Why I Know

[Hughes]

Since the Bible is nothing more than a compilation of many writings at different times, how many copies of the Bible are there in the "original language"?

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. Source

This does not answer my question. I asked if the temple is no longer needed, then why did Paul and other apostles continue to use it? And what was it that told Christians not to use it any longer? Why do you not use a temple?

They went to the temple (before it was destroyed in AD 70) "as was their custom" and to the synagogue to preach the good news. After it was destroyed, there was no temple. There was no command to build a new temple for christians.

Why do I not use a temple? It's really a weird question to me. My body is the temple. Christ is in me, the Holy spirit resides in me. There is no need for a temple of any kind anymore. Emanuel "God with us" is now our song. We no longer have to go to a temple to have our sins forgiven, which was the purpose of the Jewish Temple.

It was called the Church of Jesus Christ, since Jesus Himself referred to it as "my church" (Matthew 16:18). But since that Church apostatized, and God has restored it anew in the latter days, His Church today is called, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

Acts 9:1 "Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

I was referring to this passage, where the church was called, "the way".

Also, Hughes, I understand that you love the Lord, and you obviously have faith in him. And I'm assuming that you repent of your sins everyday. That's good. But baptism by water and by fire (the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost), by someone having the proper authority to do so, are also needed, as Christ so clearly taught. Have you been baptized by and received the gift of the Holy Ghost from someone of the proper authority?

No. The LDS don't have "proper" authority for anything. Only Christ has authority and he gives it freely to all believers. Praise God! My focus is on Christ and Christ alone.

[zerinus]

Acts 9:1 "Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

I was referring to this passage, where the church was called, "the way".

I am sure you can find many words in the dictionary which you could use to refer to the followers of a particular religion; but that is neither here nor there. It is beside the point. You asked what God's true Church was called, in ancient times, and I gave you the right answer.

[Vance]

Only Christ has authority and he gives it freely to all believers.

CFR that "all believers" are given authority.

[altersteve]

They went to the temple (before it was destroyed in AD 70) "as was their custom" and to the synagogue to preach the good news. After it was destroyed, there was no temple. There was no command to build a new temple for christians.

Why do I not use a temple? It's really a weird question to me. My body is the temple. Christ is in me, the Holy spirit resides in me. There is no need for a temple of any kind anymore. Emanuel "God with us" is now our song. We no longer have to go to a temple to have our sins forgiven, which was the purpose of the Jewish Temple.

You still haven't answered my question about why we no longer need a temple. The temple in the time of Paul was not used to have his sins forgiven, but to receive calls and visions. Why was that put to an end?

No. The LDS don't have "proper" authority for anything. Only Christ has authority and he gives it freely to all believers. Praise God! My focus is on Christ and Christ alone.

The authority that Christ has is the priesthood, and I agree that he gives that authority to his believers. You just clarified my point for me. And you keep saying that you focus on Christ and none other, as if you don't believe that Latter-day Saints do the same thing. Where are you getting this "Mormons only focus on Joseph Smith" stuff from?

[Hughes]

I am sure you can find many words in the dictionary which you could use to refer to the followers of a particular religion; but that is neither here nor there. It is beside the point. You asked what God's true Church was called, in ancient times, and I gave you the right answer.

And my point is it doesn't matter what you call it, it is not and never has been an organization by men.

CFR that "all believers" are given authority.

Matt. 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Gal. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Phil.4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

You still haven't answered my question about why we no longer need a temple. The temple in the time of Paul was not used to have his sins forgiven, but to receive calls and visions. Why was that put to an end?

The authority that Christ has is the priesthood, and I agree that he gives that authority to his believers. You just clarified my point for me. And you keep saying that you focus on Christ and none other, as if you don't believe that Latter-day Saints do the same thing. Where are you getting this "Mormons only focus on Joseph Smith" stuff from?

The Temple wasn't used to call paul into missionary work or to give him a vision. sorry. It was and always has been a strictly Jewish Temple, not christian.

Why is there a new covenant? Why can't we pour new wine into old wineskins?

