Offenders for a Word

[urroner]

I find it interesting when a neighbor/friend comes into my house and points out all the problems he believes that I have with my house and my family and he is full of "sage" advice on how to fix these problems. Sometimes the problems are real and really do need to be addressed, but sometimes the problems aren't really problems, they are things that are done differently in my house than in his house. Different doesn't equate to wrong, it's just different.

I also find it interesting that many of these problems or problems similar to them which my neighbor/friend is so eager to point out also exist within the house of this person and I find it rather puzzling why he is so eager for me to fix them in my life yet I see very little action in his life to fix them in his life.

Rob, do you have friends or neighbors that have ever done this to you? Have you ever experienced it?

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

Cute. However, I would point out to you that in this case your neighborhood has held a "block party" in which people from other neighborhoods, including me, have been invited over and encouraged to engage in vigorous discussions with you about any problems that might deserve some attention in your houses. I'm just doing what I was invited to do.

If you think my house has conditions similar to the ones I point out in yours, feel free to point them out.

I find it interesting when a neighbor/friend comes into my house and points out all the problems he believes that I have with my house and my family and he is full of "sage" advice on how to fix these problems. Sometimes the problems are real and really do need to be addressed, but sometimes the problems aren't really problems, they are things that are done differently in my house than in his house. Different doesn't equate to wrong, it's just different.

I also find it interesting that many of these problems or problems similar to them which my neighbor/friend is so eager to point out also exist within the house of this person and I find it rather puzzling why he is so eager for me to fix them in my life yet I see very little action in his life to fix them in his life.

Rob, do you have friends or neighbors that have ever done this to you? Have you ever experienced it?

[volgadon]

volgadon,

Really? That isn't exactly what I said, but I don't see what is wrong with pointing out that your missionaries teach everyone to whom they present their missionary lessons that all Christian churches other than their own are not true churches. Do you deny this fact?

No, just as I do not deny that we teach that there is good and truth in ALL churches. I served a mission in Russia. Our approach was not to go around telling people of all the problems, fallacies, and checkered past of, say, the Orthodox Church. So, honestly, your argument is silly.

[Vance]

Rob, oh please. Your critcisms are usually of a high standard. The "missionary force dedicated to tearing down other religions" is a juvenile argument at best.

Didn't we have a thread about this?

As I recall, Bowman couldn't make his case in it either.

[Vance]

No, you don't need to have a separate cottage industry criticizing the doctrines of others;

This is an explicit ADMISSION that said "cottage industry" does exist.

Thanks for the admission!!!

. . . you already have a missionary force of fifty thousand going door to door . . .

And why can't you get a similar force put together for your church? You could send a thousand or so to Utah to proselytize Mormons.

. . . telling Christians of all denominations that their churches are not true churches but are part of the Great Apostasy.

More silliness from Bowman. The people of today are responsible for the Apostasy, but they do need to know about it. Even Evangelicals recognize that an APOSTASY occurred, else they would all be Catholics (or Orthodox). And even though we recognize that an apostasy occurred, we also recognize that Catholics have a lot of truth. Perhaps even MORE truth than Evangelicals.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

I don't deny that there is good and truth in the LDS Church, either. So?

If you'll read the epistles in the NT, you'll see that the authors were not shy about strongly criticizing specific teachers and religious groups that claimed to represent Christ but that taught false doctrine. Some of the epistles are entirely focused on addressing such false teaching. I don't see anything wrong with doing so.

No, just as I do not deny that we teach that there is good and truth in ALL churches. I served a mission in Russia. Our approach was not to go around telling people of all the problems, fallacies, and checkered past of, say, the Orthodox Church. So, honestly, your argument is silly.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Rob-

I am confused at how this topic has any bearing on the truth claims of the LDS Church- which it seems countering are the point of your topics and posts. How does this topic fit into your overall mission of showing the fallacy of "Mormonism"?

[Vance]

Rob-

I am confused at how this topic has any bearing on the truth claims of the LDS Church- which it seems countering are the point of your topics and posts. How does this topic fit into your overall mission of showing the fallacy of "Mormonism"?

It is supposed to be a piece of straw. And given enough pieces of straw, the camel will crumble. This piece of straw has a mass of ZERO!

[Vance]

The "word" is a lying word spoken by wicked people, not a word used by the innocent that the bad people misinterpret or misrepresent.

