Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Single Word Change in Book of Mormon Speaks Volumes
Salt Lake Tribune ^ | November 8, 2007 | Peggy Fletcher Stack

Posted on 11/08/2007 5:23:05 PM PST by Colofornian

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-387 next last
To: Colofornian

“Nice cop-out.”

Facts are not cop outs. There are times President Bush’s press secretary is speaking on behalf of the administration and times he is not. Likewise there are times a prophet speaks on behalf of God and time he doesn’t.

It is also up to God, not you and not the President of the Church, to decide what to reveal to the church and when to do so. It is not necessary to document and publish every instance of the Holy Spirit confirming one plan or not, every moment of pure inspiration as they direct the day to day affairs of the church. To restore the fullness of the gospel took several stages and a lot of revelation, but now that the restoration is done there is little need for the revelation of doctrine of prophecy. The need is for members to live by what has already been given.

When there is something new that God wants the church to receive as doctrine or prophecy it will be received by the prophet, given unanimous consent by the 12 and the 70, then formally presented to the church and added to our scripture. Our scriptures say that God will not permit the President of the Church to lead the Church astray from the gospel so we are not out there looking for an excuse to point accusatory fingers at him.


151 posted on 11/09/2007 5:34:00 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry
What I'll add to this thread is as follows. (1) Its well-documented what LDS church leaders, scriptures, lesson manuals, talks and commentaries have said about the Lamanites and the Amerinds being in general one and the same. (2) All the present discussion and changing of opinions on this subject in Mormonism circles are NOT being done in any official capacity. What has Hinckley said about it? What about Monson? What about Packer? What about Perry? What about Eyring? What about the newest Seer - i.e. Quentin Cook? (3) The defenders of Mormonism here once again are not approaching this issue with any humility. All the weeping, wailing and gnashing of their teeth does nothing to convince anyone who isn't LDS that the LDS are right. If you are trying to defend Mormonism then for heaven's sake please fairly acknowledge what was really taught throughout Mormonism history. Put things in full context and don't pick/choose things to exclude. On picking/choosing things to exclude please DO NOT exclude the scriptures mentioned in http://www.gbwells.net/Prophecies_of_America.htm.
152 posted on 11/09/2007 5:42:51 PM PST by Degaston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Yes, physically, according to their testimony.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Spiritual_or_literal
http://en.fairmormon.org/%22shown_to_me_by_a_supernatural_power%22


153 posted on 11/09/2007 5:44:14 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

“When was that??”

Up until the time Peter got the vision to take the gospel to the Gentiles (see Acts 10).


154 posted on 11/09/2007 5:47:28 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Grig

You have been lied to and taught to like it. Of the ‘original’ witnesses, which ones did Joe Smith call liars and which ones recanted? You people can’t keep your stories straight, but then it doesn’t seem to matter to Mormonism adherents that their religious foundations have been shifting sands. Have a nice evening, Apologist. You’re spinning and it makes me dizzy. I don’t choose to deal with your garbage this evening. Maybe I’ll come back online later and shoot a few holes in your fables.


155 posted on 11/09/2007 5:51:48 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Campion

“Of course that explanation is almost impossible for most of us to verify.”

Copies of the 1840 edition still exist. For over 20 years we have been pointing out that the change comes from the 1840 edition but critics just ignore that fact and portray the 1980 edition as the first time pure was used there. What does that tell you?


156 posted on 11/09/2007 6:01:27 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

“But when the witnesses were pressed about seeing the plates they admitted what they ACTUALLY saw was what appeared to be a book on a table, and the book was COVERED with a tablecloth.”

That was a time PRIOR to when they saw them, while the BoM was still being translated. Later they saw the plates firsthand and handled them and they were quite clear that they actually saw them.

“Gentlemen, do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates.” — Martin Harris

“The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true.” — Martin Harris (at his death)

“Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time.” — David Whitmer

Once when David Whitmer was accused of being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates he reportedly said in reply “No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!”

