Joseph Smith claimed to be a heretic.

[Pahoran]

This topic is about the fact that JSJr said out of his own mouth that he was bringing a gospel that was different from the Bible at that time

No, that is not what he said.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the very simple fact that people can claim to rely upon "the Bible alone" and really rely upon something else. Nor do you seem to be able to grasp the very simple fact that people can do their best to rely upon "the Bible alone" and still get it wrong.

Joseph was not disagreeing with the Bible. He was disagreeing with pervasive misinterpretations of the Bible.

Actually the only real "heresy" in view is the idolatry whereby you assume that your opinions about what selected Bible passages mean exactly equals what the Bible says.

They don't. Sorry.

And finally, as I said before and you have studiously ignored, it's not up to you to tell us what our doctrine means. That is arrogant presumption on your part. Time for you to stop it, I think.

and still at this time. And that he was delivered this Gospel by an angel from heaven.

How wooden-headedly idiotic would it be for anyone to assume that Paul's obviously hyperbolic hypothetical was something he really expected anyone to take seriously? It is conclusive proof, if proof was ever needed, that Paul was just as fallible as any other apostle or prophet when he plainly failed to foresee just how asinine future Bible-worshippers would be.

Paul never for a moment expected that a real angel from Heaven would bring a false gospel. That was the point of his warning.

The point is not whether or not the Church had indeed apostatized. I could for arguments sake agree with you that the accusation is true. If you will but see that JSJr did in fact bring a different Gospel. Yes, I understand that according to him and the Spirit's he spoke with (that may or may not have been God,) it was needed and even authorized. That is the topic. If in fact, the case is that the Bible was not in need of restoration then his different Gospel is heresy thereby making him a heretic.

But since Joseph would have rejected every link in your chain of "reasoning," it follows that he would not agree with your "conclusion." Thus, while you, in the plenitude of your bigoted zealotry, are fully entitled to view him as a "heretic," and immediately start collecting firewood, in the noblest "mainstream" tradition, the fact remains that when you claimed that he claimed that title for himself, you were knowingly making a false claim with intent to deceive.

Here is a nice syllogism for you:

1. All Christians refrain from bearing false witness.
   
2. BLT has just borne false witness.
   
3. Therefore, BLT is not a Christian.
   

Do you like it? The logic is sound, and the minor premise is established as true, so you'll have to dispute the major premise if you want to escape the conclusion.

According to the Bible at the time of JSJr's statement and subsequent release of the BoM, he WAS... claiming to be a heretic.

Umm, no. That's NOT according to your idol the Bible; it's according to your own worthless, laboured argument. But, as you perfectly well know, there is no record that Joseph ever described himself in such terms.

I can see him describing himself thus jokingly or ironically, although I know of no record of him doing so; but he certainly never made the claim you have falsely tried to foist upon him.

He was claiming to be a heretic of a Bible and religion gone wrong and bad but claiming heresy nonetheless. His claim of having the restored (and different) Gospel that he aquired by the hand of an angel from heaven conforms perfectly to the warning in Galatians. This is what I want you to see clearly before we move forward. I accept that if the restoration was needed, he in fact was a heretic and a God sent one to boot. If the restoration was needed and God sent him, his heresy is to abandon the lie for the truth. The real truth is heresy to Satan's false truth, which is nothing but a lie.

Understand that JSJr's claim at that time was heresy and JSJr admits it. He admits it because it is necessary. He believed that God sent him and that his act of heresy was only heresy to a religion that itself was heretical and needed a reboot but his claim was not heresy in the eyes of his God and therefore not heresy at all; if, of course, God did send him according to an apostate church's need for the full Gospel. But according to the Bible they had then, his claim was heresy - and still is to those who have not accepted that there needed to be a restoration, who accordingly still go by the Bible the way it is.

We will get to the facts of the alleged apostasy but first a recognition of the beginning and where it stands.

Regardless of whether or not a restoration was needed and authorized by God, the beginning statement of Mormonism was heresy.

CAN I GET AN AMEN?!?!?

No. Sorry.

You are not going to drum up a cult following here. You will have to try your televangelist tricks elsewhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BenjaminL.Toms]

Personally, I'm proud to be a heretic. One of the wonderful things about the restoration is the freedom to follow the evidence and my personal Awen wherever it leads while at the same time giving me stable ground to sink my roots into and plenty of rain and sunlight, rather than being bound to a single dogma by some uninspired politico-religious authority.