For an example of this see this () thread.

[LeSellers]

The question remains unanswered of why Rob thinks this is an issue, and of why he believes that we Saints should have even a minimal concern over the matter.

I am convinced that, if Matthew could take the "Behold, a virgin shall conceive" passage totally out of its historical context and apply it to the Savior's birth, Daniel Peterson is perfectly within reason in taking the "make a man an offender for a word" passage from the same prophet/author and apply it to today's situation.

Moreover, I do not see how he is not a hypocrite for claiming, among a host of others, that the Matthew account of the Mount of Transfiguration dialogue between Jesus and Peter can possibly anything but a prophecy by Jesus that the Church of Jesus Christ would overcome death (this is a critical element in the Gospel, see 1 Peter 3~4) and then level this trivial charge against us (and, as he carefully reminds us, it goes all the way back to Joseph Smith). The incongruity is astounding.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

The question remains unanswered of why Rob thinks this is an issue, and of why he believes that we Saints should have even a minimal concern over the matter.

The question that remains unanswered is why Mormons don't care whether they are understanding Scripture accurately. Another question that will probably go unanswered is why you are speaking about me in the third person when I am the originator of this thread. That, sir, is simply rude.

You wrote:

I am convinced that, if Matthew could take the "Behold, a virgin shall conceive" passage totally out of its historical context and apply it to the Savior's birth, Daniel Peterson is perfectly within reason in taking the "make a man an offender for a word" passage from the same prophet/author and apply it to today's situation.

There are so many things wrong with this comparison that I will have to enumerate them.

1. Matthew did not take Isaiah 7:14 "totally out of its historical context." The historical context in Isaiah 7 is concern in Jerusalem in the eighth century BC regarding the survival of the Davidic dynasty, a dynasty that God had promised would be an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam. 7). In this context Isaiah speaks repeatedly to that issue and makes prophetic statements that virtually everyone, including Orthodox Jews, recognize as looking for the coming of the Messiah (Is. 9:6-7; 11:1-5).

2. Matthew did not make the words of Isaiah 7:14 mean something they could not mean. In fact, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the Hebrew word almah meant a maiden, a girl barely old enough to get married, and in no OT text does it clearly refer to a married woman. Furthermore, in context Isaiah was presenting to Ahaz a "sign," which implicitly refers to a miracle (see Isaiah's description of what he meant by a sign in Is. 7:11). "Virgin" in this context is actually a defensible translation of the word (which Matthew got from the Septuagint), even though the immediate fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy was the birth of an ordinary boy literally named Immanuel. That is, Immanuel foreshadows Jesus, the true Immanuel (God with us). Joseph Smith and other Mormons (including Dan Peterson, on whom everyone here except me seems to want to focus instead of on Joseph Smith!), on the other hand, use the words of Isaiah 29:21 to mean something they cannot mean, because they simply confuse or turn around who is speaking the "word" (it's the accusers, not the innocents).

3. I would hope, at least, that you are not claiming that Matthew misunderstood Isaiah 7:14. My claim is that the Mormons who use Isaiah 29:21 as we have been discussing are in fact misunderstanding it. Since in nearly two centuries apparently no LDS leader or teacher has even acknowledged the difference between what Isaiah meant and what they mean by the words in question, I have good reason to conclude that they have simply misunderstood the text based on their reading of the KJV translation.

4. There is no basis in the context of Isaiah 29 to interpret verse 21 typologically as foreshadowing anti-Mormon rhetoric (!). There is, as I have explained above, solid basis in the context of Isaiah 7-12 for interpreting 7:14 as foreshadowing or typologically pointing forward to the coming of the Messiah.

5. As I pointed out, Dan actually claimed in the Introduction to his book that Isaiah had prophesied specifically about anti-Mormon rhetoric.

You wrote:

Moreover, I do not see how he is not a hypocrite for claiming, among a host of others, that the Matthew account of the Mount of Transfiguration dialogue between Jesus and Peter can possibly anything but a prophecy by Jesus that the Church of Jesus Christ would overcome death (this is a critical element in the Gospel, see 1 Peter 3~4) and then level this trivial charge against us (and, as he carefully reminds us, it goes all the way back to Joseph Smith). The incongruity is astounding.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. When did I say anything about Matthew's account of the Transfiguration dialogue having anything to do with the Church overcoming death? I'm not even sure what you are claiming I said, and I don't recall any such discussion. Perhaps you could explain and refresh my memory.