The authority that Christ has is that he's God.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Hughes

[altersteve]

I agree about Christ's authority being that he is God. But he has the priesthood, and that priesthood is given to his disciples. And Paul did in fact receive a vision and prophetic calls (I said nothing about missionary work) in the temple. Read Acts 22 again.

[altersteve]

Read also: Acts 2:46, 3:1–10, 5:20–42, 10:3–9, 21:26–30, 22:17, 24:6–18, 25:8, and 26:21. The temple was used for far more than just receiving a remission for one's sins. It was not a "strictly Jewish temple."

[Xander]

No matter how many times people try to discredit Joseph, they cannot discredit in my eyes the doctrine and scripture he gave us.

Sure they can. That's generally considered easy for informed critics. The Book of Abraham is easily discredited as a 19th century production that has nothing to do with the Egyptian papyri from which they were translated. Apologists have been reduced to claiming the real papyri is missing and/or insisting the word translate doesn't really mean translate. But if you're satisfied with these kinds of responses to the critics, then more power to you. I'm just saying that the only people who believe the critics cannot discredit Joseph Smith's "new scriptures" are those who operate from the assumption that said scriptures are from God. So essentially, no amount of evidence to the contrary could possibly dissuade you from this.

If he is not a prophet then the scripture and doctrine he gave us cannot be true

Not necessarily. Much of what Smith put into his "new" scriptures was borrowed from other sources which may or may not involve truthful teachings. The Book of Mormon is heavily dependent on the Bible, for example. Even LDS Bible scholar David Bokovoy admits this.

and yet it so conforms with what we already have in the Bible and clarifies and expands it and makes so much sense in the big picture that I can’t reconcile the new scriptures with the man whom the critics represent as some reprehensible con man.

Can you name a single theological novelty provided by Joseph Smith, that is necessarily understood as a "clarification" or "expansion" of some Biblical doctrine? You can view it in those terms if you choose, but only because you want to.

The second point is the fact that despite the great persecution and almost extermination of the early saints, the Church has continued to grow and not only grow but prosper throughout the world.

Yes, and this would be expected for any community that procreates at twice or thrice the national average. The Seventh-Day Adventists are nearly as old, and their Church grows at a much faster pace, and their activity rates are far more impressive than the (roughly) 35% activity rate the Mormon Church has to deal with. So what?

Because of it many nations of the earth are blessed just by having Priesthood and temples on their soil and many who have suffered have benefited greatly from the humanitarian efforts of the church.

Now you're just question begging about the Church benefiting every country it visits. But all Churches provide help to those in need, and I highly doubt the LDS church is the world leader among religions. From my experience, the Church places most of its resources strategically to help first and foremost, struggling members of their own faith. Even when Mormons gather during national disasters such as hurricanes and tornados, they typically focus their initial efforts on helping the local Mormons who had been affected by the disasters. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, as suffering Mormons are still people who are suffering. But I know of no other religion that discriminates in such a way when it comes to distributing their charity.

The early saints made a great and beautiful city out of the mosquito infested swampland.

Which is only evidence of their resourcefulness, not the truthfulness of their religion. Jews are arguably the most persecuted and resourceful people on the planet, and they don't even accept Jesus Christ.

They made the desert in the Utah valley blossom and prosper.

There is probably more myth to this than most Mormons are willing to admit, but yes, they did manage to survive and prosper after struggling in the beginning. But then, so what?

Whatever they have touched through their industry and their faith they made beautiful.

Well, I could mention a few examples to the contrary, but then I'd be attacked for doing so. But then again, I'll probably be attacked anyway.

If by their fruits ye shall know them then the fruits of the church Joseph Smith established are evidence of its truth.

I seriously doubt that when Jesus spoke of fruits, he was talking about growing wheat or trying to build temples from sandstone.

[zerinus]

And my point is it doesn't matter what you call it, it is not and never has been an organization by men.

And how does calling it “the way” stops it from being an organization by men—or rather, of men? God’s true Church is not an organization by men, but of men, made by God. The word “Church” occurs 114 times in the New Testament. You are contradicting the Bible 114 times by refusing to acknowledge God’s one true Church.