Have you ever seen the roots of a plant that has grown out of it's pot? Do you know how long such a plant lasts? Far better to root in the living earth of the restored gospel with the wide open sky above to reach for.

So far that's two of you that concede to my posit.

My first day back on the board and this is what I spend an entire hour reading.

WOW.

I am ever impressed by my fellow brothers and sisters.

BLT... dude... yeah... good luck with your crusade. You're gonna need it.

If that is you wishing me that luck; then I take it as an indicator of the good to come, thank you.

[Nathair/|\]

Dull, ye say? Taste these and tell me they aren't sharper than a Granny Smith.

Alma 29

1 O that I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people! 2 Yea, I would declare unto every soul, as with the voice of thunder, repentance and the plan of redemption, that they should repent and come unto our God, that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth. 3 But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me. 4 I ought not to harrow up in my desires, the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction. 5 Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience. 6 Now, seeing that I know these things, why should I desire more than to perform the work to which I have been called? 7 Why should I desire that I were an angel, that I could speak unto all the ends of the earth? 8 For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true. 9 I know that which the Lord hath commanded me, and I glory in it. I do not glory of myself, but I glory in that which the Lord hath commanded me; yea, and this is my glory, that perhaps I may be an instrument in the hands of God to bring some soul to repentance; and this is my joy.

or

And they were also conversing about this Jesus Christ, of whom the sign had been given concerning his death. 3 And it came to pass that while they were thus conversing one with another, they heard a voice as if it came out of heaven; and they cast their eyes round about, for they understood not the voice which they heard; and it was not a harsh voice, neither was it a loud voice; nevertheless, and notwithstanding it being a small voice it did pierce them that did hear to the center, insomuch that there was no part of their frame that it did not cause to quake; yea, it did pierce them to the very soul, and did cause their hearts to burn. 4 And it came to pass that again they heard the voice, and they understood it not. 5 And again the third time they did hear the voice, and did open their ears to hear it; and their eyes were towards the sound thereof; and they did look steadfastly towards heaven, from whence the sound came. 6 And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them: 7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name

[Nathair/|\]

So far that's two of you that concede to my posit.

You have well and truly missed my point. Since we are built upon a foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Cornerstone, not the foundation of the Roman Empire and the man-made creeds, we are heretics to the (non) authority of the churches of the world.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

You don't seem to be able to grasp the very simple fact that people can claim to rely upon "the Bible alone" and really rely upon something else. Nor do you seem to be able to grasp the very simple fact that people can do their best to rely upon "the Bible alone" and still get it wrong.

I grasp it. It is what I am talking about. You, Mormons as a whole. claim to rely on the Bible but really just rely on something else... the BoM.

Joseph was not disagreeing with the Bible. He was disagreeing with pervasive misinterpretations of the Bible.

Then what were those plain and precious things that were LOST?!?! Were interpretations lost? No, you are wrong.

Actually the only real "heresy" in view is the idolatry whereby you assume that your opinions about what selected Bible passages mean exactly equals what the Bible says.

They don't. Sorry.

You are correct in the fact that it is not my authority or opinion that equals what the Bible says. And I can be wrong. I never assumed that. And if I did, then so are you and everyone else on this page; committing the idolatry of thinking we know what the Bible or BoM means.

And finally, as I said before and you have studiously ignored, it's not up to you to tell us what our doctrine means. That is arrogant presumption on your part. Time for you to stop it, I think.

I have less than ignored that, actually. It doesn't have to be up to me to tell you what your doctrine is (in other words for it to be my job with which I have authority to do so) for me to just tell you what your doctrine says so very simply and clearly in your books. Didn't they claim to be spelled out simply and clearly so all could easily understand? I'm sure I read that. Besides, a lot of the doctrine I know has simply been spoken to me by Mormons.

You don't want to have to answer for it. That is the real problem with me quoting your doctrine.

How wooden-headedly idiotic would it be for anyone to assume that Paul's obviously hyperbolic hypothetical was something he really expected anyone to take seriously? It is conclusive proof, if proof was ever needed, that Paul was just as fallible as any other apostle or prophet when he plainly failed to foresee just how asinine future Bible-worshippers would be.

Paul never for a moment expected that a real angel from Heaven would bring a false gospel. That was the point of his warning.