[LeSellers]

The question that remains unanswered is why Mormons don't care whether they are understanding Scripture accurately. Another question that will probably go unanswered is why you are speaking about me in the third person when I am the originator of this thread. That, sir, is simply rude.

You are projecting here because we are not misusing the scripture, and no one is saying we don't have to understand the scripture accurately. Further, if you claim we are misunderstanding the scripture, then you must believe that Matthew did the same thing. I do not see anything from you denouncing him. Did I merely miss it?

This is a public forum, open to all who choose to come. I was not addressing my words directly to you, so it is natural to use the third person. (So, you were wrong, the question is not unanswered.)

1. Matthew did not take Isaiah 7:14 "totally out of its historical context." The historical context in Isaiah 7 is concern in Jerusalem in the eighth century BC regarding the survival of the Davidic dynasty, a dynasty that God had promised would be an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam. 7). In this context Isaiah speaks repeatedly to that issue and makes prophetic statements that virtually everyone, including Orthodox Jews, recognize as looking for the coming of the Messiah (Is. 9:6-7; 11:1-5).

You're in error.

The context of Isa 7:14 is the coming war with Israel and Syria. Isaiah, as I am sure you recall, challenged Ahaz to ask for a sign of the Jewish victory over her enemies. Ahaz, sanctimoniously, refused to "tempt the LORD", and Isaiah was the one who did so: "Lo, the young woman is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel, Butter and honey he doth eat, When he knoweth to refuse evil, and to fix on good. For before the youth doth know To refuse evil, and to fix on good, Forsaken is the land thou art vexed with, because of her two kings."

The very next chapter (Is gives us the fulfillment of this prophecy: Isaiah went into his wife, drew near unto the prophetess and she conceived and beareth a son. (Interestingly, neither Isaiah's son, nor Mary's, was named "Immanuel", Maher-shalal-Hash-baz was born c. 700 bc, and Jesus was born c., 1 bc.)

2. Matthew did not make the words of Isaiah 7:14 mean something they could not mean. In fact, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the Hebrew word almah meant a maiden, a girl barely old enough to get married, and in no OT text does it clearly refer to a married woman.

It clearly refers to a married woman in this very passage, siknce the woman who conceived was Isaiah's own wife, and the Bible records (by a witness, no less) that Isaiah was the father.

Furthermore, in context Isaiah was presenting to Ahaz a "sign," which implicitly refers to a miracle (see Isaiah's description of what he meant by a sign in Is. 7:11).

Yet he offered a sign that was not a miracle, and fulfilled it himself (along with his wife and their son).

"Virgin" in this context is actually a defensible translation of the word (which Matthew got from the Septuagint), ...

Defensible, possibly, but that's not what Isaiah wrote. "Almah" does not mean "virgin, except by extension. Keep in mind that all young women in Israel (and nearly everywhere else) were married by the time they were menstruating or shortly thereafter. The idea of a virgin was a bit out of the ordinary.

?alma?h

1) virgin, young woman

1a) of marriageable age

1b) maid or newly married

Given the first few verses of chapter 8, it is clear that almah meant a newly married woman, not a virgin.

And, let's not forget that we Saints constantly hear that a Jew would never write the scriptures in any language other than Hebrew so the Book of Mormon is not reasonable. The LXX is proof that this argument is not true at all.

When they who translated the Old Testament into Greek chose ????????? (parthenos) to transmit the meaning of almah into Greek, they were wrong in this case. It simply does not lead one to the same idea, and we are stuck with their error more than two millennia later.

parthenos

1) a virgin

1a) a marriageable maiden

1b) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man

1c) one

[ELF1024]

Lets see, what are the words that come to mind... oh yeah, I remember...

Amateurish and Meritless....

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

Diminishing returns would seem to be the realistic prospect of any continuation. I certainly don't have the time to unravel all of the misunderstandings and erroneous statements in your lengthy post. For example, you wrote:

Further, if you claim we are misunderstanding the scripture, then you must believe that Matthew did the same thing. I do not see anything from you denouncing him. Did I merely miss it?

Only someone who was bent on rejecting what I said before first understanding it could have missed what I said about this. Yes, perhaps you really did miss it.

