LDS and the bible vs BOM

[Stephen168]

For a second time I’ll ask: what is the purpose of a fallible prophet? Is a fallible prophet really a prophet?

I would have thought I had answered that, but perhaps not.
To sustain the prophet is to believe that he reliably, but not infallibly, relays what God communicates.

reliably, but not infallibly……interesting. Fallible means to make mistakes. Reliable means to be consistently able to be trusted.

This is not technically limited to “faith and morals,” but it is usually in this realm.

Yes, an any subject

When the prophet speaks at general conference, what he relays sources at its genesis from God’s desired communication to the church (and world). I look to the messages delivered so that I can reorient my life towards God’s plan for me. Sometimes the Holy Spirit makes the words mean more for me than they might where I less receptive. Sometimes I am less receptive, but I get something out of it.
You and I get a lot from teachers that lack the chrism of infallibility. Your question almost implies such is not true. I just do not demand infallibility before I make my fallible steps toward God. I doubt you do either, but perhaps I am wrong.

A teacher that is fallible in their subject is not a teacher.

I do believe that LDS prophets speak for God. SOME things, like Joseph Smith celebrating witnesses and telling his followers that they too can receive revelation are positive evidence for this IMO. Or the desire to end the priesthood ban by David O. McKay but his insistence that this non-reveled policy be ended by revelation (David O. McKay did not believe he could make up revelations he wanted and expected). Some things are negative. If as I believe the priesthood ban was a mistake, surely Brigham Young should have been receptive enough to the spirit to recognize that he was putting in place a policy that was wrong. (now is when you write a great deal about the priesthood ban, Brigham Young’s racist comments, and …).

To summarize:
The Mormon prophet speaks for God because he gives revelation on any subject which can be consistently trusted, but makes mistakes.

I don’t think you answered the question. What is the purpose of a prophet who gives revelation on any subject, but makes mistakes? And is he really a prophet?

 

[Alma147]

what I can’t understand is why the BoM is translated into 17th century English instead of 19th century English.

Actually, it’s more equivalent to the 18th century because it contains Bible quotes from the Revised edition of 1769. Look at some quotes from the 1611 edition and you’ll see the 1769 edition was in no way 17th century English.

A couple of years after the BoM was published, Noah Webster produced his updated version of the Bible; and he too used the archaic language of the KJV. While you’re trying to figure out why Joseph Smith used the language of a 60 year old Bible, you might want to puzzle over why the apostles used a 300 year old Bible when quoting the Old Testament–or why an angel quoted a mistranslation of the OT. Lots of ideas to challenge a priori conclusions.

AA

 

[vsedriver]

Actually, it’s more equivalent to the 18th century because it contains Bible quotes from the Revised edition of 1769. Look at some quotes from the 1611 edition and you’ll see the 1769 edition was in no way 17th century English.

A couple of years after the BoM was published, Noah Webster produced his updated version of the Bible; and he too used the archaic language of the KJV. While you’re trying to figure out why Joseph Smith used the language of a 60 year old Bible, you might want to puzzle over why the apostles used a 300 year old Bible when quoting the Old Testament–or why an angel quoted a mistranslation of the OT. Lots of ideas to challenge a priori conclusions.

AA

but the Apostles didn’t write the NT in the same language as the OT. They wrote in aramaic and in Greek. I don’t know what mistranslation you are talking about.

 

[XuDan]

I have never denied it was taught, I have merely said that it was not taught as revelation…

No. There is no “official” position on where the BOM took place.

Actually, you did. You then changed it to “revelation” later once your original statement was completely refuted.

 

[TOmNossor]

If I were to say that John Adams was the first President of the United States, you would not know if I lied or if I was just misinformed. After being told it was in fact George Washington who was the first President and agreeing that that was in fact the case, I then tell someone that John Adams was the first President of the United States, you would know I lied, and was not just misinformed.

You know and have agreed to the understanding that when an individual speaks, that individual is not necessarily speaking as the infallible voice of Catholic dogma, but you continue to quote Catholics as if that are teaching Catholic dogma. You are lying.