So now you "assume that your opinions about what selected Bible passages mean exactly equals what the Bible says.

They don't. Sorry." - spoken by you just a minute ago. Take your own medicine.

You also make the mistake of thinking that it was just a letter by Paul and not God, writing through Paul, foreseeing the Mormon church and wanting to put a clear warning against it for all who want to hear and see, that they may hear and see. That was the point of his warning.

Also, the almost name calling is just your way of venting your anger, frustration and arrogance because you want so badly to call me names. You already viciously accuse me, which is the character of Satan. You are not in Love. So you have nothing.

But since Joseph would have rejected every link in your chain of "reasoning," it follows that he would not agree with your "conclusion." Thus, while you, in the plenitude of your bigoted zealotry, are fully entitled to view him as a "heretic," and immediately start collecting firewood, in the noblest "mainstream" tradition, the fact remains that when you claimed that he claimed that title for himself, you were knowingly making a false claim with intent to deceive.

He would not reject my reasoning but that is conjecture and inadmissible. I did not claim that he claimed that title for himself. I said that he claimed to BE a heretic by claiming to bring another gospel. I did not say that he called himself a heretic, which is your meaning. You obviously haven't read my stuff or you just twist my words like you twist the rest of the scriptures. I have been fully clear about what I am saying. No deception. However, you are fully entitled to view me as such and immediately start gathering firewood yourself.

Here is a nice syllogism for you:

1. All Christians refrain from bearing false witness.
2. BLT has just borne false witness.
3. Therefore, BLT is not a Christian.

Do you like it? The logic is sound, and the minor premise is established as true, so you'll have to dispute the major premise if you want to escape the conclusion.

I do like it. The logic is sound. The minor premise is far from being proven, especially by you with your twisting a straw man of me. Not to say it couldn't be proven though. However, I have borne false witness before and I am a christian. I also know other Christians of the same sort. There is also no doctrine that says one must refrain from bearing false witness to be a Christian.

So, while your logic is sound, your posit is FAIL.

Umm, no. That's NOT according to your idol the Bible; it's according to your own worthless, laboured argument. But, as you perfectly well know, there is no record that Joseph ever described himself in such terms.

Now my argument is worthless and "laboured" (which you spelled wrong. This indicates passion and speed more than a lack of intelligence, which indicates your hate for me.)

No, it is according to Galatians, which existed then in the scriptures. He was bringing a change, plain and simple. The verse in Galatians that was there then and is still here now says not to do that or be accursed (anathema). And I do perfectly well know that JSJr never described himself in those terms. That is the straw man you have made me into so you can fight an enemy that you know you can defeat, since you made him up.

I can see him describing himself thus jokingly or ironically, although I know of no record of him doing so; but he certainly never made the claim you have falsely tried to foist upon him.

Straw man fallacy.

I know that it is the same one throughout. I am not trying to look more correct just covering the base. I understand that it was only one mistake.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

You have well and truly missed my point. Since we are built upon a foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Cornerstone, not the foundation of the Roman Empire and the man-made creeds, we are heretics to the (non) authority of the churches of the world.

No, It is you who are extremely and vehemently missing the point, since you just spoke my point as if it were your own.

You just claimed to be a heretic to the (non) authority of the churches of the world, just in like fashion as your founder did some years ago.

Bravo!! and exactly what I've been screamin. Even though, I never said that JSJr actually claimed that of himself in a title form like you just did.

Hopefully, we are getting somewhere now.

It would be helpful if all of you did not assume things about me or what my points are, because they undoubtedly lead to building a straw man of me or just simply misreading my words. I am not the run of the mill anti-Mormon theory guy, even if I use a verse that has been used before. I have come up with my own thoughts on this. I am not spitting out things I have heard or have been taught. This is all my original thought.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

Which Mormon scripture would that be? The Bible? The Book of Mormon? The Doctrine and Covenants? You exhibit a complete lack of comprehension about "Mormon scripture" and Mormon doctrine.

I am so glad you treat the people with kindness and love. It makes it so much easier to worship at your condescending feet.