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Spiritual_or_literal
http://en.fairmormon.org/%22shown_to_me_by_a_supernatural_power%22


157 posted on 11/09/2007 6:13:36 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Let's let G-d decide what worship he accepts. You're a mere human.

Who has READ what G*D expects in an old Jewish covenant.

158 posted on 11/09/2007 6:39:50 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Speaking of screen names, have you been milked lately?

That's an udderly personal question.

159 posted on 11/09/2007 6:40:47 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Grig

Why do you Mormons call non-Mormons - Gentiles?


160 posted on 11/09/2007 8:26:56 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Grig
What does that tell you?

It tells me the LDS organization was very lax concerning the accuracy of their printings.

161 posted on 11/09/2007 8:28:04 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Grig
Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view...
162 posted on 11/09/2007 8:29:03 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Grig
To restore the fullness of the gospel took several stages and a lot of revelation, but now that the restoration is done there is little need for the revelation of doctrine of prophecy.

Well. See, now you part ways with what the Doctrine & Covenants say. (What you say here and what D&C says can't both be right). In several places (D&C 20:9; 42:12; 133:57), the D&C says that the Book of Mormon IS "the fullness of the everlasting gospel."

Who's correct? Joe Smith & the D&C? Or you? (Or neither?) Is it you, who now claims, "No, I guess the gospel wasn't full post completion of the Book of Mormon, after all. It took "several stages and a lot of revelation..."?

You can't both possibly be right without twisting the English language.

When there is something new that God wants the church to receive as doctrine or prophecy it will be received by the prophet, given unanimous consent by the 12 and the 70, then formally presented to the church and added to our scripture.

Oh, so "when there is something new that God wants the Church to receive as doctrine or prophecy...", there must be "unanimous consent by the 12 and the 70,"eh? Wanna explain, then, when LDS "prophet" Wilford Woodruff introduced the Sept. 25 1890 "manifesto" which publicly slowed down the number of LDS polygamous marriages why only Woodruff's name was attached to that document? Wanna explain to all of us why counselors George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith (part of the "First Presidency") did not sign the document? (Even when the LDS "apostles" met over that next week on Sept. 30, Oct. 1, and Oct. 2, only 8 or 9 of the apostles gave tentative concurrence on the document...see John Henry Smith diaries, entries for those three days, George A. Smith Family Papers available @ the University of Utah Library).

So who's right? The Smith diaries as recorded on those very days those "apostles" met? Or you and the revelation formula you mentioned?

163 posted on 11/09/2007 8:31:29 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Um, because our bodies are the living temple of God and He dwells in us and doesn’t need a man made temple anymore, since Christ paid the final penalty for our sins.


164 posted on 11/09/2007 9:54:41 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

So the whole book of Mormon is supposed to have been translated from these gold tablets?

Just how big were these things and how much did they weigh?

And how could anybody have just *lost* them?


165 posted on 11/09/2007 10:07:29 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Grig; Ditter; svcw
They were not lost, an angel of God took them back. Several people saw, touched, and lifted the plates.

The plates were supposed to have been buried in the ground. How could an angel have taken them "back"? That implies that the angel gave him them first.

So an angel took them back? Pretty convenient.

How did he find them in the first place?

166 posted on 11/09/2007 10:10:56 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant; Elsie

Your screen name is showing.

Elsie IS a sir.

You need to get out more.


167 posted on 11/09/2007 10:19:55 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Here’s the account of the First Vision and the acquiring of the plates in Joseph’s own words if you are really interested in learning about it.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1

I’m sure the antis on this thread will point you in other directions, but this is the official canonized version. Not even an “intro” by McConckie, this is in Joseph Smith’s own words.

168 posted on 11/09/2007 10:20:56 PM PST by sevenbak (Wise men still seek Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Yes they were, indeed. I have no doubt but that they came here long before Columbus.

