Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The tight control theory in the Book of Mormon
The Mormon Times ^ | http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/michael_r_ash/?id=12498 | Michael R. Ash

Posted on 12/29/2009 12:30:09 PM PST by Colofornian

The "tight control" theory for the Book of Mormon translation suggests that Joseph dictated a fairly literal translation of the Nephite text into the scriptural language of his day. According to several witnesses, Joseph actually spelled out proper nouns the first time he dictated them to his scribe. One interesting example is the name "Coriantumr."

Dr. Royal Skousen, the foremost expert on the original Book of Mormon manuscript (the text written by scribes as dictated by Joseph), explains that when Joseph dictated "Coriatumr" to Oliver Cowdery, Oliver wrote "Coriantummer," crossed it out, and then wrote "Coriantumr." The first spelling makes sense based on what Oliver would have heard. There is no way Oliver could have known that the name ended with "umr" unless Joseph offered the correct spelling.

SNIP

Decades after the Book of Mormon was published there was a wide diversity of ways that members pronounced Book of Mormon proper names. Finally, in the early 1900s a church committee was organized to produce a "pronunciation guide." This committee formulated a set of rules -- based on common English standards rather than revelation -- for pronouncing proper names. The intent of the committee was not to dictate the absolute correct way to pronounce the proper names, but rather to establish some uniformity...

The original grammar of the 1830 Book of Mormon also provides some evidence for "tight control." Before we get to this evidence some explanation is in order. All LDS scholars recognize that changes were made to later editions of the Book of Mormon. For many critics, this is a sure sign that God was not the source for the book's translation. For Mormons, however, who do not believe in infallible prophets or inerrant scripture, this presents no problem whatsoever.

(Excerpt) Read more at mormontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; History; Other Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: antimormonthread; bookofmormon; josephsmith; lds; mormon
From the commentary: All LDS scholars recognize that changes were made to later editions of the Book of Mormon. For many critics, this is a sure sign that God was not the source for the book's translation.

(Of course, Ash doesn't mention that there were about 3,000 changes...including entire characters who were kings switched......or how can it be that in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32 the words "even the Son of" and "the Son of God" were added SINCE the 1830 version -- changing the theology & meaning from a reference to God to the Son of God???)

1 posted on 12/29/2009 12:30:14 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
From the commentary: The "tight control" theory for the Book of Mormon translation suggests that Joseph dictated a fairly literal translation of the Nephite text into the scriptural language of his day. According to several witnesses, Joseph actually spelled out proper nouns the first time he dictated them to his scribe.

What Ash, the great "waffler" apologist, is doing here...
...is knowing that he can't deny how bad the end result appeared...spelling wise, grammar wise, mistakes in the text, etc.
-- and how much editing was LATER needed to the document to make it appear King James-Bible like...
...Mormon apologist Ash knows he can't strictly hold to the first position...
...but then he knows if he holds the second position, strictly speaking, how on earth would Smith have known how to spell all of the proper names that pop up?
Therefore, he is compelled to believe that when it came to proper names, the Mormon god revealed His thoughts one way -- literally & straightforward without extra steps -- as if the spelling of proper names was the most important thing God had in mind...the Mormon god must be fanatical about spelling of places, I guess...
...but then on the most important things -- the historical & theological components, the Mormon god decided to let Smith do a lot of "free hand" translation??? (Yeah, right)
[Link to Ash's last column addressing this same thing: Mike Ash: Translation of the Book of Mormon ]

The thing is, like where I mention above that king characters were switched (Mosiah 21:28) how then did Joseph get the proper names wrong in this verse if it was a proper name given directly to him by God and if Joseph "actually spelled out proper nouns"???

In Mosiah 21:28, the name "Mosiah" was "Benjamin" in the 1830 edition...but in Mosiah 6:5, Benjamin had died. So did proper names pop up in Joseph's hat as he was "seeing" and how could he have relayed the name "Benjamin" to the person taking the dictation if God was steering him on proper names?

2 posted on 12/29/2009 12:30:50 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

3 posted on 12/29/2009 12:34:05 PM PST by ejonesie22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Pretzel logic
4 posted on 12/29/2009 12:35:39 PM PST by JPG (Al Gore, the several million degree man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
For Mormons, however, who do not believe in infallible prophets or inerrant scripture, this presents no problem whatsoever.

This is a misleading statement. They think their prophets are perfect and then when something they say is perceived as incorrect they spin, push aside, and generally apologize for the error.
5 posted on 12/29/2009 12:40:18 PM PST by pennyfarmer (Your Socialist Beat our Liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I see you’ve renewed your single issue freeper license. lol.


