Replies

The two you posted side by side were not comparable. One of them was written by Joseph Smith. The one I posted came from the Bible link at the same LDS site. You intentionally substituted Joseph Smith's version in place of the one that is actually in use.

I don't think it's fair to condemn Catholicism because of the actions of Pope John XII, nor do I think it's fair to condemn the Southern Baptist Convention because of their past support of slavery. And it certainly isn't fair to give a false portrayal of Matthew 24 as it appears in the Mormon Bible.

(To Elsie): The two you posted side by side were not comparable. One of them was written by Joseph Smith. [Allow me to finish that sentence: "One of them was written by Joseph Smith..." as supposedly REVEALED (as in REVELATION) to him by the Mormon god in 1831."

You may have a period at the end of this comment, but you did not finish the sentence...Hence, the "help" I just gave...

When you go to the Lds.com link Elz provided, you see the following description: "An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet in 1831: Matthew 23:39 and chapter 24."

(To Elsie): You intentionally substituted Joseph Smith's version in place of the one that is actually in use.

You, Hoodat, make it sound like you're referencing some Bible commentary written by the opinionated hand of Joseph Smith.

Hmmm...Is it that...
...you have troubled with the word "revealed" (as in "revelation")?
...or that you may fail to realize that the Lds church regards it as the "IV" (Inspired Version)?
...and that this Bible version would be in even greater usage by the Lds church had they actually ever secured copyright to it? ... [it's held by the old RLDS..known as the Community of Christ now]

I don't think it's fair to condemn Catholicism because of the actions of Pope John XII, nor do I think it's fair to condemn the Southern Baptist Convention because of their past support of slavery.

If ANY Pope were to teach something heretically regarded by Catholics across the board, yet were none of these Catholics to call it heresy, then yes, it'd be fair game to condemn Catholics for hosting heresy.

Southern Baptists have apologized for what their spiritual leaders said and did in the 19th century; in contrast, I don't see Mormons apologizing for what Brigham Young said and did in the 19th century. Furthermore, what Young & other Lds "prophets" did was supposedly done as THE direct "mouthpiece" of the Lord...tantamount to "Scripture." Young said that he had never preached a sermon that couldn't, upon review and correction, fail to be considered the same as "Scripture." You won't find ANY Southern Baptist claims to such sermons -- either then or now.

You can't hold what is obviously regarded as human opinion by a lowly servant-preacher the same level as a hierarchical "prophet" of the Mormon gods...who the Mormon leaders have said umpteen hundred times that the Mormon gods would never allow a Mormon "prophet" to lead them astray...

(I don't think you could claim the same "inerrancy" applied to any Southern Baptist leader of the 19th century)

You intentionally substituted Joseph Smith's version in place of the one that is actually in use.

Hello!!!

See some differences between GOD's Word and the Joseph Smith's 'translation'

JOSEPH SMITH—MATTHEW

An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet in 1831: Matthew 23: 39 and chapter 24.

Jesus foretells the impending destruction of Jerusalem—He also discourses on the second coming of the Son of Man, and the destruction of the wicked.

I thought this was clear enough. Well, some background is in order.

Joseph Smith received a 'revelation' from GOD that he was to correct the errors in the KJV.

HE did, evidently, in his JST.

So the question NOW becomes: Why doesn't SLC accept the JST as 'scri[pture' and instead uses the OBVIOUSLY flawed KJV?