Edited June 23, 2011 by zerinus

[Deborah]

Sure they can. That's generally considered easy for informed critics. The Book of Abraham is easily discredited as a 19th century production that has nothing to do with the Egyptian papyri from which they were translated.

Easily discredited? Hardly. Else why would it continue to be discussed. If it was already discredited there would be nothing else to discuss. In any case the proof isn't in the methodology but in the text itself. But then I haven't seen arguments about the text only the methodology.

As to you other points, I never said other faiths didn't produce good fruits. The point being made was that the church after severe persecution and near financial ruin and the death of two of its leaders was able to move forward and become a worldwide church in spite of continuous persecution even after moving to the Utah territory.

CFR the sources Joseph Smith would have had access to on the frontier that he borrowed from other sources for his profound teachings on Priesthood authority, work for the dead, the three degrees of glory, pre-mortal life. The Book of Mormon was designed to support the teachings of the Bible and therefore would have many similarities. Still there is much in the BOM that you would be hard-pressed to show how an unlearned farm boy could write off the top of his head in such a short time with scribes describing how it came from him without pausing.

[Vance]

Matt. 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Ok, So "all authority in heaven and on earth" was given to Christ. This is not the question. (Although it does beg the question "Who gave Him that authority?", and "Why didn't He have it before?".)

And Christ gave that authority to the disciples to whom He was speaking. BUT, you still haven't shown that He gave it to "all believers". This does NOT address the CFR.

Gal. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

So? This does NOT address the CFR.

Phil.4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

So? This does NOT address the CFR.

Hughes,

You have failed to address the CFR. Try again or concede.

[Franktalk]

Sure they can. That's generally considered easy for informed critics. The Book of Abraham is easily discredited as a 19th century production that has nothing to do with the Egyptian papyri from which they were translated. Apologists have been reduced to claiming the real papyri is missing and/or insisting the word translate doesn't really mean translate. But if you're satisfied with these kinds of responses to the critics, then more power to you. I'm just saying that the only people who believe the critics cannot discredit Joseph Smith's "new scriptures" are those who operate from the assumption that said scriptures are from God. So essentially, no amount of evidence to the contrary could possibly dissuade you from this.

When you go to the store to get some sugar do you examine the package? I mean if the print on the box is slightly offset do you reject the sugar. If the flap on the top of the box has a small amount of glue exposed do you reject the sugar inside. Just what is important the sugar or the box it comes in. Do you not see that God places His message in many boxes. And many of those boxes are not perfect for a reason. God knows that some will reject the message because of the package. He will allow you to stumble.

Once I stood back and looked at the big picture I could see clearly. I test the message not the container. If the message is from God then I don't care how it was delivered. Is the proof of the message the container?

There was a man a long time ago who was filled with worldly thoughts. God chose him to deliver a message. So what did the man do? Why he took the first ship to England going the wrong way from where he was told to go. Along the way the crew of the ship was told that the man was causing their passage to be difficult. So the man was taken back to where he came from. Realizing that he better get the message delivered he walked to the people he was to talk to. He delivered the message. The people looked at the man and his clothes. They thought to them self that God would not send a man dressed this way to deliver a message. And he smelled like a fish. So they threw the man out. Soon their city was destroyed by a rain of fire. Oh, wait a minute. That's not true. The people of the city heard the message and ignored who gave it. They took the message and found that it was true as measured by their hearts. They repented and saved the city from the wrath of God. Funny how that worked out. I wonder some times if there is a message in that story for us to learn. Just hard to put my finger on it though. I am sure you must know what the true message is in the Book of Jonah.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Franktalk

[Hughes]

I agree about Christ's authority being that he is God. But he has the priesthood, and that priesthood is given to his disciples. And Paul did in fact receive a vision and prophetic calls (I said nothing about missionary work) in the temple. Read Acts 22 again.

Paul received a visions almost every day, it didn't matter where he was, the Temple just happened to be where he was praying.

Read also: Acts 2:46, 3:1–10, 5:20–42, 10:3–9, 21:26–30, 22:17, 24:6–18, 25:8, and 26:21. The temple was used for far more than just receiving a remission for one's sins. It was not a "strictly Jewish temple."