6 posted on 12/29/2009 12:40:40 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

No worse than some of the other single issue folks around here


7 posted on 12/29/2009 12:45:21 PM PST by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pennyfarmer

When the prophet or God gets something wrong, the problem is not with the prophet or God. The problem is that they didn’t properly understand the prophet or God, and the new doctrine represents their new, supposedly more profound understanding.

I’ve always thought who cares if the Bible or other religious text is inerrant or infallible, when the only thing that matters is how that text is interpreted, and interpretations change.


8 posted on 12/29/2009 12:58:15 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pennyfarmer; Godzilla; reaganaut; AmericanArchConservative; Tennessee Nana; Elsie
From the Ash commentary: For Mormons, however, who do not believe in infallible prophets or inerrant scripture, this presents no problem whatsoever.

This is a misleading statement. They think their prophets are perfect and then when something they say is perceived as incorrect they spin, push aside, and generally apologize for the error. [Penny]

Ah, very good pick-up, Penny.

Mr. Ash has demonstrated for us how LDS always love to try having it both ways?

What do I mean? Well, LDS missionaries/LDS always tout Amos 3:7: "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets"...

I don’t think I’ve yet encountered an LDS missionary (of any lengthy convo, that is) who doesn’t get around to citing Amos 3:7 as a proof text to underscore the “need” for an ongoing living revelator [The way they apply this verse, I’m often thinking, What? Now we have prophet-weathermen because the Lord won’t let it rain & snow without telling an LDS prophet of his “plan?”]

Q, Mr. Ash: What good's an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God if he can’t even properly ID who God is? (Brigham Young: “He’s Adam.” “You’re kidding?” “Nope.” “Imagine that. Well, we’ll just have to name our most prominent university after you because of your amazing perception of who God is!”)

In our contemporary convo, it'd be more like: "He was once a man." "You're kidding?" "Yup.--Well, actually, I'm sure he was a man. But I'm sure they'll come a day when the Prophet in my place won't be so sure." "So, Lorenzo [Snow], why don't you add this to the D&C to clarify it for them?" "Oh, I DON'T KNOW. It's only a couplet." [..."only a couplet" comment by a laterLds "prophet" -- Hinckley]

Tell us, Mr. Ash, what good's an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God (like Young, Smith or someone named Snow who's Snowed you over) if he inserts ourselves in place of the Savior’s blood a temporary doctrine of blood atonement? (How trustworthy then is it to apply Amos 3:7 in any absolute way to an LDS prophet?)

Or since Young inserted our blood for Jesus’ blood in that doctrine, what about a John Taylor or a Joseph Fielding Smith who emphasized the LDS church as "saviors of the world" due to the practice of baptizing dead folks? (And I thought we only had one Savior of the world)

Joseph Smith said it was the "first principle of the gospel to know for certain the character of God." What good is an LDS "prophet" even he can't for certain identify the character of God as an exalted man (or not?)

According to BYU prof Robinson, Snow's couplet isn't canonized, either. (But that hasn't stopped the LDS curricula department for teaching it forever!)

Bottom line: What’s ironic here?
(1) LDS cite Amos 3:7 & say God doesn’t do anything without revealing His plan & will to His prophet.
(2) So you expect to tell us that we can continually look to him for church-wide ongoing plan revelations and ongoing will revelations?
(3) --yet when we look at the LDS “prophetic” track record of canonless PUBLIC statements by LDS “prophets”—and then when we quote them back to LDS—we tend to get qualifier after qualifier after qualifier from Mormons. They essentially say, “Hey don’t be disappointed…99.99999999999% of what Prophet X or Prophet Y had to say publicly didn’t even qualify as core doctrinal level statements let alone be sustained as a new revelation. What gave you the idea that everything that comes out of the mouth or the pen of every living revelator, seer, prophet, God’s only authoritative rep on earth is the authoritative gospel? Why we just can’t understand how you would misconstrue our build-up of an Amos 3:7 prophet!!!”

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we buy what LDS criticize others for…Let’s say, “OK, heaven’s revelationally wide open…God still reveals Scripture…You’re telling us His mouthpiece is that old guy over there…Let’s take a look @ what he has to say since I guess we need to apply Amos 3:7 according to the way you’ve structured it…”

Two minutes later we say, “Wait a minute.” You say, “What?” “I thought you told me that the Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his prophet?” “And?” “Well, I just reviewed his general conference talk on the Lord’s will?” “And?” “Well, when’s this going to be added to the D&C as a new revelation?” “Uh, it probably won’t be.” “Why not?” (Silence)

LDS speak out of both sides of their mouth:
(a) On the one hand, they imply that LDS revelation from their "prophets" goes beyond what can be found in the D&C & BoM.
(b) The problem arises when LDS suddenly seem quite satisfied to lambast some deceased LDS prophets & apostles as dried-up, antiquated sources of irrelevant obscure directives from the Lord.