You wrote:

This is a public forum, open to all who choose to come. I was not addressing my words directly to you, so it is natural to use the third person. (So, you were wrong, the question is not unanswered.)

No, the question is why you would not address your comments to me when I am the one who initiated this thread and you were responding to what I said. So you have not really answered the question.

I had said: "The historical context in Isaiah 7 is concern in Jerusalem in the eighth century BC regarding the survival of the Davidic dynasty, a dynasty that God had promised would be an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam. 7). In this context Isaiah speaks repeatedly to that issue and makes prophetic statements that virtually everyone, including Orthodox Jews, recognize as looking for the coming of the Messiah (Is. 9:6-7; 11:1-5)." You replied:

You're in error.

You may think so, but since your response completely ignored what I said, you have done nothing to show that I am in error. For an article that discusses the Messianic context of Isaiah 7;14, see here:

Context and Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14

You wrote:

Interestingly, neither Isaiah's son, nor Mary's, was named "Immanuel", Maher-shalal-Hash-baz was born c. 700 bc, and Jesus was born c., 1 bc.... It clearly refers to a married woman in this very passage, siknce the woman who conceived was Isaiah's own wife, and the Bible records (by a witness, no less) that Isaiah was the father.... Isaiah's son was Maher-Shalal-Hashbaz, not "Immanuel".

This view is held by some but not, I think, most exegetes. The two passages both speak of the naming of the sons; it is arbitrary to claim that Isaiah 8:3 is a literal naming while 7:14 is not even though it supposedly refers to the same child. In 7:14, the woman names her son; in 8:3, the father (Isaiah) does. In 7:15-16, the judgment comes on the two kings before the boy is old enough to know good from evil; in 8:4, the judgment comes before the boy is old enough to say "daddy" or "mommy." This evidence shows that they are probably two different boys.

You wrote:

And, let's not forget that we Saints constantly hear that a Jew would never write the scriptures in any language other than Hebrew so the Book of Mormon is not reasonable. The LXX is proof that this argument is not true at all.

CFR. No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that Jews would never write in any language other than Hebrew. That would preclude Jesus' Jewish apostles from writing in Greek!

You wrote:

When they who translated the Old Testament into Greek chose ????????? (parthenos) to transmit the meaning of almah into Greek, they were wrong in this case. It simply does not lead one to the same idea, and we are stuck with their error more than two millennia later.

But then, in answer to the question of whether you think Matthew misunderstood Isaiah 7:14, you replied:

No, not at all....

Um, if Matthew took over a "wrong" translation of the text that was in "error," how is that not a misunderstanding of the passage?

Oh, and by the way, can you explain why we are still "stuck with their error more than two millennia later," when the same text is quoted in the same way in the Book of Mormon (which I assume you would agree is not dependent on the Septuagint!) and in the JST?

[Rob Bowman]

ELF1024,

Thank you for your penetrating insights.

Lets see, what are the words that come to mind... oh yeah, I remember...

Amateurish and Meritless....

[WalkerW]

The expression

[Pahoran]

Still more deflection and diversion from what is really a very simple issue.

Umm, Rob? You ought not to assume that we use your tactics.

You are horrified that anyone would dare to interpret any passage of scripture in any way other than you do. I suggest you learn to live with it. This is not as important to us as it is to you; your assumption that we are using "deflection and diversion" is erroneous.

No, you don't need to have a separate cottage industry criticizing the doctrines of others; you already have a missionary force of fifty thousand going door to door telling Christians of all denominations that their churches are not true churches but are part of the Great Apostasy.

And Luke Wilson's gang pays you for research that poor? They should ask for their money back.

Look, I realise you don't really know very much about LDS life and teaching; but the reality is that our missionaries go door to door inviting all to come unto Christ. The fact that the non-LDS Christians we encounter are not currently part of the true Church is a merely incidental detail. We don't lower ourselves to finding nitpicky little reasons to criticise the way they quote scriptures.

You have worked yourself into a high state of indignation because some Latter-day Saints interpret a verse of scripture in a way that (perhaps) does not represent the original intent of the author. Well, woop-de-do; I can't imagine why it should matter to us. You see, Rob, there's something you fail to grasp: we don't worship the Bible, so misinterpreting a verse (if that's what we've done) is something less than the height of blasphemy. It has no relevance at all to the Church's truth claims, and it is not going to make the slightest difference to how Latter-day Saints live their lives or fulfill their callings.