I don't have time to look at each verse, but I did look at two, one says they were hanging out in the Temple courts, and the other they were praying... Please explain to me 1) how a temple is needed for any of the things mentioned. 2) where it's commanded by Jesus to build temples.

And how does calling it “the way” stops it from being an organization by men—or rather, of men? God’s true Church is not an organization by men, but of men, made by God. The word “Church” occurs 114 times in the New Testament. You are contradicting the Bible 114 times by refusing to acknowledge God’s one true Church.

No. You are equating "The one true church" with the LDS faith/church. And I'm saying that God's church transcends man's buildings, and organizations. He alone knows all who are his. It's not up to any man to decide.

Ok, So "all authority in heaven and on earth" was given to Christ. This is not the question. (Although it does beg the question "Who gave Him that authority?", and "Why didn't He have it before?".)

And Christ gave that authority to the disciples to whom He was speaking. BUT, you still haven't shown that He gave it to "all believers". This does NOT address the CFR.

So? This does NOT address the CFR.

So? This does NOT address the CFR.

Hughes,

You have failed to address the CFR. Try again or concede.

Indeed anything applied to the disciples does apply to all believers. Thanks.

If you don't think this is the case, please explain where it says the disciples had more of christ than we do. Or how it doesn't apply to all believers.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Hughes

[zerinus]

No. You are equating "The one true church" with the LDS faith/church. And I'm saying that God's church transcends man's buildings, and organizations. He alone knows all who are his. It's not up to any man to decide.

Then you are living in a fantasy world of your own creation which has nothing to do with the Bible. The Church that Jesus established was an organization of men. It had officers and an organization. It had local priesthood officers with limited jurisdiction, who were the bishops and elders of the Church; as well as higher officers who had wide jurisdiction over the whole Church, who were the Apostles:

1 Corinthians 12

:

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

* * *

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set

some

in the church

, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues

.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

You do greatly err my friend, not understanding the scriptures, or the power and gift of God to man.

Edited June 23, 2011 by zerinus

[Vance]

Indeed anything applied to the disciples does apply to all believers. Thanks.

Another bald assertion and basically a different phrasing of the initial statement for which I issued the CFR. And so, this does NOT address the CFR.

If you don't think this is the case, please explain where it says the disciples had more of christ than we do.

Sorry, but your attempt to avoid the CFR with this red herring won't work. You made the statement, now back it up or concede.

You are the one that claimed Jesus authorized "all believer". Now, put up or concede.

Or how it doesn't apply to all believers.

I already did, He was not talking to "all believers" put to those disciples that were there. Simple.

International Standard Version (©2008)

Therefore, as you go, disciple people in all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

So wherever you go, make disciples of all nations: Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

King James Bible

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

American King James Version

Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

American Standard Version

Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

Douay-Rheims Bible

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

English Revised Version

Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost:

Webster's Bible Translation

Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sure they can. That's generally considered easy for informed critics. The Book of Abraham is easily discredited as a 19th century production that has nothing to do with the Egyptian papyri from which they were translated.

Look it is Xander the non anti-Mormon. I have a feeling he belongs to the camp of Aaron Shovelit.

Nothing like broad brush generalizations and uninformed opinions.

[Kevin Christensen]

Rather than arbitrarily and subjectively deciding what fruit distinguishes true prophets from false, one would think that the Biblical Keys might cast some light. The FAIR essay (and FAIRwiki version) directs our attention to Biblical passages that highlight these issues:

Wherefore, by their fruits shall ye know them.

—Matthew 7:20

Claims a True Prophet must make

Revelation and Vision

Witnesses

Chosen by God

Ordained by prophesy and the laying on of hands by those in authority

Teaching of Christ

Christ ordained by God to judge all men, and

Teaches belief on him for remission of sins

Testifies that Jesus is "come in the flesh"

Apostles and prophets given "till we all come in a unity of the faith"

Accepts the Biblical God

Character of Teaching

Preaches Repentance

Teaches of one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all

Teaches by the spirit, so that your faith stands in the power of God

Opens understanding of the scriptures

Teaching consistent with scripture

Provides knowledge of the heavenly council

Provides knowledge of the Lord's covenant

They teach their followers to expect trials in this life

Personal Character

Seeks to please God, not men

Teaches with authority, and not as a scribe

They lead as willing ensamples to the flock, not for filthy lucre

Recognizes and is united with authorized prophets

They admit to being men of passion, like us, liable to sin

Evidences provided

God bears them witness with signs and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will

A prophet may do works none other man did.