But as to the genetics of the tribes of Jacob, we know what Judah’s descendent's were like 2000 years later, but not the rest of his children, from different mothers. One can only guess.

Read pages 36 and 37 of this book, Indians in the Americas, the untold story. It’s quite interesting, and it’s not LDS, but has many many accounts of similar encounters with white skinned, light hair Indians.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Obgdz8auwkMC&printsec=frontcover

169 posted on 11/09/2007 10:42:40 PM PST by sevenbak (Wise men still seek Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Elsie, you just made my nose bleed I laughed so hard. Thanks dude! (Mormon dude that is)


170 posted on 11/09/2007 10:46:04 PM PST by sevenbak (Wise men still seek Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Who's correct? Joe Smith & the D&C? Or you? (Or neither?)

There you go again!

Trying to use LOGIC!!!

--MormonDude(hooked on a feelin')

171 posted on 11/10/2007 4:58:10 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Oh, so "when there is something new that God wants the Church to receive as doctrine or prophecy...", there must be "unanimous consent by the 12 and the 70,"eh? Wanna explain, then, when LDS "prophet" Wilford Woodruff introduced the Sept. 25 1890 "manifesto" which publicly slowed down the number of LDS polygamous marriages why only Woodruff's name was attached to that document? Wanna explain to all of us why counselors George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith (part of the "First Presidency") did not sign the document? (Even when the LDS "apostles" met over that next week on Sept. 30, Oct. 1, and Oct. 2, only 8 or 9 of the apostles gave tentative concurrence on the document...see John Henry Smith diaries, entries for those three days, George A. Smith Family Papers available @ the University of Utah Library).

Uh... like THIS???


 
 
 
 
OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

 

 
 






EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)
 


So much for an 'Everlasting Covenant' that thundered out of Heaven!!!
 
Well; it DID last about 47 years!

172 posted on 11/10/2007 5:05:40 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: sevenbak
I’m sure the antis on this thread will point you in other directions, but this is the official canonized version.

Oh??

VERSION??

Why is there a 'version'??

Shouldn't there just be THE vision??

173 posted on 11/10/2007 5:07:44 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: sevenbak
One can only guess.

I've noticed.

174 posted on 11/10/2007 5:08:37 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: sevenbak

You need to check the humidity in your home. Dry air makes for some nose bleeds.

(I can just hear the ol’ Horndog-in-Chief, as he lusts over some dried out woman!)


175 posted on 11/10/2007 5:10:26 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
 In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.
 
 
HMMmm...
 
 
I wonder just what THIS means??

176 posted on 11/10/2007 5:12:56 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; sevenbak
I’m sure the antis on this thread will point you in other directions, but this is the official canonized version.

Do you have any data on When and by Whom this took place?

177 posted on 11/10/2007 5:14:02 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar; Elsie; metmom; colorcountry
Thank you for the interesting chat. I don't want to continue hackin' on your religion. My comment to colorcountry (that started all this) was not to denegrate Christianity per se it was more a rhetorical question about who would want to become a part of that particular perspective or interpretation. The type of perspective where all you do is camp out in a chat room and suckerpunch everyone still taking part in your former religion. Of course it must be all out of "love". Lol. I should have elaborated more earlier.

Anyway needed to be said. Its refreshing to see you all bond together now instead of jumping down one another's throats in the name of love. You can all thank me later in life or in the next.

May the interstates run through all of your out houses. :-)

178 posted on 11/10/2007 6:35:11 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Elsie; Old Mountain man

I’m sorry I always thought he was a woman. My mistake.
When someone posts like a girly man its easy to get confused. :-)


179 posted on 11/10/2007 6:37:12 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

I have no personal knowledge as to Elsie’s sex. That is one of those things I am happy to be “Willfully Ignorant” of.


180 posted on 11/10/2007 9:14:45 AM PST by Old Mountain man (Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Old Mountain man

lol.


181 posted on 11/10/2007 9:21:24 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

;)


182 posted on 11/10/2007 9:26:09 AM PST by Old Mountain man (Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

“Why do you Mormons call non-Mormons - Gentiles?”