You are calling me a liar, but it is your judgment that is flawed. Such should be obvious to all posters here.
You said (bolding mine): " but you continue to quote Catholics as if that (sic) are teaching Catholic dogma."
This is a judgment on your part. I consider it to be poor and unfounded in that I have repeatedly claimed to not be saying that such Catholics are teaching infallibly.
You keep calling me a liar and I can see why now.
You are making assumptions that directly contradict what I am saying clearly and then claiming I am lying.
You should stop calling me a lair. I think it would also be best if you try to understand what I am saying. You calling me a lair is not a response to the points I am making.

You quote Cardinal Bellarmine as if he his giving Catholic dogma, but in that same letter Bellarmine said he is only giving he opinion. You leave out that part which is a lie of omission in addition a lie of commission by quoting an individual and suggesting he speaks to the whole Church. Of course when you are catch, you quickly admit your lie as if that doesn’t make it a lie anymore.

That Cardinal Bellarmine was giving his opinion was always part of how I presented him. That he SPECIFICALLY said he was giving his opinion was something excluded in the quote as it was presented to me in a number of websites, and was something I didn’t know until you reproduced it.
But, I have consistently used Bellarmine to say,
ALL ECF taught geocentrism.
Bellarmine considered it to concern "faith.’
And finally that his position/opinion was the universal teaching of the Catholic Church for many years (not including the teaching of all the ECF where it was also the universal teaching of the Catholic Church).
Long before you found your “opinion” I spoke of Bellarmine’s OPINION because that was what I was presenting (not because I knew he prefaced his comments with the word “opinion.”).
Long before you found your “opinion” I explained that Bellarmine would not be intractable in his position like Sungenis.
And almost every time I have mentioned this, I have claimed that there was no infallibility offered or inferred by me.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

A lie of omission is to suggest that ONLY Catholics believed geocentrism in the 17th century. You omit the fact that almost every human being on the planet believed the sun rotated around the earth. Why? Because that is what they saw. It is what we still see to this day. Catholics believed geocentrism as a matter of natural philosophy (science) not faith. But you lie.

Two things here. First, you think less of our readers than I do. I would expect them to know that geocentrism was common belief, but such was immaterial as I was just showing CHANGE in Catholic teaching. In fact, specifically CHANGE in the literal vs. allegorical interpretation of scripture.
Second, there is a lot more to the opinion of Bellarmine, Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII, and Pope Alexander VII. They taught what was Catholic teaching though not infallible teaching for decades. You really should read Pope Alexander’s preface to his teaching this too.

A lie of commission is claiming science is coming around to the idea that the BoM is true, but there isn’t one non-Mormon Anthropologist that believes that. A lie of omission/lie of influence/misdirection is to suggest that Michael Coe takes the BoM seriously, and just can’t wait to verify Sorenson’s work as proving the BoM to be history.

You will have to point me to where I said this so I can explain what I meant. I specifically referenced Margaret Barker and Paul Owen as scholars that after taking serious the BOM they find supernatural origins.
I have also said that Michael Coe received a copy of Sorenson’s book 2 years ago or so and I am looking forward to his reaction if any.
I have also said that Coe’s issues IMO are associated with superficial reading of the BOM not poor archeology.
I have also said that John Clark presented at the Library of Congress and showed that criticisms of the BOM based on 1830’s archeology are dissolving as archeological science moves forward. And that this trend is precisely the opposite of what should happen to a ficticious book.
I also mentioned “cement” and how “as science has moved from where it was …” as a specific example from John Clark (really from Brant Gardner at least when it came to my attention).
I have also pointed to some scholars who find similar falsity in the BOM as compared to the Bible. In fact, I think I reference Richard Packham who said there is more evidence for Moroni than Christ’s resurrection, but he finds both ridiculous.
You also criticized me for claiming that Dan Vogel was an atheist and that he considered Joseph Smith a prophet just like Moses. This is an example of you finding the need to spell something out for our readers that I thought was obvious.
And the only thing that I know I said that was actually totally wrong was that Dr. Beckwith referenced his engagement with Mormonism as he described his movement to Catholicism. It was Paul Owen who did that (as he moved toward Catholicism and away from Evangelicalism, but not to Catholicism) and I had convoluted them. I was wrong, but not lying.
Anyway, I think you not only wrong, but wrong in a way that reflects negatively upon you when you call me a liar. I think you think that is some response to my points, but I do not. I think you should stop calling me a liar, but I am not too concerned with the path you choose.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Actually, you did. You then changed it to “revelation” later once your original statement was completely refuted.