Not the Bible obviously, and yes, I am aware of the fact that you call the Bible a part of your scripture. But you did not deny that it was Mormon doctrine this time. And you got quite snippy. I exhibit a complete lack of comprehension about "Mormon scripture" and Mormon doctrine? COMPLETE? REALLY? Maybe you just like to make what your saying seem so much bigger than it actually is. It would hardly be such a good come back to state what you actually mean or even what I have actually done because it would make you look extremely-and-completely-throughout-all-of-the-universe-to-every-known-creature-alive petty, small and very nit-picky. So you have to blow everything out of proportion. Then make it seem like I am doing something bad by being kind, by falsely accusing me of condescending and requiring worship in a sarcastic tone. Just spin the ball and spin it good.

Your reply has little value. And that is the straight truth without hyperbole.

[Zakuska]

In both translations Baptism is an anti-type (like figure) which is likened to the flood in Noah's days where they were saved through water. The similarities are water and salvation. The eight souls were not saved by the water. Your translation is bad for that word "by" right there. Consider: God sent the water to destroy life not to save it. Just as we are anti-typically destroyed (death) when we are put down into the water of baptism. They were saved by God through the ark, which He told Noah to build, which is a foreshadow of Christ and His resurrection. The ark kept them up out of the water just as Christ's resurrection does in us when we are saved and as is represented when we are brought up out of the water in baptism.

Hmmm. The word in the KJV translated as "by" is...

dia (G1223)

1) through

a) of place

1) with

2) in

b) of time

1) throughout

2) during

c) of means

1) by

2) by the means of

2) through

a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done

1) by reason of

2) on account of

3) because of for this reason

4) therefore

5) on this account

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1223&t=KJV

Sounds to me like the KJV has the word translated exactly correct and the Modern translations are glossing over it to keep a harmony with a pre concieved theology.

[Nathair/|\]

No, It is you who are extremely and vehemently missing the point, since you just spoke my point as if it were your own.

You just claimed to be a heretic to the (non) authority of the churches of the world, just in like fashion as your founder did some years ago.

Bravo!! and exactly what I've been screamin. Even though, I never said that JSJr actually claimed that of himself in a title form like you just did.

Hopefully, we are getting somewhere now.

It would be helpful if all of you did not assume things about me or what my points are, because they undoubtedly lead to building a straw man of me or just simply misreading my words. I am not the run of the mill anti-Mormon theory guy, even if I use a verse that has been used before. I have come up with my own thoughts on this. I am not spitting out things I have heard or have been taught. This is all my original thought.

And why should we be subject to the things of this world? Should we not rather be subject to the Father of Spirits and live? Our founder is Jesus Christ. Brother Joseph was merely His emissary. All the holy prophets before him have anticipated his day, when the stone would be cut from the mountain without hands that is even now filling the earth, when the voice of God is hissing from the earth, when the heavens are opened, when the kingdom and priesthood of God shall never again be taken from the earth. The day is even now at hand when every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer and Lord.

Rev. 14: 6 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Don't be left out.Come to the Mountain of the Lord's House.

Yours under the welcoming oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Deborah]

God knew that what He would say later would still be the Word. It's not like God wanted us to believe that only the stuff written until that point was His Word or that any further Words would be capable of being differently characterized. If that were the case then Him saying anything about his Word in a declarative statement would thereby shut the inspired Word and declare anything else written later heresy. It's completely ridiculous.

I couldn't agree more. Thank you for stating as good an argument as I've ever heard for additional scripture, including the BOM. Of course much of the BOM preceded the events in the NT in any case.

[hagoth7]

Hebrews doesn't claim to be more correct or to be replacing missing doctrine

? If it wasn't providing needed doctrine...why was it written?

Who are those who say?

If you'd like, you're welcome to start w/Martin Luther, who said James was an "epistle of straw."

Of the Book of Revelation he said he could "in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it."

He also had reservations about Jude and Hebrews...which is reportedly why he put all four items towards the back of his translation of the New Testament.

Does the Bible itself say that some books are more doctrinally relevant than others?

It mentions/commends a considerable number of books which are not in the Bible.

And foretells others.

I believe your guidelines at this site say to give the reference or be able to produce it upon asking and to put it in the correct context. I would like for you to do that please.

Gladly.

For a start, if you're referring to the reference to Luther above, google or any other search engine can quickly confirm what I said.

Or, if you're referring to what I cited from the New Testament, the first verse of Revelation, and Rev 14:6-7 will answer your request.

I hope that is helpful.

[Nathair/|\]

Heretic in the Christian sense means denying the authority of the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople.

[RubyHunter]

If that is you wishing me that luck; then I take it as an indicator of the good to come, thank you.

