LDS Church removes racial references in Book of Mormon headings

[evangelist]

Huh. I'd love to call for a reference on both of those, especially since Joseph Smith said, "I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations I have taught," and the Book of Mormon itself says, "If there are faults, they are the mistakes of men. Condemn not the things of God because of the mistakes of men." I might suggest that you stop trying to hold our prophets to a standard we have never claimed for them, nor have they ever claimed it for themselves.

So your prophets is like the Catholic pope which claim to have infallible revelation and true translation of God word??

You do know when a prophet contradicts even one word or translation or doctrine and fact they are a false prophet?

one love

[Nathair/|\]

So your prophets is like the Catholic pope which claim to have infallible revelation and true translation of God word??

You do know when a prophet contradicts even one word or translation or doctrine and fact they are a false prophet?

one love

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pESOSI2hTA

[evangelist]

That's a rather difficult sentence to parse. It seems to be asserting that all of LDS history is weak and unprovable "except the teaching [that] all black people came to earth as cursed people!"

Is that your position?

Because if it is, then you are wrong.

Completely. Arrogantly. And stubbornly.

If you would like to learn something about what Latter-day Saints really teach, believe and do, then I suggest you apologise for your indefensible rudeness, and then stick around for a while.

But if you plan to continue to take it upon your prodigiously ignorant self to tell us what our history and doctrine is, then I suggest you find another forum, where your kind of bigotry is protected.

Regards,

Pahoran

Then explain what was said here:

Doctrine of salvation

vol 1 J .F Smith

Page 61

and mormon doctrine

by Bruce Mc Conkie

PP.526-527 edition 1966

one love

[Olavarria]

Technically, you can't make changes to the Book of Mormon because it's written on metal plates that we don't have access too. What you can do, however, is make a clearer translation.

[why me]

I suppose that this is a step in the right direction, but a more productive change would be to apologize for the racial language and ideology of the actual text. Statements along the lines of those offered by leaders of the Community of Christ would be nice:

"The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970

[Pahoran]

Then explain what was said here:

Doctrine of salvation

vol 1 J .F Smith

Page 61

and mormon doctrine

by Bruce Mc Conkie

PP.526-527 edition 1966

one love

Okay. So just to be clear:

You admit that you know nothing at all about what Latter-day Saints really believe and do; you ask all these questions, ostensibly to find out information; but you have standard anti-Mormon prooftexts at your fingertips, and you argue with anyone who provides answers that don't match your enormous prejudices.

The fact, Herr "Evangelist," is that your "questions" are in fact flimsy excuses for you to spam the board with your anti-Mormon propaganda. You are not seeking knowledge, you are proselyting. You are obviously some sort of Protestant; even more obviously, you are no sort of Christian in any meaningful way.

If I thought for one minute that you really wanted answers, I could provide you with them, simply by leaning back in my chair. But it is abundantly clear to me that answers are the last thing you want, and that you have already made up your mind to reject any and all answers that you may be offered.

So the best thing you can do is to stop lying to us, and go away.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jon63]

Changes to the content of the Book of Mormon is nothing new.

No sooner had it been written than changes were made.

Prior to 1835 the Book of Mormon portayed an impression of Christ and God being one in the same (Christ being the physical embodiment of Gods spirit) in line with the other major religious denominations views and in line with Joseph Smiths own personal view (please don't quote/argue the First Vision because when Joseph Smith first wrote an account of this he wrote about a single personage). It was only in later years that the text of the Book of Mormon was altered to reflect Jospeh's amended view that God and Christ were seperate beings (and yes, the First Vision account was amended to reflect this).

References: The original text of the the Book of Mormon vs the text from 1835 onwards. The First Vision account in Joseph Smiths own handwriting dated 1832 vs the canonized account in the POGP.

See if you can find any reference or evidence prior to 1835 that shows that Joseph believed God and Christ were seperate beings.

Also see if you can find a clear statement by the Church that answers the challenge of changes to the Book of Mormon - I suspect you will only find fudging and downplaying such as 'it's only had grammatical and clarificational changes' to help the reader.

The Lamanities were the 'principle' ancestors of the Native Americans, now they are only 'among' the ancestors.

Change is a thorny issue within Mormonism:

Is Polygamy doctrine - well it was, now it's not, but it will be in the Celestial Kingdom, but President Hinkley says it's not doctrinal.

Blacks can have the Priesthood, then they can't, now they can again.

[why me]

The Lamanities were the 'principle' ancestors of the Native Americans, now they are only 'among' the ancestors.

Change is a thorny issue within Mormonism:

Is Polygamy doctrine - well it was, now it's not, but it will be in the Celestial Kingdom, but President Hinkley says it's not doctrinal.

Blacks can have the Priesthood, then they can't, now they can again.