And even if Isaiah 29:21 doesn't explicitly describe the dishonest word games played by Protestant nit-pickers in order to find pretexts to attack the Church of Jesus Christ, said word games are still dishonest, and still have no place in anything purporting to be legitimate dialogue.

So just what is the "issue" again?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've used the scripture which speaks of a "dumb *** speaking with man

[bluebell]

The expression

[Rob Bowman]

WalkerW,

Absolutely hilarious!

No argument from me. I think the modern usage that has been defined on this thread is fine, except when people start thinking that is what was actually meant by the text.

I've used the scripture which speaks of a "dumb *** speaking with man

[Rob Bowman]

bluebell,

I have no objection whatsoever to making contemporary applications of Scripture or to seeking to understand how what Scripture says relates to our contemporary situation. But (1) we ought to be aware of what we're doing, and (2) we ought to avoid basing our contemporary applications on misunderstandings of the text.

In the LDS religion, likening the scriptures to ourselves or our immediate experiences is an important part of reading the scriptures. The idea comes especially from Nephi when he says "And I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning."

In this way, the idea that a scripture can be applied, legitimately, to a situation or experience that the writer of the verse did not specifically have in mind, is common in the LDS church. This is probably the reason that so many LDS posters are having trouble seeing why the issue would be troubling enough to someone to argue about it. For LDS this kind of seems like a person getting mad that someone would dare to use duct tape to fix a t.v. antennae because the inventor of it clearly meant for it to be used on ducts. That upset person wouldn't be wrong, but no one would really understand what the problem was, regardless.

I think it also needs to be said though that this doesn't seem like just an LDS propensity. I've been to non-LDS churches where sermons were taught from scripture that was likened to something that would have been foreign to the writer of it. No one in the church seemed to have a problem with it. In fact, it seemed like a fairly common practice, though it's impossible for me to say since i don't have a lot of experience with non-LDS church sermons.

This does make me wonder, Rob, if you are also against such church sermons as well, or if your ire is specific to LDS doing this?

[Mark Beesley]

TAO,

The accusation that someone plays illegitimate semantic games in order to conclude that Mormons are (fill in the blank) is not the sort of thing Isaiah meant, nor can it be included in what he meant by "offender for a word." You are taking the words of the translations I gave out of context. The "word" is a lying word spoken by wicked people, not a word used by the innocent that the bad people misinterpret or misrepresent. Dan's criticism of semantic games was an accusation that anti-Mormons twist the words that Mormons use to misrepresent Mormonism and make it sound offensive. That doesn't fit what Isaiah says.

Do any scriptures in the Old or New Testament have a dual meaning?

Have you spoken with Isaiah to see if he is bothered by the way some (very few) Latter-day Saints use the Hebrew expression ??????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????????? ?

Have you spoken with Alice in Wonderland's friend, Humpty Dumpty, about word usage?

Assuming arguendo that you are right about any of this, is anyone drawn away from Christ one iota by misusing an obscure Hebrew phrase like this?

[Daniel Peterson]

At last!

My apologies.

Fearful of dealing with this issue, I fled to Europe. But the authorities at Delta Airlines returned me from Germany late last night.

You're engaging in the same sort of diversionary tactic that several others have tried here.

Of course I did. I'm a Mormon. It's what we do.

However, having (still) read none of the other responses here, I did it independently.

A usage that goes back to Joseph Smith himself is one that ought to be defended when challenged, not simply dismissed as not popular enough to merit discussion.

Why should I defend Joseph Smith's usage?

I don't recall it, and I came up with my book title entirely on my own. (Another book had just appeared with the title that I had originally chosen. But that's another story.) If he made a trivial mistake based on a mistaken translation, I don't need to defend it. Nor do I defend Paul when he uses a mistaken Septuagint reading instead of a more accurate reading based on the Hebrew Bible.

Not so.

Aber doch.

I assure you that I have quite unique and privileged access to the thought process by which I chose that title.

The above statement clearly indicates to the reader that the expression "offenders for a word" represents one of Isaiah's "predictions of the kind of opposition that would greet the latter-day work."

Actually, I don't think it does. Not quite. You're being overliteral.