Actually BLT... I'm not on your side here.

I was trying to be nice. But you're going to lose.

You actually lost when you hit "submit" on the OP. But It's fun watching you try.

Don't worry, it'll click sooner or later.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

Sounds to me like the KJV has the word translated exactly correct and the Modern translations are glossing over it to keep a harmony with a pre concieved theology.

That sounds nothing like that. There is no pre-concieving what the verse is talking about. And there is no pre-conceiving that in actuality the water didn't save them. The actual thing that happened that I did not pre-conceive is that the ark saved them from the water. Why would Peter write about it as if the water saved them? And if you look at your definitions you will see that the word is "through" and there are just many applications of it. here is a better posting of it to see this.

Dia (G1223)

_1. through

___a. of place

_____i. with

_____ii. in

___b. of time

_____i. throughout

_____ii. during

___c. of means

_____i. by

_____ii. by the means of

_2. through

___a. the ground or reason by which something is or is not done

_____i. by reason of

_____ii. on account of

_____iii. because of for this reason

_____iv. therefore

_____v. on this account

With this we see that there are only two major definitions... Through. Through can mean by but when the context shows otherwise we don't stretch for what is wanted.

[Pahoran]

I grasp it. It is what I am talking about. You, Mormons as a whole. claim to rely on the Bible but really just rely on something else... the BoM.

Another of your intentional misrepresentations of fact. We, Latter-day Saint Christians as a whole, claim to rely upon the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and continuing revelation; and we really rely upon the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and continuing revelation.

OTOH, bibliolatrous Protestants claim to rely upon the Bible alone, but really rely upon unscriptural creeds and confessions to determine how they read the Bible.

Then what were those plain and precious things that were LOST?!?! Were interpretations lost? No, you are wrong.

Important things were lost, yes. But what has been restored does not disagree with what remained.

I have less than ignored that, actually.

Of course you have. I always knew you had no interest in genuine dialogue with Latter-day Saints.

It doesn't have to be up to me to tell you what your doctrine is (in other words for it to be my job with which I have authority to do so) for me to just tell you what your doctrine says so very simply and clearly in your books. Didn't they claim to be spelled out simply and clearly so all could easily understand? I'm sure I read that. Besides, a lot of the doctrine I know has simply been spoken to me by Mormons.

The words of anonymous Mormons to Protestant polemicists are not an accepted source of Latter-day Saint doctrine. Sorry.

You don't want to have to answer for it. That is the real problem with me quoting your doctrine.

False. The real problem is that you don't get it right; because you can't get it right, even if you wanted to.

Which you don't.

You only want to set up a target that you can then shoot down.

You see, Benny, I've seen Protestant heresiologists playing this game since before you were born.

So now you "assume that your opinions about what selected Bible passages mean exactly equals what the Bible says.

They don't. Sorry." - spoken by you just a minute ago. Take your own medicine.

You also make the mistake of thinking that it was just a letter by Paul and not God, writing through Paul, foreseeing the Mormon church and wanting to put a clear warning against it for all who want to hear and see, that they may hear and see. That was the point of his warning.

Pure eisegesis. The mere fact that you are an anti-Mormon fanatic does not entitle you to project your own hatreds upon God.

You ought not to dogmatically assert your own polemically driven fabrications as if you had some good-faith basis to believe them to be true. Because we all know that you do not.

Also, the almost name calling is just your way of venting your anger, frustration and arrogance because you want so badly to call me names. You already viciously accuse me, which is the character of Satan. You are not in Love. So you have nothing.

The arrogance by which you presume to judge the hearts of people you have never met shows that the "civility" with which you started out was merely a cultivated veneer. Sorry Benny, but the mask has slipped.

He would not reject my reasoning but that is conjecture and inadmissible. I did not claim that he claimed that title for himself. I said that he claimed to BE a heretic by claiming to bring another gospel.

As you know, Joseph did not claim to bring "another gospel." He claimed to restore the pure, original Gospel as preached by Paul and Peter, and by Jesus Christ, the head.

I did not say that he called himself a heretic, which is your meaning. You obviously haven't read my stuff or you just twist my words like you twist the rest of the scriptures.

"The rest of?" So your words are among the scriptures now, are they?

Who knew?

Now my argument is worthless and "laboured" (which you spelled wrong. This indicates passion and speed more than a lack of intelligence, which indicates your hate for me.)