Example: Notice the cartwheels they jump through to not face squarely the sermonic words of a Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses. I mean just look how they tend to distance themselves from the words of a Brigham Young or an apostle like Bruce R. McConkie when these sources embarrass Mormons.

Yet, inevitably, we get zealous white-shirted & online LDS missionaries who ensure they elevate the current “prophet” to the highest post on earth when they want their PR ambassadors to be able to market to the world, “See, we have God’s ONLY direct authoritative pipeline to earth.”

Conclusion: LDS, please stop putting “prophets” up on the New Scripture-producing pedestal. LDS folks can't keep saying out both sides of their mouth that this guy is the highest revelational post on earth--but whatever his predecessor said publicly was irrelevant, non-doctrinal, uncanonized, unofficial drivel because as Mr. Ash NOW claims, "Mormons...do not believe in infallible prophets..." [You can't blame us for identifying a disconnect there, can you?]

9 posted on 12/29/2009 1:14:03 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: the long march; Colofornian
No worse than some of the other single issue folks around here

Guess you haven't been around too long. Instead of "single issue freeper" I should have said "how's the Jihad goin'"? lol.

10 posted on 12/29/2009 1:18:31 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JPG; pennyfarmer; Godzilla; reaganaut; Elsie; Tennessee Nana; greyfoxx39; Zakeet; colorcountry; ...
Pretzel logic [JPG]

This is a misleading statement. They think their prophets are perfect and then when something they say is perceived as incorrect they spin, push aside, and generally apologize for the error. [Penny Farmer]

Pretzel logic, indeed, JPG. And I thought, Penny, of another way to illustrate how Lds try to have it both ways as they make misleading statements. So, the following dialogue illustrates that (see bold-face below) + provides plenty of "pretzel logic" of Mormons:

Imagine having the following convo with a Mormon -- starting with his bashing of Christians, as they do citing their Book of Mormon 1 Nephi 13:28 -- see vv. 20-42 for context + 1 Nephi 14:9-10, 23), where they cite the non-Mormon church as being the "church of Satan":

