying?

Do you think that a all powerful God would make it so difficult to understand the Bible that he would require that the believer would need to learn two new languages to get a proper understanding of the Bible?

Now, I have repeatedly posted text above in going on three posts now, which you conveniently seem to keep ignoring. The scholars who worked on that text share my views on the subject--and no they were not Mormon, if you want to pull that old ad hominem argumentation on us here. Here is the commentary again, this time being given in a link to the posting where I posted it with a more correct transliteration of the Greek text.

Scan of p. 249 of volume 1 of The Expositor's Greek Testament.

Scan of p. 250 of volume 1 of The Expositor's Greek Testament.

The fact that I don't comment on a specific part of your post does not necessarily mean that I am avoiding it, I have read it and I don't feel it makes your point. Am I surprised that a commentary that you post agrees with your postion? No, if it disagreed with your position you would not of posted it. You know as well as I do that posting a commentary that supports your position does not make it right, it only shows that the commentary supports what you believe. Just like the commentary that I posted does not necessarily make it right, it only shows that it supports my position. You called the commentary that I posted crapola, but I could say the same thing about your commentary. Ask several scholars a question and you are likely to get different answers. That being said, I do agree with some parts of what they said.

"At the worst see here the miscarriage of a really noble nature, and take care not to fall into the vulgar mistake of seeing in this man a Pharisee who came to tempt Jesus, and who in professing to have kept the commandments was simply a boastful liar." (W. Robertson Nicoll, Ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament [1961, Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Company], 1:249-250)

I agree with this in part, I don't think that he really thought he was lying and trying to trick Christ like the Pharasee were trying to do. I really think that he thought in his mind that he really was a good person and thought he really did keep all the rules. If you ask people on the street if they are good people, you will almost always here them say, "oh yea I am a good person". This is human nature to think you are a good person and often times think in your own mind that you are better than you really are. This is simply pride, it takes true humility to say that you are a sinner, and very few people are capable of this feat.

Luke 18

9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:

10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other menâ??robbers, evildoers, adulterersâ??or even like this tax collector.

12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

"It is not a question of one more thing to do, but of the state of the heart, which the suggestion to sell off will test. The invitation to become a disciple is seriously meant. " (W. Robertson Nicoll, Ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament [1961, Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Company], 1:249-250)

I also agree with this part of your reference, "but the state of the heart". Christ knew this man's heart, and I contend that he knew what choice he would choose, this last test was just a little push by Christ to help this man see himself a little bit more clearly.

Billy asks,

Do you believe that Christ is all knowing? Don't you think that Christ knew ahead of time what the reaction would be by this rich ruler by what He said?

MormonMason replies,

No, I do not believe that Christ at that time was all-knowing. Even Jesus himself said that there were certain things he did not know. For instance, he did not know the timing of his own second coming. . .Jesus knew the man's heart and knew the potential reaction he could have.

You speak of Christ here, "As soon as the man said he kept the commandments, Jesus knew his heart AND LOVED HIM."

If you do not believe that Christ is all knowing and has limitations, how can Christ know the man's heart and know if he was telling the truth?

John 1

48"How do you know me?" Nathanael asked. Jesus answered, "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you."

49Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."

What are some of Christ's other limitations?

[Billy]

Billy asks,

This is the second time that you have implied from your writing that I was never a member. Do you believe that I was never a member of the LDS church, or is it your way to give me a backhanded jab? In your answer please remember your own advice that "we appreciate it more when people are completely honest with us."

MormonMason,

I do it because you post in such a way that shows that you had a very limited understanding of what LDS believe and teach, or even may not have been a member at all except in name. . .This is why we keep questioning your honesty.

Can you give me some examples?

I think that the real reason that you bring this up is it indirectly attacks me by implying that I am dishonest, so that because I am dishonest I can't be trusted. This is modus operandi for you and others, a sort of natural reaction that I don't think that you have any real control over. As I have noted before (see post below) I have never touted myself as an expert, only as a member who grew up in the church.

Surely, you should have known these things if you had been even a nominal member of the Church as you have claimed elsewhere?

Nor did you give a real response to his prompting. I am in complete agreement with MormonMason's observations regarding your levels of understanding Mormonism for a former member.

T-Shirt states,

For someone who thinks he knows LDS beliefs so well, it is amazing just how far off you really are.

Billy replies,

I have never touted myself as an expert, only as a ex member who grew up in the church.

[Billy]

OK. Good. Please start using it when you discuss the JST with us, because that is where the JST that most members of the Church think of when they hear the term JST may be found, if your Bible was printed in or after 1979. Check what you have. If page 1190 of your Bible looks exactly like the one I post below, you have the official LDS edition of the Bible. If not, you might want to go get one so you can at least look like you know what you are talking about when you refer us to a passage in the JST. I have seen them in paperback and other formats in Deseret Industry stores I have visited in the recent past for between $1.00 and $5.00.

Page 1190--check--yep I have the same Bible, an official LDS Bible dated published 1983 Copyright 1979 by "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" You can ask me about some other pages if you like, I will leave my "official" Bible by the computer in case you want to double check with me.

I really don't get you. Do you seriously think that I do not have an "official" LDS Bible, even after I told you that I did in fact have one? I come from a multi-generational LDS family on both sides based in Utah, born and raised in the church, 4 years of seminary, several years at BYU including my required religion classes, then a full time mission, and after all that do you think I was carrying around a non LDS Bible? You have got to be kidding me.

Does this make me an expert on Mormonism? Absolutely not in the least. I would consider my knowledge about the LDS church to be about average. There is a lot of stuff about LDS history that I know about that other members may not know about, but I am absolutely sure that there is a lot of stuff that I have no idea about. The fact that I am wrong about things here and there does not surprise me at all. Does this mean that I am trying to be dishonest like you tried to paint me on multiple posts, absolutely not. I think that you overestimate the knowledge of the average LDS member. I have regular contact with very active LDS members and they often times have no idea about a basic subjects that are routinely brought up on this board. Test me on this point, go ask several members after church if they knew that Joseph Smith was married to other women who had living husbands at the time, and I bet you will get many different responses. Ask them about the King Follett sermon and what they thought of the principles discussed in that sermon, I bet there will be several who will not even know what you are talking about.

[MormonMason]

Bumping this up so I can find it later and comment...

[MormonMason]

Bumping this up so I can find it while I repair and restore what I have left of my computer system. Don't worry, Billy I will be responding soon...