So now the fact that I use British spelling -- something you've clearly never heard of -- proves that I hate you.

Amazing!

Regards,

Pahoran

[BenjaminL.Toms]

I couldn't agree more. Thank you for stating as good an argument as I've ever heard for additional scripture, including the BOM. Of course much of the BOM preceded the events in the NT in any case.

You are welcome and I will stand by what I said. I know when the BoM was allegedly written. It says so in the fourth verse of the first book; roughly 600 B.C.

For it came to pass in the commencement of the ^afirst year of the reign of ^bZedekiah, king of Judah...

That is actually one of the things that proves it is a false religion and not the Word of God. But that is another topic.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

You are welcome and I will stand by what I said. I know when the BoM was allegedly written. It says so in the fourth verse of the first book; roughly 600 B.C.

That is actually one of the things that proves it is a false religion and not the Word of God. But that is another topic.

What, the date of 600 BC being the start of the Book of Mormon?

Lots of people are in disagreement with the chronology of Christ, if it was 29 AD, 30 AD, or 33 AD his crucifixion...and his birth being 1 BC, 4 or even 5 BC. And that inside of ONE book, the same book that is revered by two billion Christians to be the Word of God.

[RubyHunter]

What, the date of 600 BC being the start of the Book of Mormon?

Lots of people are in disagreement with the chronology of Christ, if it was 29 AD, 30 AD, or 33 AD his crucifixion...and his birth being 1 BC, 4 or even 5 BC. And that inside of ONE book, the same book that is revered by two billion Christians to be the Word of God.

Not to be the peanut gallery or a pot shot commentator (Actually.. That's EXACTLY what I'm doing), but... Oh snap! BLT got told.

Not that he'll see it as that of course.

[hagoth7]

What, the date of 600 BC being the start of the Book of Mormon?

That may not be Ben's intended point.

(There is another issue suggested by those topics, beyond specific chronology, that some have had issues with.)

[BenjaminL.Toms]

Just trying to not overlook anyone's posts. I am one man. If it was relevant I will get to it at the same time as to try and stay up with the convo as it is now. Thanks for your patience. So going back a bit...

BenjaminL.Toms

Come on! You should avoid being both wrong and foolish when you sermonize. Pick one but not both. To avoid looking so foolish, you should first research your subject. For example, Ephesian

[BenjaminL.Toms]

I said ROUGHLY 600 B.C..

Why don't you tell me?

When was the time?

[Flyonthewall]

You are welcome and I will stand by what I said. I know when the BoM was allegedly written. It says so in the fourth verse of the first book; roughly 600 B.C.

That is actually one of the things that proves it is a false religion and not the Word of God. But that is another topic.

I'll bite, what about the "...first year of the reign of Zedikiah, King of Judah...", proves the BoM to be false?

Is it Zedikiah did not have a first year of his reign?

Or is it that it does not correspond to roughly 600 B.C.?

Or was Zedikiah not king of Judah?

I am curious...

[Nathair/|\]

I'll bite, what about the "...first year of the reign of Zedikiah, King of Judah...", proves the BoM to be false?

Is it Zedikiah did not have a first year of his reign?

Or is it that it does not correspond to roughly 600 B.C.?

Or was Zedikiah not king of Judah?

I am curious...

It has been proposed that it was 600 lunar years between the beginning of Lehi's ministry and the Noel.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=170

Yours under the calendric oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

I might add that the Mayan calendar lacks leap years. By that admission every 4 years you would lose a day. By 600 years you would lose 150 days, or five months. Post exilic Judah also made the month of Nisan 6 months earlier, and moved the first month to September/October when Rosh Hashanah is celebrated.

It might explain several things, some inaccuracies in keeping time in the scriptures as well. It might explain the behavior of the Gadiantons over five months of when they debated that the prophesies of Samuel the Lamanite were not coming to pass. That time period from the time that the people started to mock the believers to threatening them with the death penalty, would have taken weeks minimum, months more assuredly.

[BenjaminL.Toms]

It has been proposed that it was 600 lunar years between the beginning of Lehi's ministry and the Noel.

Okay, So like I said... about or roughly 600 years before Christ. Man you people just like to disagree so much you end up disagreeing with your own statements.

It was a Mormon who told me that to begin with. Of course it's written right there in the BoM so it doesn't really matter.