Jim Stiles Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 5 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: which is precisely why we tell people not take our word for it. We invite all men to ask the Lord for themselves. The Book of Mormon is available for studying. Read it. Ponder the message and ask God. He will show you it is true. Did you pray and ask God to tell you if the Koran was true? Did you pray and ask God to tell you if the Bhagavad Gita is true? Did you pray and ask God to tell you if the A Brief History of Time is true?
Russell C McGregor Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 3 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Did you pray and ask God to tell you if the Koran was true? Did you pray and ask God to tell you if the Bhagavad Gita is true? Did you pray and ask God to tell you if the A Brief History of Time is true? Do any of those volumes promise that if you ask God, in the name of Christ, if it is true, that He will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost? If not, do you have any valid comparisons to make? 3
Jim Stiles Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 16 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Do any of those volumes promise that if you ask God, in the name of Christ, if it is true, that He will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost? If not, do you have any valid comparisons to make? No, those books do not ask the reader to pray and ask God if it were true. Neither does the Bible ask the reader to pray and ask God if it is true.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: No, those books do not ask the reader to pray and ask God if it were true. Neither does the Bible ask the reader to pray and ask God if it is true. As Latter-day Saints, we give God priority over the Bible. That's why we're not idol-worshippers. Your mileage may vary. 4
Anakin7 Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 And no bound set of scriptures until late 4rth century. In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7
Jim Stiles Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: As Latter-day Saints, we give God priority over the Bible. That's why we're not idol-worshippers. Your mileage may vary. By God, you mean the beings who appeared to Joseph Smith Jr. in 1820 and of whom Smith was unable to give a consistent account of what actually happened. Edited quote from the web site that dare not speak its name: Quote Version 9. On May 24, 1844, Alexander Niebaur wrote the first vision in his journal as Joseph Smith told it to him. In this account, most of the details are the same as the official version, except that Joseph was not told that all of the Christian sects were wrong. Instead, he was specifically told that the Methodists were not God’s people. Version 8. In 1843, Joseph Smith gave an interview to the Pittsburgh Gazette, which was reprinted in the New York Observer on Sept. 23, 1843. In this version, Joseph said he was 14 years old, and there was no mention of any dark power trying to overcome him. Version 7. This is the officially accepted version of the first vision, published in Times and Seasons on April 1, 1842. Version 6. On March 1, 1842, the Times and Seasons published contents of a letter written by Joseph Smith to John Wentworth. This was published one full month before the account that is accepted as the official version today. In this one, Joseph Smith did not give his age. He mentioned no evil power overcoming him, and he said two personages visited him, though he never identifies them. It is significant that he did not mention the evil power that played so prominently in the story and also that he omitted that the personages visiting him were supposedly God the Father and Jesus Christ. Version 5. In 1841, Joseph Smith’s brother William Smith told the story to James Murdock. This account is published in A New Witness For Christ In America (2:414-415). This account lists Joseph as being 17 years old when he received the vision, and rather than God and Jesus appearing to him, William states that it was only a “glorious angel.” Admittedly, this account is third hand, and William could certainly have been mistaken about Joseph’s age. But it is not likely that he would forget that God Himself and Jesus Christ visited his brother, unless he was never told that to begin with. Version 4. In 1837, William Appleby recorded the vision story as given by Orson Pratt in his diary. In this version, the revival was not until 1822, Joseph was 17 again, and the visitors were not God and Jesus but beings who identified themselves only as angels who claimed to have forgiven Joseph’s sins. Again, this is a third-hand account, but the most important details of the vision are left out or completely different. Version 3. In 1835, Joseph Smith dictated his own account of the first vision for his personal diary. There is some question among scholars, even those who are LDS, as to who the scribe was for this part of the diary. Some believe it was Warren Parrish, but others believe it was Warren Cowdery. Regardless of which man physically wrote the account, the fact is that it appears in the official diary of the Prophet, and this journal entry is accepted as accurate and valid. In this account, which was first published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (VI, No.1, pg. 87), the evil power is mentioned for the very first time. In all previous published accounts (listed below), no evil power was ever mentioned by Joseph. Also, he does not claim that the messengers were God and Jesus, just that many angels visited him. That seems to be a very curious omission. Version 2. In February 1835, the LDS publication Messenger and Advocate recorded the account of the vision that Joseph Smith gave to Oliver Cowdery. In this account, Joseph was 17 years old, the revival is in 1823, and no mention is made of James 1:5. Instead, Joseph claimed he had been wondering if there was a God and if his sins could be forgiven. His only reason for praying was to ask if God did exist. After “11 or 12 hours” in prayer, he was visited by “a messenger from God” who forgave Joseph’s sins. While this vision is given in the Messenger and Advocate as the first vision of Joseph Smith, this story was later revised and published as a second vision from the angel Moroni preparatory to giving Joseph Smith the golden plates. Version 1. The earliest known account of the first vision was written in 1831-32 in Joseph Smith’s own handwriting. This was the version made public by Paul Cheesman in 1965, published later that same year by Jerald and Sandra Tanner in Joseph Smith’s Strange Account of the First Vision. This account had been in the hands of LDS leaders for over 130 years, hidden away in their vaults – presumably because it differs so greatly from the official version. In this account, Smith claimed to be 16 years old and that he already knew that all churches were wrong from reading the Bible. Joseph sought forgiveness, and it was Jesus alone who visited him and forgave his sins.
JLHPROF Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: By God, you mean the beings who appeared to Joseph Smith Jr. in 1820 and of whom Smith was unable to give a consistent account of what actually happened. Edited quote from the web site that dare not speak its name: Yes, whenever there's any inconsistencies in accounts given by multiple people over many years the entire story must be false. Like these: 1. Who found the empty tomb? a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others. d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple. 2. Who did they find at the tomb? a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9). b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb. c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it. d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus. Gosh, and that's just for starters. I guess the whole story of the resurrection must have been made up by Christ's followers and should not be believed. Right? Edited February 5, 2016 by JLHPROF 4
halconero Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 "“It is my meditation all the day, and more than my meat and drink, to know how I shall make the Saints of God comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge before my mind." - Joseph Smith You post as though all of these refer to the same event, vision, or instance. Or that each explains the totality of Joseph's experience in the grove. 4
Avatar4321 Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Did you pray and ask God to tell you if the Koran was true? Did you pray and ask God to tell you if the Bhagavad Gita is true? Did you pray and ask God to tell you if the A Brief History of Time is true? do any make such a claim? I haven't asked Him if my tv guide is true either. that doesn't change the fact that I have asked about the Book of Mormon. Or that He did reveal to me that it's true. why exactly are you mocking the idea of God revealing truth? That's one of the roles of the Holy Ghost. The bible clearly teaches that we can know the truth for ourself. We are constantly invited to ask, see, and knock. Doesn't God answer your prayers? And If He doesn't than how can you claim to know Him? And if you don't know Him you don't have eternal life. 1
Jim Stiles Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Yes, whenever there's any inconsistencies in accounts given by multiple people over many years the entire story must be false. Like these: 1. Who found the empty tomb? a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others. d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple. 2. Who did they find at the tomb? a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9). b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb. c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it. d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus. Gosh, and that's just for starters. I guess the whole story of the resurrection must have been made up by Christ's followers and should not be believed. Right? All of the First Vision accounts were authored by Joseph Smith Jr. We have primary sources for all but one of the accounts. We have four independent sources for the resurrection. Each author emphasized different details and ignored other details. None of the accounts formally contradict another account. There is no event in antiquity as well documented as the resurrection of Jesus. From other information, we are reasonably certain that the resurrection of Jesus took place circa Nisan 14, 30-33 CE. Since it took place almost 2000 years ago, such uncertainty is not unreasonable. BTW, John's gospel uses an older Jewish liturgical calendar than the Synoptic Gospels. We have nine versions of the First Vision. Versions 8, 5, 4, 2, and 1 differ with respect to the year the First Vision took place. The official date for the First Vision is 195 years ago, so this uncertainty with respect to timing is not reasonable. We know that the official date for the First Vision is not correct because none of the churches in the area had a revival in 1820. From the website of the fellow who irritates the people in Manti, UT once a year: Quote First, his neighborhood in 1820 experienced no revival such as he described, in which “great multitudes” joined the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches. The Presbyterian records for the Palmyra Presbyterian Church [PCUSA] show that it experienced no revival in 1820. (See Geneva Presbytery “Records,” Presbyterian Historical Society.) The local Baptist church [ABC] gained only six on profession of faith the entire year (“Records for the First Baptist Church in Palmyra,” American Baptist Historical Society) while the Methodists [UMC] actually lost members that year as well as the preceding and following years (Minutes of the Annual Conference). Why we should expect witnesses to disagree: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/why-we-should-expect-witnesses-to-disagree/ Bonus video:
JLHPROF Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: You know, I really appreciate that you are standing for what you truly believe. I just wonder if you realize you aren't convincing anyone. And whenever one of your arguments is refuted you veer from the topic and take a direct left turn into one of the old anti-mormon standbys. We discuss principles of revelation and sources of scripture, and when you don't like how it goes you suddenly throw "Warren Jeffs". We discuss Biblical teachings on polygamy, and when you don't like the responses you jump to the old "abandoned for statehood" criticism. We discuss sola scriptura and receiving witnesses of scripture, and when you don't like it you go to an old anti-mormon criticism of the First Vision. Isn't it enough to stay on topic and understand where both Mormons and "traditional" Christians are coming from on doctrinal issues? Because EVERY criticism that you can throw against Mormons can be applied just as well against your own religion, so criticizing achieves nothing. You aren't convincing anyone with weak arguments and random sidesteps. 4
Jim Stiles Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You know, I really appreciate that you are standing for what you truly believe. I just wonder if you realize you aren't convincing anyone. And whenever one of your arguments is refuted you veer from the topic and take a direct left turn into one of the old anti-mormon standbys. We discuss principles of revelation and sources of scripture, and when you don't like how it goes you suddenly throw "Warren Jeffs". We discuss Biblical teachings on polygamy, and when you don't like the responses you jump to the old "abandoned for statehood" criticism. We discuss sola scriptura and receiving witnesses of scripture, and when you don't like it you go to an old anti-mormon criticism of the First Vision. Isn't it enough to stay on topic and understand where both Mormons and "traditional" Christians are coming from on doctrinal issues?Because EVERY criticism that you can throw against Mormons can be applied just as well against your own religion, so criticizing achieves nothing. You aren't convincing anyone with weak arguments and random sidesteps. Without Sola Scriptura, clergymen can spout nonsense that they make up on the fly. If you do not understand this, then there is not much more on that topic that I can say. The video described the "chain of custody" for the Gospel of John. What is the "chain of custody" for the Book of Mormon? What is the "chain of custody" for the Book of Abraham? BTW, the "chain of custody" concept does impact the question of Sola Scriptura because it is related to the question of reliability. Every criticism that can be leveled against the LDS church cannot be leveled against traditional Christianity. LDS members are commonly taught that if the LDS church is not true, then no religion is true. This is simply not the case. Christianity rests upon the reliability of the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. If Joseph Smith Jr. was not who he claimed to be, then that has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness or lack thereof of Christianity. 1
Anakin7 Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_first_vision.shtml In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited February 5, 2016 by Anakin7
thesometimesaint Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 With 3 different versions Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus can't seem to get his story straight.
Jim Stiles Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 16 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: With 3 different versions Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus can't seem to get his story straight. And those versions are?
Russell C McGregor Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 21 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: By God, you mean the beings who appeared to Joseph Smith Jr. in 1820 and of whom Smith was unable to give a consistent account of what actually happened. Edited quote from the web site that dare not speak its name: You have every right to be ashamed of that website. But it is grossly dishonest to pretend that Latter-day Saints worship anyone other than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Nevertheless, thank you for coming as close as it is ever possible for you to come to admitting that you cannot make your argument. An honest man wouldn't just try to change the subject, but that's as good as I can expect from an anti-Mormon Unfortunately, when you rely upon anti-Mormon sources, you very quickly embarrass yourself. I could go through all nine of your FV accounts and show how idiotically they've been handled, but I'll just pick a couple. You quoted: Quote Version 6. On March 1, 1842, the Times and Seasons published contents of a letter written by Joseph Smith to John Wentworth. This was published one full month before the account that is accepted as the official version today. In this one, Joseph Smith did not give his age. He mentioned no evil power overcoming him, and he said two personages visited him, though he never identifies them. It is significant that he did not mention the evil power that played so prominently in the story and also that he omitted that the personages visiting him were supposedly God the Father and Jesus Christ. You can read the Wentworth Letter here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/07/the-wentworth-letter?lang=eng See how you've embarrassed yourself here? If you'd bothered to read the sources you are so badly abusing, you'd know that the account in the Wentworth Letter is a single paragraph; of course it leaves out lots of details. Duh! You'd also find, if you bothered to read it, that the official version also does not identify the heavenly visitors. Did you not know that? Why am I not surprised? Feeling foolish yet? No? Okay then, let's pick another. You quoted: Quote Version 5. In 1841, Joseph Smith’s brother William Smith told the story to James Murdock. This account is published in A New Witness For Christ In America (2:414-415). This account lists Joseph as being 17 years old when he received the vision, and rather than God and Jesus appearing to him, William states that it was only a “glorious angel.” Admittedly, this account is third hand, and William could certainly have been mistaken about Joseph’s age. But it is not likely that he would forget that God Himself and Jesus Christ visited his brother, unless he was never told that to begin with. Once again, if you'd bothered to read the primary sources, you could have saved yourself a considerable degree of embarrassment. In the official account -- and, for that matter, in the Wentworth Letter as well -- Joseph's account of the First Vision is followed by another heavenly visitation that took place in September, 1823. Who visited Joseph on that occasion? Moroni, who Joseph described as a "glorious angel." Oh, and since Joseph was born in December 1805, how old do you think he was in September 1823? Go ahead, Jim. Work it out. Take off your socks if you have to. I'm sure you've been to school, so you kin figger, right? There are plenty more errors in the mishmash you've offered. But those two will do to be going on with. 4
Avatar4321 Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 20 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Without Sola Scriptura, clergymen can spout nonsense that they make up on the fly. If you do not understand this, then there is not much more on that topic that I can say. The video described the "chain of custody" for the Gospel of John. What is the "chain of custody" for the Book of Mormon? What is the "chain of custody" for the Book of Abraham? BTW, the "chain of custody" concept does impact the question of Sola Scriptura because it is related to the question of reliability. Every criticism that can be leveled against the LDS church cannot be leveled against traditional Christianity. LDS members are commonly taught that if the LDS church is not true, then no religion is true. This is simply not the case. Christianity rests upon the reliability of the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. If Joseph Smith Jr. was not who he claimed to be, then that has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness or lack thereof of Christianity. sola scriptura hasn't stopped clergymen from sprouting nonsense. Look at Westboro Baptist church. Look at any televangelist. Heck, Calvin had some crazy notions too. as for chain of custody, the book of Mormon has far better chain of custody. Can't get much better than God Himself authenticating it. 2
Jim Stiles Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: You have every right to be ashamed of that website. But it is grossly dishonest to pretend that Latter-day Saints worship anyone other than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Nevertheless, thank you for coming as close as it is ever possible for you to come to admitting that you cannot make your argument. An honest man wouldn't just try to change the subject, but that's as good as I can expect from an anti-Mormon Unfortunately, when you rely upon anti-Mormon sources, you very quickly embarrass yourself. I could go through all nine of your FV accounts and show how idiotically they've been handled, but I'll just pick a couple. You quoted: You can read the Wentworth Letter here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/07/the-wentworth-letter?lang=eng See how you've embarrassed yourself here? If you'd bothered to read the sources you are so badly abusing, you'd know that the account in the Wentworth Letter is a single paragraph; of course it leaves out lots of details. Duh! You'd also find, if you bothered to read it, that the official version also does not identify the heavenly visitors. Did you not know that? Why am I not surprised? Feeling foolish yet? No? Okay then, let's pick another. You quoted: Once again, if you'd bothered to read the primary sources, you could have saved yourself a considerable degree of embarrassment. In the official account -- and, for that matter, in the Wentworth Letter as well -- Joseph's account of the First Vision is followed by another heavenly visitation that took place in September, 1823. Who visited Joseph on that occasion? Moroni, who Joseph described as a "glorious angel." Oh, and since Joseph was born in December 1805, how old do you think he was in September 1823? Go ahead, Jim. Work it out. Take off your socks if you have to. I'm sure you've been to school, so you kin figger, right? There are plenty more errors in the mishmash you've offered. But those two will do to be going on with. I am not ashamed of the web site of Mormonism Research Ministry. However, I have been told not to include the URL for the site here in any citations because the server contains links to material that the owner/operator of this site wishes was not on the internet and available for all to view. It is grossly dishonest to pretend that the LDS church worships the three person one essence God that was worshiped by the saints in both Old Testament and New Testament times. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.1-26?lang=eng#0 Quote Joseph Smith—History 1:5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester [1820], there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist. There was no revivals (Methodists, Baptists, or Presbyterian) in the Manchester area in 1820. There was a large one in 1825 though (Wesley Walters, The Palmyra Revival & Mormon Origins, Mormonism Research Ministry, 1967).
Freedom Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 21 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Without Sola Scriptura, clergymen can spout nonsense that they make up on the fly. If you do not understand this, then there is not much more on that topic that I can say. And this is why Jesus called apostles and not evangelical ministers to lead this church. Apostles who, by the way, wrote books well after His ascension that you consider to be scripture. 2
Jim Stiles Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said: sola scriptura hasn't stopped clergymen from sprouting nonsense. Look at Westboro Baptist church. Look at any televangelist. Heck, Calvin had some crazy notions too. as for chain of custody, the book of Mormon has far better chain of custody. Can't get much better than God Himself authenticating it. The original text of the Book of Mormon is in heaven where it cannot be viewed or tested. The golden plates were translated by putting a peepstone into a hat and burying his head in the hat. Why bother with the plates, if one is going to translate them in that manner.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: I am not ashamed of the web site of Mormonism Research Ministry. However, I have been told not to include the URL for the site here in any citations because the server contains links to material that the owner/operator of this site wishes was not on the internet and available for all to view. And yet the so-called "ministry" is deeply ashamed of who they are and what they do. That's why the call themselves by the self-glorifying and deceitful title "Mormonism Research Ministry" instead of a more honest and forthcoming name like "Anti-Mormon Propaganda Mill," which is what they really are. 5 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: It is grossly dishonest to pretend that the LDS church worships the three person one essence God that was worshiped by the saints in both Old Testament and New Testament times. You are bearing false witness, a well-known EV Protestant failing. You may, with James White, deny that a Mormon is your brother, but if you take any notice at all of the teachings of Jesus, you cannot deny that we are your neighbours. It is brazenly dishonest to pretend that anyone in Old Testament or New Testament times had so much as heard of the 4th century creeds, much less believed them. The very concept of "essence" (ousia) is a category borrowed from Greek philosophy; Middle Platonism, to be precise. 5 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.1-26?lang=eng#0 There was no revivals (Methodists, Baptists, or Presbyterian) in the Manchester area in 1820. There was a large one in 1825 though (Wesley Walters, The Palmyra Revival & Mormon Origins, Mormonism Research Ministry, 1967). Proving a negative is notoriously rather difficult. In this case, it's impossible. Walters's hatchet job is discredited hackery. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Religious_revivals_in_1820 I suggest you go back to Melodyland Bible College and tell them all boastful stories of how you silenced all the Mormons with your brilliant debating skills. You'll get no mileage here. 2
Calm Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 Quote the owner/operator of this site wishes was not on the internet and available for all to view. IOW: Quote This is not a free speech board it is a civil speech board: We want participation from a diverse group of people. This means:• Do not post sacred LDS temple content or links to LDS temple content...
Avatar4321 Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: The original text of the Book of Mormon is in heaven where it cannot be viewed or tested. The golden plates were translated by putting a peepstone into a hat and burying his head in the hat. Why bother with the plates, if one is going to translate them in that manner. the Book or Mormon can be verified by asking God. Why are you so reluctant to read the Book and ask Him?
Freedom Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: The original text of the Book of Mormon is in heaven where it cannot be viewed or tested. The golden plates were translated by putting a peepstone into a hat and burying his head in the hat. Why bother with the plates, if one is going to translate them in that manner. I assume you have a reference to verify their location? And I presume you have the original manuscripts of the bible which allows you to express this concern about the book of Mormon? Also, I presume you have more appropriate manners God has employed when having prophets translate ancient scripture? Using a stone in a hat to translate a book. Next we will find out someone put dirt on someone's face to cure blindness. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 7 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: 7 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: And those versions are? Paul himself makes no mention of a conversion on the road to Damascus, whereas Acts of the Apostles has not one, but three accounts: At Acts 9:3-8, Paul was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in the city. His men did not see the light, but heard the voice. They remained standing. At Acts 22:6-11, Paul told the people he was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who again told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in Damascus. This time, his men saw the light but, unlike Paul, were not blinded, and did not hear the voice. At Acts 26.13-19, Paul told Agrippa that he saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus, who gave him his mission, but did not command him to go to Damascus. He fell down, but there is no mention of blindness, nor is there any mention of the men seeing or hearing anything, although for some reason they also fell down. He told those at Damascus and Jerusalem about his conversion experience.
Recommended Posts