"Aha!" "Plain & precious thing, remover, you!" "You post-Christ church people removed them, didn't you!"
"Uh. Removed what?"
"Plain & precious things."
"Like what?"
"Like all the things we've restored."
"How do you know they were originally there?"
"'Cause our prophets tell us so"
"And they know this how?"
"'Cause Heavenly Father told them so"
"And you know that how?"
"A burning in my bosom"
"And this voice Joseph Smith heard. Was it always reliable?"
"Oh, of course"
"This voice always lived up to 2 Nephi 9:20's presentation of who God is? That 'he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it?'"
"Oh, indeed"
"Well, what about the voice Joseph heard in D&C 130:14-15?"
"What about it?"
"Joseph said: "...I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man'"
"And?"
"Well, he didn't live til 85 did he? Nor did Jesus return, did he?"
"But he still saw that face when he died"
"Well, in that way, we're ALL going to see His face. (You don't need to be a 'prophet' or 'seer' to say we're going to see Jesus' face when we die.) Do you know the context for this claim?"
"He was wondering when Jesus would return"
"He was more than wondering. Joseph said he was 'praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man' (D&C 130:14) and he claimed a voice responded with the 'if thou livest until thou are 85, thou shalt see the Son of Man...' (v. 15)
"And?"
"Well, Joseph then said this voice told him 'therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter' So he claimed this voice was God's revelation"
"And?"
"Well, didn't the Mormon god know when Joseph would see the Son of Man's face?"
"Of course."
"Then what's with this '85' number? Why would a God who 'knows all things' (2 Nephi 9:20) ever even say 'if' on anything that's 100% in His control -- the death of a saint? He didn't know if Joseph would live to be 85 or not? And why '85?' That wasn't any different of a number than if he had used 80, 75, 70, 65, 60, etc.? No Mormon prophet has expounded upon the significance of 85, has he?"
"Not to my knowledge."
"So why did Joseph record this as canonized 'revelation?'"
"He heard a voice. Unlike you, our God continues to speak to our prophets."
"And so your prophets have added hundreds & thousands of revelations to the D&C since Joseph died?"
"Uh, no."
"Just hundreds?"
"Uh, no"
"Dozens?"
"Uh, no"
"A dozen?"
"Well, not exactly"
"A handful?"
"Well, that depends if you include manifestos or not. Both of the big social ones weren't exactly written as 'Thus saith the Lord'"
"So, PERSONAL revelations aplenty. But CANONIZED revelations, the D&C has hardly thickened, eh?"
"You might say that"
"Well, don't grassroots Mormons believe in PERSONAL revelations they receive within themselves"
"Oh, definitely"
"Does that make you prophet status, then?"
"No"
"So if a prophet has many PERSONAL, uncanonized revelations and you have many PERSONAL, uncanonized revelations, why do you need him again?"
"Amos 3:7. God doesn't do anything without telling his prophets"
"So, I could get good weather forecasts if I asked your prophet?"
"Don't be profane"
"What? God isn't the author of weather?"
"Of course, He is. But his revelations hold weighty imports beyond the weather"
"You mean like Brigham telling his people for over 25 years that Adam was God? Or the supposed necessity of shedding your own blood for your sins?"
"Prophets are men, and don't always speak as God"
"What about when they are before the Salt Lake tabernacle and telling the saints for over 25 years that Adam is God?"
"Well, that's not canonized revelations."
"Well, what good is your Amos 3:7 application if we always have to wait for LDS to 'officialize' God's revelation? I mean it took the LDS church til 1880s to 'officialize' Smith's first vision and the Pearl of Great Price. Your 50-year wait isn't going to help people process God's 'ongoing' revelation, is it?"
"Well, we not only sustain our prophets, but we vote what revelations are to be canonized."
"Could you imagine, though, Jeremiah's unpopular prophecies being sustained by God's unruly people (at that time) in a vote?"
"Well, God always has a remnant of faithful people."
"Exactly. That's what Christians say as to why the so-called universal apostasy of the Christian church was never fully apostate. God ALWAYS has a remnant of faithful people."
"But Joseph said Christ failed in His mission to keep a church together"
"But Jesus prophesied in Matt. 16:18 that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against it. And in Eph. 3:21, Paul prophesies that the church would glorify God through ALL ages. Are you calling Jesus & Paul false prophets?"
"No"
"In your opinion, did the gates of hell prevail against Jesus' church?"
"Well, maybe temporarily."
"About 1700-1800 years is what you call 'temporarily?'"
"Well, a day to the Lord is as 1,000 years"
"Yeah, how convenient of a proof text for that. What about Paul? The church hasn't glorified God throughout ALL ages?"
"Well, if it did, the church wouldn't have needed a full restoration, would it have?"
"So Paul was a false prophet?"
"Somebody may have altered the text there."
"And Joseph Smith corrected it in the JST?"
"Uh, no."
"Besides, how could Joseph historically put himself above the authors of the Bible by correcting them when even the voices he was hearing couldn't properly forecast the future?"
"What do you mean?"
"Joseph prophesied -- -"Verily thus saith the Lord" (D&C 114:1) that David W. Patten would "perform a mission unto me ["me"=the Mormon god] next spring in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world." (D&C 114:1)
"And?"
"Well, David W. Patten died, and never made the mission in company with 11 others. Your Mormon god didn't know this in advance? Or your Mormon god didn't know that the "united order" established to care for the poor wouldn't be an "everlasting order," after all? (D&C 104:1) Where's your "United Order" today? Joseph also claimed that "temple lot" in the "New Jerusalem" (D&C 84:2-3) was "appointed by the finger of the Lord in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri" (D&C 84:3) and that "Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city of New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple SHALL BE REARED IN THIS GENERATION." (D&C 84:4) Where's the temple in Independence, MO reared in Joseph's generation?

The bottom line is it only takes one theft to be convicted as a thief; one murder to be convicted as a murderer; and one false prophecy to be convicted by the Holy Ghost as a false prophet. Come out, LDS, of the leaky umbrage of false prophesy. Come to the True Prophet who speaks to us now, and with 100% revelatory accuracy, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2)."

11 posted on 12/29/2009 1:27:47 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

II, I love ya. (Have a wonderful new year)


12 posted on 12/29/2009 1:29:06 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Colofornian,

You find the most interesting articles on Mormonism! Thanks.


13 posted on 12/29/2009 1:29:06 PM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
You find the most interesting articles on Mormonism! Thanks.

Well, thank you. And not only that, I try to post Mormon articles written by Mormon authors published in many cases by Mormon publishers. I think, in light that there's not enough Mormon FReepers stepping forth to highlight what the Mormon voices are saying, we should hear from that element since they, too, tend to be conservative.

(I just think that like any good publication, there also should be a letter-to-the-editor section and I try to post what I'd say in "letters to the editor" in response -- as are the rest of FR posters.)

14 posted on 12/29/2009 1:33:23 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Is THIS a religion thread?