Teaches that the investigators must keep his words to learn the truth of them.

Prophecy

Teaches that we must pray

Over time, arguments against a prophet fail, and demonstrate confusion

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Tests

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Hughes]

Then you are living in a fantasy world of your own creation which has nothing to do with the Bible. The Church that Jesus established was an organization of men. It had officers and an organization. It had local priesthood officers with limited jurisdiction, who were the bishops and elders of the Church; as well as higher officers who had wide jurisdiction over the whole Church, who were the Apostles:

1 Corinthians 12

:

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

* * *

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set

some

in the church

, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues

.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

You do greatly err my friend, not understanding the scriptures, or the power and gift of God to man.

Jesus established an organization of men. Not an organization run by men. We all do our part, which is controlled and directed by Christ, not any men.

Using his analogy, everything in the body is controlled by the Head, which is Christ alone. The hand isn't controlled by the leg or the hand, but the head.

Another bald assertion and basically a different phrasing of the initial statement for which I issued the CFR. And so, this does NOT address the CFR.

Sorry, but your attempt to avoid the CFR with this red herring won't work. You made the statement, now back it up or concede.

You are the one that claimed Jesus authorized "all believer". Now, put up or concede.

I already did, He was not talking to "all believers" put to those disciples that were there. Simple.

International Standard Version (©2008)

Therefore, as you go, disciple people in all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

So wherever you go, make disciples of all nations: Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

King James Bible

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

American King James Version

Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

American Standard Version

Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

Douay-Rheims Bible

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

English Revised Version

Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost:

Webster's Bible Translation

Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

I answered your CFR. You called for a reference, I gave you three. You disagree with the application or interpretation I use. That's your choice.

[altersteve]

Hughes, you do know, I hope, that Latter-day Saints believe that Christ himself does in fact lead the Church. It is his. And the Lord has already said that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true Church.

[Vance]

I answered your CFR. You called for a reference, I gave you three. You disagree with the application or interpretation I use. That's your choice.

The three "references" you provided didn't support your claim. It isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. They don't support your assertion.

For one who claims "sola scriptrura" it is a big FAIL!

Edited June 23, 2011 by Vance

[Deborah]

Rather than arbitrarily and subjectively deciding what fruit distinguishes true prophets from false, one would think that the Biblical Keys might cast some light.

Thanks, Kevin for providing that. Funny how Joseph Smith fits the description of a true prophet. Add that to why I know that he was a prophet.

[IloveaMormon]

"Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites." The phrase, "skin of blackness" was removed and became: "Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites."^] The second change appears in summary of Mormon chapter 5. Formerly, it included the phrase that "the Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people ..." The new version deleted the phrase "dark, filthy, and loathsome" and now reads, "... the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them.These changes are seen by critics to be another step in the evolution of the text of the Book of Mormon to delete racist language from it. In an interview, a former BYU graduate student suggested that the changes were made for "clarity, a change in emphasis and to stick closer to the scriptural language."

I don't believe God would not have chosen a racist person to 'restore His church'.

You have provided no source for an obvious cut and paste and you are racebaiting.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Minos

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't believe God would not have chosen a racist person to 'restore His church'.

Me either. Was JS racist? I don't believe any one has come close to making that case.

[Hughes]

Hughes, you do know, I hope, that Latter-day Saints believe that Christ himself does in fact lead the Church. It is his. And the Lord has already said that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true Church.

I do know that the LDS faith believes that yes.

[shalamabobbi]

Recently an alien who aspired to citizenship in the USA stumbled upon a lost parchment wherein George Washington issued commands to his followers to kill the British.

Immediately he went out to obey his leader's command and began leveling British tourists in the streets.

Not factual of course. People have too much common sense to make that mistake..