I don’t, nor do I know any members that call non-Mormons Gentiles. I call non-Mormons either non-Mormons or non-members.


183 posted on 11/10/2007 3:43:35 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

“Who’s correct? Joe Smith & the D&C? Or you?”

Technically it did take several revelations and stages to get to the point of having the Book of Mormon. Moroni came to Joseph several times that first night, then again the next day, then when Joseph first went to see the plates and every year after that for the next 4 years and also various revelations he received about translating it etc. etc. But that isn’t what I was referring to.

I should have said it took several stages and a lot of revelation to fully restore the church, and in truth that is what I intended to communicate. There were many revelations needed to establish the order of the church, how it should operate, to reveal the other parts of the plan of salvation etc. etc. I am sorry for the poor choice of words and I thank you for catching it and giving me the chance to clarify.

“Wanna explain, then, when LDS “prophet” Wilford Woodruff introduced the Sept. 25 1890 “manifesto” which publicly slowed down the number of LDS polygamous marriages why only Woodruff’s name was attached to that document?”

I said they had to give their consent, and they did so:

From OD1:

““I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.
Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890. “


184 posted on 11/10/2007 4:09:35 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“So the whole book of Mormon is supposed to have been translated from these gold tablets?”

Yes.

“Just how big were these things and how much did they weigh?”

If I recall correctly, their weight was estimated as being around 50 pounds. I can’t recall any description of ‘page’ size or the overall thickness of it.

“And how could anybody have just *lost* them?”

They were not lost, the angel Moroni took them back for safe keeping after Joseph was done.


185 posted on 11/10/2007 4:16:20 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“How could an angel have taken them “back”? That implies that the angel gave him them first...How did he find them in the first place?”

From http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/27-59#27

“The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger, and was again informed that the time for bringing them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates...At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate. On the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, having gone as usual at the end of another year to the place where they were deposited, the same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me...”

“So an angel took them back? Pretty convenient.”

It’s only convenient for those looking for an excuse to reject it. I’m sure that even if they were on display in Utah that such people would find some other excuse. Meanwhile there was no further need for Joseph and his family to be continue to be at risk from the kind of men who were trying to find them and take them for their worldly value.


186 posted on 11/10/2007 4:55:32 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
When someone posts like a girly man its easy to get confused. :-)

Ahnold is able to pull that off.

Sorry, but you're no Arnold!

187 posted on 11/11/2007 5:08:56 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Old Mountain man
That is one of those things I am happy to be “Willfully Ignorant” of.

There sure is a lot of ignorance in this thread.

188 posted on 11/11/2007 5:09:54 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Grig
...Joseph first went to see the plates and every year after that for the next 4 years ...

He took a lot of convincing??

189 posted on 11/11/2007 5:11:24 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Grig
If I recall correctly, their weight was estimated as being around 50 pounds.

Others have 'estimated' a higher figure.

190 posted on 11/11/2007 5:12:10 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Grig
I’m sure that even if they were on display in Utah that such people would find some other excuse.

Why are you SURE?

Have you so little faith in JS' translating power?

Are you afraid that actually HAVING the platyes would somehow prove your faith misplaced?

191 posted on 11/11/2007 5:14:29 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

“Have you so little faith in JS’ translating power?”

No, I just think there are some people who will find an excuse to reject it no matter how much proof they are given. It’s a reflection of the darkness in themselves.


192 posted on 11/11/2007 10:58:49 AM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Grig
No, I just think there are some people who will find an excuse to reject it no matter how much proof they are given. It’s a reflection of the darkness in themselves.

Well; to the rest of us; this is NO 'proof' of any golden plates, only the WORDS of a few men.

And, when proof IS produced to true Mormon believers of logical, biblical and archeological problems of their faith; it, too, is rejected.