Please tell me which evangelical Protestant countercult groups or individuals make false accusations of criminal wrongdoing against Mormons, or seek to rob Mormons of justice in the legal system by lying about them. If there are any evangelical countercult ministry people doing this, I will publicly take them to task and speak against what they are doing.

Happily! Ed Decker sought to block the building of BYU's Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies by appealing to the Israeli Knesset, attempted to reduce the number of missionaries in Chile by invoking the coercive powers of the Chilean state against the Church, and suggested (in his notorious film The God Makers, shown in the 1980s in many thousands of evangelical Protestant churches across the United States and beyond) that only an unfortunate quirk in American law prevented the Church from being subject to a massive class action law suit for its multiple evils. And, just a few years ago, Kurt Van Gorden sought to destroy my life and the financial welfare of my family by suing me on false charges for $4.5 million.

Those are just a couple of instances from off the top of my head.

If what you mean is that evangelical Protestant countercult ministry people say things about Mormon history or doctrine that you think are incorrect, well, we could have a lengthy discussion about such matters,

Or a short one. In many cases, the matter is simply open and shut.

Ask Richard Mouw.

And a thorough discussion of such matters would also have to include the many misrepresentations of evangelical doctrine that LDS religious leaders (at the highest levels) and theologians have made throughout the history of the LDS Church.

I wouldn't have time for such a discussion. I am not a full-time professional critic of other churches. Nor, even, a part-time amateur one.

[TAO]

TAO,

The accusation that someone plays illegitimate semantic games in order to conclude that Mormons are (fill in the blank) is not the sort of thing Isaiah meant, nor can it be included in what he meant by "offender for a word."

Actually it can. What offenders for a word means is essentially, false accusers. Don't people falsely accuse the church of being a cult? I think that fits in... especially considering they use semantic games to call us a cult. There are other things as well.

You are taking the words of the translations I gave out of context. The "word" is a lying word spoken by wicked people, not a word used by the innocent that the bad people misinterpret or misrepresent. Dan's criticism of semantic games was an accusation that anti-Mormons twist the words that Mormons use to misrepresent Mormonism and make it sound offensive. That doesn't fit what Isaiah says.

I didn't read Dan's quote as you claimed it read though. I did not read it as the innocent people were speaking. Considering that I did not read it the way you expected me to, why do you make such a concern over it? There is likely some people that will make that mistake, but there are also others like me which will not make that mistake. Why make such a big deal over it if the amount of people who are going to misread it are minimal?

Also, twisting people words so that it sounds offensive, I think, would qualify under that verse. Offenders for a word is speaking of 'false accusers', not just 'liars'. Since they are falsely accusing us of things, or implying false things about us, they qualify as offenders for a word, no?

Here, let me post the full verse of Isaiah with a bit of the additional verse to show you what I mean.

20: ...all that ^awatch for iniquity are ^bcut off:

21: ...That make a man an ^aoffender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in ^bthe gate, and ^cturn aside the just for a thing of nought.

In other words, there is an implicit 'those' in front of the statement in 21. Therefore, it would read '[Them (they that watch for iniquity)] that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

Thus, Daniel is talking of '[Them (they that watch for iniquity)] who make innocent people an offender for a[/through their] word'.

So that's why I see it differently.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Daniel Peterson]

The "word" is a lying word spoken by wicked people, not a word used by the innocent that the bad people misinterpret or misrepresent.

And that conflicts with the argument of Offenders for a Word . . . how, exactly?

My view of the situation is, on the whole, better summarized by your "a lying word spoken by wicked people" than it is by "a word used by the innocent that the bad people misinterpret or misrepresent."

You're reading things into my book that aren't there, and doing so in a very wooden way.

Dan's criticism of semantic games was an accusation that anti-Mormons twist the words that Mormons use to misrepresent Mormonism and make it sound offensive.

No, it wasn't. You've substantially misrepresented my thesis.

That doesn't fit what Isaiah says.

It doesn't fit what I said, either.

The question that remains unanswered is why Mormons don't care whether they are understanding Scripture accurately.

It's an insulting question, based upon an insulting and false presumption.

Dan actually claimed in the Introduction to his book that Isaiah had prophesied specifically about anti-Mormon rhetoric.

I don't agree that I said that. I certainly don't believe that. I can't recall having ever believed that.