Not really.
I said it was “taught by officials.”
The obvious parallel being that geocentrism was “taught by officials” who were Catholic. In fact for years in the 17th century and in the early church taught by ALL officials would be accurate.
I still do not believe that the CoJCoLDS had an “official” position, in that it is a position that any LDS should feel compelled to embrace. I am OK with recognizing that former LDS are former LDS because LDS leaders taught a NY Cumorah. I will not be following them and truth be told I am not troubled by this fact.
Charity, TOm

 

[XuDan]

Not really.
I said it was “taught by officials.”

No. There is no “official” position on where the BOM took place.

Nope. Still doesn’t match. You later retracted that comment, ceded the point about “official” once Lax pointed out that your statement was erroneous. You then changed the goalposts by claiming something entirely different:

Maybe I should cede the word “official” to you. I would say that there has been no revelation on the location of the Hill Cumorah in the BOM.

It is true that there are things that the LDS church has officially taught without revelation. There are things that were “revelation” that are not not practiced or adhered to today. Example: In regards to the blessing of the Sacrament, D&C 20: 76 and Moroni 4: 2 say, “…kneel down with the church…” These scriptures don’t say kneel down for the church, before the church, in front of the church, or any thing like that. They say “… kneel down with the church…” Not one ward I ever attended knelt during the blessing of the Sacrament. So, revelation and “scripture” don’t even dictate the practice or teachings of the LDS faith because even then they are inconstantly applied/followed. So your point of “no revelation” on the matter is moot.

 

[Telstar]

What is at issue here is that I do not believe God revealed to Joseph Smith or any LDS leader the geography of the BOM. I then suggest that such ignorance from LDS leaders is analogous to the geocentric ignorance within Catholicism.
I am not sure how you can believe that I should stake my faith upon the New York Cumorah and you should care none about geocentrism. But, regardless of your direction or the reason for this inconsistency that I think I see, I do not stake my faith upon the New York Cumorah.

**“The Papacy and Galileo” **
Patrick Madrid might have found several other possible reasons for Galileo being sanctioned by the Pope, that had nothing to do with geocentrism, in fact, they were much more serious accusations of heresy, like this one:
"One historian points out that there is current scholarship available that indicates that the source of the Galileo controversy with the papacy may actually have been over something different from what most people think:

Pietro Redondi, in a widely-discussed recent book, Galileo Heretic (1983), argues that the real source of conflict between Galileo and the Church was not the Copernican doctrine, as everyone for centuries has supposed and as the documents seem to attest, but a suspicion of heresy in regard to Eucharistic doctrine. Galileo, like many other natural philosophers of his day, took [the scientific theory of] atomism for granted and made occasional use of it in his theorizing. There was a real doubt on the part of some theologians, however, as to whether atomism could be squared with the doctrine of transubstantiation defined by the Council of Trent. Redondi noticed an unsigned denunciation of Galileo’s atomism in the files of the Holy Office; starting from this rather slender clue, he constructed an ingenious and highly readable account of what might really have been going on in 1633."
and this one:
“What, then, caused the row with the Church? The first thing to remember is that Galileo’s heliocentric theory, although sternly opposed by theologians who embraced the Ptolemaic model — according to which all heavenly bodies, including the sun, revolve around the earth — wasn’t the real source of his ecclesiastical difficulties. Rather, the cause of his persecution stemmed from a presumption to teach the sense in which certain Bible passages should be interpreted (using science as the ultimate criterion), and from charges that he claimed God was merely accidental and not substantial.”
and this one:“Galileo confused revealed truths with scientific discoveries by saying that *in the Bible “are found propositions which, when taken literally, are false; that Holy Writ out of regard for the incapacity of the people, expresses itself inexactly, even when treating of solemn dogmas; that in questions concerning natural things, philosophical * should avail more than sacred.” Hence, we see that it was Galileo’s perceived attack on theology (which is the unique domain of the Magisterium and not of scientists) that elicited the alarmed response from the Church.”
So, it seems that his heliocentric theories were only a small part of the multiple problems that the Church had with Galileo’s teachings, that clearly rode the fine line of being heretical. The Pope would have no choice but to take action to denounce him, when those other theories and teachings are also considered.

I think the red herring is dead.**

 

[lax16]

Hey guys - Somebody else is posting for TOm. This is absolutely not his writing style.

 

[Horton]

Hey guys - Somebody else is posting for TOm. This is absolutely not his writing style.

May not be his writing style but it is LDS to the core. When you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, confuse them with B*****. TOm and many others seem to think that the more words they use, the more we will suddenly change our beliefs. This is something I’ve ran into many times living in mormon country.

 

[Stephen168]

That Cardinal Bellarmine was giving his opinion was always part of how I presented him. That he SPECIFICALLY said he was giving his opinion was something excluded in the quote as it was presented to me in a number of websites, and was something I didn’t know until you reproduced it.

Yes, I could tell by other quotes you have posted that you have been on anti-Catholic websites that seem to support your position. So, you are claiming that you are just repeating the lies and did not realize they were lies.

So, I know that a pope or a Cardinal/Saint/Doctor can be theologically mistaken even concerning faith and morals (or in this case concerning the content of what is “faith and morals.”
TOmNossor;12912708:

But, I have consistently used Bellarmine to say,
ALL ECF taught geocentrism.
Bellarmine considered it to concern "faith.’
And finally that his position/opinion was the universal teaching of the Catholic Church for many years (not including the teaching of all the ECF where it was also the universal teaching of the Catholic Church).

Two things here. First, you think less of our readers than I do. I would expect them to know that geocentrism was common belief, but such was immaterial as I was just showing CHANGE in Catholic teaching.

You know that the belief in geocentrism was not Catholic but a common belief. Yet you expect that the ECF could have held a different position. The ECF believe what most all of mankind believed. As you stated what Cardinal Bellarmine said does not matter.

The Catholic Church has never had a position about the earth being the center of the universe. Tom would just have to quote a Council of the Church that says that, but he can’t.
The Council of Trent says the Bible is infallible in regard to faith and morals. Science is not faith and morals. Trent occurred before Galileo published.
The Catholic Church has never claimed that a literal interpretation of the bible is the only one. It was taught since the Bible was established by the Catholic Church and was understood by Galileo as well as most Catholics today. What a Catholic thought in the 17th century would only be guessing. The teaching of the Catholic Church did not change.

I have been told by Mormons for years that the only doctrine is the doctrine found in Mormon Scripture. Mormon scripture says the Book of Mormon is the history of all the American Indians. It is also what the Mormon Church taught about its scripture. The Mormon Church has changed what it believes it’s scripture is and it goes against its scripture.

 

[Stephen168]

"Augustine:

One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: “I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.” For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.

The ECF knew the scriptures were not science but faith and moral

The Alexandrian school represented most prominently by Origin allegoricalize lots of scripture. Their claim was that all books of scripture could not be simultaneously true without such interpretive tools. The Antiochian school was opposed to this view and taught that scripture should be viewed as literally true

After the Alexandrian school won the day sometime in the third, fourth, or fifth century the literal interpretation of scriptures was not the ONLY one available, but this did not mean that figurative interpretations were to be preferred.