193 posted on 11/11/2007 12:52:25 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

If you read the book “Secret History An Eye Witness Account of the Rise of Mormonism” by John Ahmanson (Translated by Gleason L. Archer), you will at least find out what the true source of the Book of Mormon is.

It was taken from a manuscript of a cultural science fiction novel, stolen by Joseph Smith when cleaning out an old woman’s attic.

BTW The book is hard to find because it was purged from public libraries, but can be obtained by placing a ‘want’ with ABE books. I have some copies of it too.


194 posted on 11/11/2007 1:12:21 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
One copy may be available here
195 posted on 11/11/2007 1:17:53 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

What is the HISTORY of this book?

Some enterprizing individual should reprint it, then we could sit back by the fire, with the pooch at our feet, a glass of GOOD wine at our hand and read it at our leisure.


196 posted on 11/12/2007 4:58:18 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Does the LDS organization have a nice wine making kit that they sell??

THE

DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS

OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

SECTION 89

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, February 27, 1833. HC 1: 327–329. As a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings, the Prophet was led to ponder upon the matter; consequently he inquired of the Lord concerning it. This revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom, was the result. The first three verses were originally written as an inspired introduction and description by the Prophet.

1–9, Use of wine, strong drinks, tobacco, and hot drinks proscribed; 10–17, Herbs, fruits, flesh, and grain are ordained for the use of man and of animals; 18–21, Obedience to gospel law, including the Word of Wisdom, brings temporal and spiritual blessings.

1 A word OF Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—
3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.
4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—
5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.
6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.
7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.
8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.
9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.
10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—
11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.
12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;
15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.
16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—
17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.
18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;
19 And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;
20 And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.
21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.

The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

© 2006 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.


197 posted on 11/12/2007 5:18:53 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; Grig; sevenbak; Invincibly Ignorant; Old Mountain man; Colofornian; editor-surveyor; ...
The LDS Church has changed a single word in its introduction to the Book of Mormon, a change observers say has serious implications for commonly held LDS beliefs about the ancestry of American Indians.

THE

DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS

OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

SECTION 89

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, February 27, 1833. HC 1: 327–329. As a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings, the Prophet was led to ponder upon the matter; consequently he inquired of the Lord concerning it. This revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom, was the result. The first three verses were originally written as an inspired introduction and description by the Prophet.



 

Ya just gotta WATCH them intros, they can very well end up as SCRIPTURE!!

198 posted on 11/12/2007 5:27:11 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oesBz7eWu8


199 posted on 11/12/2007 5:53:53 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
If you grow up in the LDS church, you learn, in primary, Sunday school and seminary, many wonderful things that prophets did.
The miracles of Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon Prophets, and the prophets and apostles in the Bible.

Your expectations build up. You can imagine a modern prophet having the same powers as previous ones. You expect to see miracles as a normal course of things.

When the people in the Book of Mormon found records they couldn't read they brought them to the Prophet and he translated them. When hearing about the Dead Sea Scrolls, you wonder why the Prophet didn't translate them for us.
 
You wonder why the church used scholars instead of inspiration. Wasn't that the problem with the Bible?

When hearing about Spencer W Kimball's operation for throat cancer,  you wonder about the gifts of healing and why we've never heard of our apostles healing people like the apostles in the New Testament.

You wonder about the gifts of discernment over the Hoffman scandal.

You wonder why any doctrine could be unclear in the bible after Joseph Smith retranslated it and why that disclaimer about the bible not being translated correctly was still in the Articles of Ffaith.

You expect the Prophet as a spokesman for God on earth, would say something that God would say to everyone - not just the church. Especially during real troubling times.

You expect the Prophet and the President of the United States to be talking regularly like they did in the Book of Mormon. Either clashing like Abinadi and Noah or collaborating like Moroni and Alma during the wars.

You never expect any Prophet to have lead people astray or to have to apologize or discount the things former Prophets did.
 
 
What kind of doubts do YOU have???
 

200 posted on 11/12/2007 6:19:27 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-387 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson