Skip to comments.Single Word Change in Book of Mormon Speaks Volumes
Posted on 11/08/2007 5:23:05 PM PST by Colofornian
click here to read article
Who needs to KNOW??
Just PRAY about it!!!
Unfortunately, in your case, the two seem to go together.
"You know, if I were a single man, I might ask that mummy out. That's a good-looking mummy!"
Bill Clinton, looking at "Juanita," a newly discovered Incan mummy on display at the National Geographic museum
Thanks for telling us what you think about a lot.
...we are going about, one word at a time, changing our message AMONG you.
You are right!
We are quite a pair; you and I.
Didja let yer cursor linger over the Clinton pix I posted??
He is not one.
The BoM says that Mormon gave the record to his son Moroni who took it all the way up there to put it where it needed to be, writing the last few chapters as he did so.
“I am still trying to figure out why blacks became worthy or human or what ever it was in the 1970s”
There were more than a few Protestant ministers in the 1800’s who argued that blacks had no soul and salvation was not extended to them. Sometimes they would dress up in white sheets and hood and lynch a black man or just burn a cross.
We never held such beliefs, we opposed slavery and didn’t force blacks out of our congregations to form their own ‘black churches’. They were not permitted to hold the priesthood for a time, just as the gospel was withheld from the Gentiles for a time, and the priesthood was once limited to only the Levities. There was never any reason revealed by God for the ban, but even back at the start of it BY said a day would come when it would be lifted, something incompatible with racist motives. The ban was lifted when God revealed it was time to lift it, and the members of the church welcomed it gladly. They did not resist it like bigots resisted the civil rights movement.
“if god ordained polygamy as a tenant of faith how come he changed his mind”
The BoM is clear that there are times God commands it and times he forbids it according to his wisdom and purposes.
“Interesting justification for changing a long-held theory.”
Why do you say that? Theories are subject to change as the available facts and our understanding of them change, that is perfectly normal.
“So, the then “living prophet” was wrong, mistaken?”
You are talking about a personal opinion of his, not a revelation.
“I remember reading this scripture and being told that the land was kept pure as the land of promise to Lehi and his family.”
What you were told is irrelevant, what is clear from the text is that the promise is conditional on their following God, and they didn’t do that if you read to the end so all bets were off.
Parsing seems to be the primary work of Mormonism apologists. In the sinkEmperor years it was called spinning, and only devious people thought it was cool.
“How do you suppose that happened”
No supposing is required, what happened is known. Whiteness is often used as a metaphor for purity and that is how it was intended there. Joseph Smith made that change in the 1840 edition to clarify the intended meaning, but subsequent editions of the BoM were based on the 1837 Edition so the change was accidentally dropped until the 80’s.
Well, LDS sure can dance.
“So; if he’s CHANGING words that are printed IN YOUR SCRIPTURES, how is he speaking?”
You probably don’t like having facts intrude on a snappy sounding slam against us, but the introduction is not scripture. Just as Epistle Dedicatory in the KJV is not scrpiture.
“I am curious as to how Joseph Smith was able to translate the ancient (unknown) language on the golden tablets into English.”
God gave him the means and ability to do so.
“It must have taken him a long time.”
Actually, about 3 months time was spend in translating it, but it wasn’t consecutive.
“How could he lose the golden tablets before anyone else could see them?”
They were not lost, an angel of God took them back. Several people saw, touched, and lifted the plates.