Change is only a thorny issue if one wants to make it thorny. The word principle was removed from the Introduction that was included in the 1981 edition of the book of mormon. There was some disagreement about this word even before the Introduction was added.

What is amazing is that poor Hinckley appeared on Larry King and began to field rapid questions from him. The poor guy was in his 90's. Give him a break, if you can. When you are in your 90's we will gladly fire questions at you and see how you do.

[why me]

Changes to the content of the Book of Mormon is nothing new.

No sooner had it been written than changes were made.

Prior to 1835 the Book of Mormon portayed an impression of Christ and God being one in the same (Christ being the physical embodiment of Gods spirit) in line with the other major religious denominations views and in line with Joseph Smiths own personal view (please don't quote/argue the First Vision because when Joseph Smith first wrote an account of this he wrote about a single personage). It was only in later years that the text of the Book of Mormon was altered to reflect Jospeh's amended view that God and Christ were seperate beings (and yes, the First Vision account was amended to reflect this).

References: The original text of the the Book of Mormon vs the text from 1835 onwards. The First Vision account in Joseph Smiths own handwriting dated 1832 vs the canonized account in the POGP.

See if you can find any reference or evidence prior to 1835 that shows that Joseph believed God and Christ were seperate beings.

Also see if you can find a clear statement by the Church that answers the challenge of changes to the Book of Mormon - I suspect you will only find fudging and downplaying such as 'it's only had grammatical and clarificational changes' to help the reader.

The Lamanities were the 'principle' ancestors of the Native Americans, now they are only 'among' the ancestors.

Change is a thorny issue within Mormonism:

Is Polygamy doctrine - well it was, now it's not, but it will be in the Celestial Kingdom, but President Hinkley says it's not doctrinal.

Blacks can have the Priesthood, then they can't, now they can again.

Most of what you wrote in your post has been addressed on this forum countless times. If you want to start a separate thread about some of your points, please do it.

[evangelist]

Okay. So just to be clear:

You admit that you know nothing at all about what Latter-day Saints really believe and do; you ask all these questions, ostensibly to find out information; but you have standard anti-Mormon prooftexts at your fingertips, and you argue with anyone who provides answers that don't match your enormous prejudices.

The fact, Herr "Evangelist," is that your "questions" are in fact flimsy excuses for you to spam the board with your anti-Mormon propaganda. You are not seeking knowledge, you are proselyting. You are obviously some sort of Protestant; even more obviously, you are no sort of Christian in any meaningful way.

If I thought for one minute that you really wanted answers, I could provide you with them, simply by leaning back in my chair. But it is abundantly clear to me that answers are the last thing you want, and that you have already made up your mind to reject any and all answers that you may be offered.

So the best thing you can do is to stop lying to us, and go away.

Regards,

Pahoran

Jehovah witnesses and Muslims said the exact same thing, do you all have something in common?

They all also say they have the truth, and teach the truth, so who is lieing or rejecting any answers.

If I agree with the muslim or Jehovah witness does That make them right or should I agree just not to offend with their doctrines and philosophy??

one love

[evangelist]

Change is only a thorny issue if one wants to make it thorny. The word principle was removed from the Introduction that was included in the 1981 edition of the book of mormon. There was some disagreement about this word even before the Introduction was added.

What is amazing is that poor Hinckley appeared on Larry King and began to field rapid questions from him. The poor guy was in his 90's. Give him a break, if you can. When you are in your 90's we will gladly fire questions at you and see how you do.

Isa:54:17: No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

When you use faith , no problem!

one love

[Jon63]

There was some disagreement about this word even before the Introduction was added.

Can you show evidence of this?

Who was disagreeing with it and why?

[Pahoran]

Jehovah witnesses and Muslims said the exact same thing, do you all have something in common?

We may have something in common. Do you spam their message boards with anti-them propaganda? If you do, then that would be something we have in common.

They all also say they have the truth, and teach the truth, so who is lieing or rejecting any answers.

That, of course, is irrelevant.

If I agree with the muslim or Jehovah witness does That make them right or should I agree just not to offend with their doctrines and philosophy??

one love

There is a third alternative: you could try discussing your disagreements in good faith.

This means that you don't pose as a seeker after knowledge and ask "innocent" questions in order to have a hook to post some pre-packaged, hostile propaganda.

Instead, you honestly set forth your actual position, and then honestly defend it.

Can you do that?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Duplicate post.

[selek]

Okay. So just to be clear:

You admit that you know nothing at all about what Latter-day Saints really believe and do; you ask all these questions, ostensibly to find out information; but you have standard anti-Mormon prooftexts at your fingertips, and you argue with anyone who provides answers that don't match your enormous prejudices.

The fact, Herr "Evangelist," is that your "questions" are in fact flimsy excuses for you to spam the board with your anti-Mormon propaganda. You are not seeking knowledge, you are proselyting. You are obviously some sort of Protestant; even more obviously, you are no sort of Christian in any meaningful way.