15 posted on 12/29/2009 1:33:40 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
You understand of course that even the mere posting of a LDS article by a non Mormon is bashing, right?
16 posted on 12/29/2009 1:35:55 PM PST by ejonesie22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry; Colofornian; Elsie; svcw; Zakeet; SkyPilot; Tennessee Nana; aMorePerfectUnion; ...

Ping


17 posted on 12/29/2009 2:00:57 PM PST by greyfoxx39 (Obamacare: Old folks don't deserve healthcare. They use up too many carbon credits just breathing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
II, I love ya. (Have a wonderful new year)

Wow. Must be the holiday season. I've never seen you turn the other cheek before. lol. Happy New Year to you and yours as well.

18 posted on 12/29/2009 2:09:23 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

So, I could get good weather forecasts if I asked your prophet?”
“Don’t be profane”
“What? God isn’t the author of weather?”
“Of course, He is. But his revelations hold weighty imports beyond the weather”
________________________________________________

Gollies...

The mormons sure could have used that knowledge when Brigham Young made them walk 1300 miles pushing 17 pounds of their belongs in a handcart...

Many perished in the snow...

The snow that BY didnt ask the mormon god about...


19 posted on 12/29/2009 2:39:38 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Happy New Year to you and yours as well.

(Thank you. And to your family as well!)

20 posted on 12/29/2009 2:55:19 PM PST by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I saw the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego a couple of years ago and learned about the name “Alma son of Judah” which appeared on one of the scrolls - first time (outside the Book of Mormon) that the name “Alma” appears as a man’s name. Interesting.

Also at the same exhibit was a well preserved - excellently preserved - brass plate. Very interesting.


21 posted on 12/29/2009 4:14:13 PM PST by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Dr. Royal Skousen, the foremost expert on the original Book of Mormon manuscript (the text written by scribes as dictated by Joseph), explains that when Joseph dictated "Coriatumr" to Oliver Cowdery, Oliver wrote "Coriantummer," crossed it out, and then wrote "Coriantumr." The first spelling makes sense based on what Oliver would have heard. There is no way Oliver could have known that the name ended with "umr" unless Joseph offered the correct spelling.

Skousen was to be the great answer to bom textural changes throughout the years, yet his 'studies' go more to show the spuriousness of the bom than most 'anties'. Clearly Smith was using the 'tight control' method - leaving virtually no room to justify the thousands of mistakes in the bom.

22 posted on 12/29/2009 4:52:16 PM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
There is no way Oliver could have known that the name ended with "umr" unless Joseph offered the correct spelling.

Ha ha ha ha ha. "the correct spelling" of something read aloud from an alleged translation of a non-English language. They are today where Islam was in about 850AD.
23 posted on 12/29/2009 4:55:40 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Ha ha ha ha ha. "the correct spelling" of something read aloud from an alleged translation of a non-English language. They are today where Islam was in about 850AD.

And yet they hold to the 'truth' of the bom only by the thinnest thread of a subjective feeling, thinking it is a steel cable.

24 posted on 12/29/2009 5:08:51 PM PST by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
According to BYU prof Robinson, Snow's couplet isn't canonized, either.

This is:


 
 

THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 132
 
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843,
 
 Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 19–25
 
  
 
  19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and beverlasting covenant, and it is csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of dpromise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s gBook of Life, that he shall commit no hmurder whereby to shed innocent iblood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds forever and ever.
  20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be bgods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.
  21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my alaw ye cannot attain to this glory.
  22 For astrait is the gate, and narrow the bway that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the clives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.
  23 But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that awhere I am ye shall be also.
  24 This is aeternal lives—to bknow the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath csent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.
  25 aBroad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the bdeaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they creceive me not, neither do they abide in my law.
 

25 posted on 12/29/2009 8:41:23 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy; Colofornian; Godzilla; greyfoxx39; ejonesie22

I saw the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego a couple of years ago and learned about the name “Alma son of Judah” which appeared on one of the scrolls - first time (outside the Book of Mormon) that the name “Alma” appears as a man’s name. Interesting.

Also at the same exhibit was a well preserved - excellently preserved - brass plate. Very interesting.

- - - - - -
Interesting I will have to check my exhibit book on that.

And will call Risa Levitt Kohn (the curator of the exhibit), who is a good friend and wonderful scholar to see what she has to say about the LDS use of this.

I suspect she will not be happy to hear it is being used as a “proof” for the Book of Mormon. She has some pretty choice words about Smith.


26 posted on 12/30/2009 5:53:21 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - ""I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut

LOL...

Ouch...


27 posted on 12/30/2009 5:58:30 PM PST by ejonesie22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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