If I thought for one minute that you really wanted answers, I could provide you with them, simply by leaning back in my chair. But it is abundantly clear to me that answers are the last thing you want, and that you have already made up your mind to reject any and all answers that you may be offered.

So the best thing you can do is to stop lying to us, and go away.

Regards,

Pahoran

We may have something in common. Do you spam their message boards with anti-them propaganda? If you do, then that would be something we have in common.

That, of course, is irrelevant.

There is a third alternative: you could try discussing your disagreements in good faith.

This means that you don't pose as a seeker after knowledge and ask "innocent" questions in order to have a hook to post some pre-packaged, hostile propaganda.

Instead, you honestly set forth your actual position, and then honestly defend it.

Can you do that?

Regards,

Pahoran

Hear, Hear!

[Pahoran]

Can you show evidence of this?

Who was disagreeing with it and why?

It doesn't matter. It was never part of the scriptural text, so claiming it as a "change to the Book of Mormon" is a rather obvious attempt at padding.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Skylla]

Isa:54:17: No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

When you use faith , no problem!

one love

Evangelist:

Read the board guidelines.

Skylla

[Jon63]

It doesn't matter. It was never part of the scriptural text, so claiming it as a "change to the Book of Mormon" is a rather obvious attempt at padding.

Regards,

Pahoran

So when you can't back up your statement you claim 'it doesn't matter'

You should try out for a career in full time Church Leadership...

[Vance]

You should try out for a career in full time Church Leadership...

You are exposing your ignorance of things Mormon.

[Jon63]

You are exposing your ignorance of things Mormon.

How so?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So when you can't back up your statement you claim 'it doesn't matter'

You should try out for a career in full time Church Leadership...

Um Jon, It would behoove you to do a little resaerch on the introduction. You might learn that it was added in 1981 and is not part of the translation of the BoM. Once you realise that then any changes done to it really do not matter, do they?

[Jon63]

Um Jon, It would behoove you to do a little resaerch on the introduction. You might learn that it was added in 1981 and is not part of the translation of the BoM. Once you realise that then any changes done to it really do not matter, do they?

Educate me a little:

Who wrote the introduction in 1981?

Who signed it off before it went into print?

Who are the people that Poharan claims disputed it at the time?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Educate me a little:

Who wrote the introduction in 1981?

Who signed it off before it went into print?

Who are the people that Poharan claims disputed it at the time?

BRM did and I imagine that the 1st presidency approved it. I will still point out that it in no way makes it part of the BoM as you claimed. Your claim was factually false.

I have no idea who disputed the original wording at the time. It does not matter because, it is not part of the orignial BoM but a latter addition. I would not even care if they got ride of it.

[Jon63]

BRM did and I imagine that the 1st presidency approved it. I will still point out that it in no way makes it part of the BoM as you claimed. Your claim was factually false.

So you believe it was approved that the Lamanites 'were the principal ancestors' of the Native Americans as correct by the Prophet in 1981

And then in 2006(?) it was deemed by the Prophet as not accurate and changed to 'among the ancestors'.

Was this because DNA evidence was becoming overwhelming in disputing the legitimacy of the 'principal' claim or was there another reason?

Why wouldn't the introduction to the Book of Mormon be part of the Book of Mormon? It's in every one.

I didn't say that Joseph Smith had translated the introduction did I?

I have no idea who disputed the original wording at the time. It does not matter because, it is not part of the orignial BoM but a latter addition. I would not even care if they got ride of it.

I have no idea who disputed it either...

Perhaps Pahoran can enlighten both of us about the background to his statement.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So you believe it was approved that the Lamanites 'were the principal ancestors' of the Native Americans as correct by the Prophet in 1981

And then in 2006(?) it was deemed by the Prophet as not accurate and changed to 'among the ancestors'.

I see, so, now you are going for the "a prophet is infalliable" canard.

BTW it might behoove you to look up the word principal in the dictionary and see all of the definitions and see which might apply in the case of the BoM introduction.

Was this because DNA evidence was becoming overwhelming in disputing the legitimacy of the 'principal' claim or was there another reason?

Maybe, maybe not. The fact of the matter is that if I concede that it was indeed DNA (which is a red herring anyway) that caused the change, so what. Prophets are not some sort of fortune teller and they are not infalliable.

Why wouldn't the introduction to the Book of Mormon be part of the Book of Mormon? It's in every one.

I didn't say that Joseph Smith had translated the introduction did I?

It is not part of the scirpture of the BoM just as the chapter headings and footnotes are not part of the BoM even though they are in there.

I never claimed that you said that JS translated the introduction. What I was doing was making a distinction between the transltated text of the BoM and the latter addition of the introduction. I was pointing out that they are not the same thing.

Answer this question with a yes or no. There are lots of reasons to leave the church? Right?