The Alexandrian school of thought is older than the Antioch school of the thought as Rebecca told you.
So while you led the reader to believe the Alexandian school was the new comer and “won the day” it actual is original and consistent Catholic teaching. Scripture is not natural philosophy (science) and a literal interpretation was not required.

 

[lax16]

May not be his writing style but it is LDS to the core. When you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, confuse them with B*****. TOm and many others seem to think that the more words they use, the more we will suddenly change our beliefs. This is something I’ve ran into many times living in mormon country.

Horton - So true, I have been around Mormons for about 24 years and live in Mormon country for the past nine years.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hey guys - Somebody else is posting for TOm. This is absolutely not his writing style.

I have not reviewed with great focus, but I am afraid that whatever you thought was not my style was me posting. I confess that the closest I have come to lying in this thread is when I approached saying that I cared absolutely none at being called a liar over and over and over. I can tell that I care more than none.

Anyway, let me resay, “cede position ‘official’” I had forgotten that I said “cede” that, but again a position held by officials not a position that is close to “de fide.” And geocentrism was a position held by officials too.
Let me resay, “no position concerning NY Cumorah that should concern a LDS and have more than a miniscule impact upon LDS truth claims.” It seems that the ASSUMPTION of the world that was wrong being the same assumption of the Catholic church leaders is important to Stephen. I think the proper analogy to draw is that the NATURAL assumption was natural in both cases, but I think it was wrong in both cases. The ability to speak infallibility (Catholic claim - though ONLY concerning faith and morals that none of us on this thread to exclude folks like Sungenis TODAY believe geocentrism concerns) and the ability to receive revelation (LDS claim - not precluded to faith and morals, but also not received just because LDS or non-LDS wish it would be received) didn’t preclude those who possessed these charisms from following the natural path that was wrong.
Let me resay, “That geocentrism especially as promulgated by Pope Alexander is more problematic for Catholic truth claims than is NY Cumorah for LDS truth claims.” With the caveat that I do not believe the geocentrism being false makes Catholicism false as it was never put forth via infallibility.
I will read for other things said here and try to not respond if they only amount to TOm is a liar OR are ground I think we have already well-travelled. I feel bad that whatever I said caused you to think it was not me posting and I will try to the better TOm rather than the worse TOm. Sorry.
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

I have not reviewed with great focus, but I am afraid that whatever you thought was not my style was me posting. I confess that the closest I have come to lying in this thread is when I approached saying that I cared absolutely none at being called a liar over and over and over. I can tell that I care more than none.

Anyway, let me resay, “cede position ‘official’” I had forgotten that I said “cede” that, but again a position held by officials not a position that is close to “de fide.” And geocentrism was a position held by officials too.
Let me resay, “no position concerning NY Cumorah that should concern a LDS and have more than a miniscule impact upon LDS truth claims.” It seems that the ASSUMPTION of the world that was wrong being the same assumption of the Catholic church leaders is important to Stephen. I think the proper analogy to draw is that the NATURAL assumption was natural in both cases, but I think it was wrong in both cases. The ability to speak infallibility (Catholic claim - though ONLY concerning faith and morals that none of us on this thread to exclude folks like Sungenis TODAY believe geocentrism concerns) and the ability to receive revelation (LDS claim - not precluded to faith and morals, but also not received just because LDS or non-LDS wish it would be received) didn’t preclude those who possessed these charisms from following the natural path that was wrong.
Let me resay, “That geocentrism especially as promulgated by Pope Alexander is more problematic for Catholic truth claims than is NY Cumorah for LDS truth claims.” With the caveat that I do not believe the geocentrism being false makes Catholicism false as it was never put forth via infallibility.
I will read for other things said here and try to not respond if they only amount to TOm is a liar OR are ground I think we have already well-travelled. I feel bad that whatever I said caused you to think it was not me posting and I will try to the better TOm rather than the worse TOm. Sorry.
Charity, TOm

TOm - Please stick around and let’s continue dialoguing

I am asking that you take a step back and look at the importance the history of the BoM has always played in the promoting of the LDS religion.

You and other Mormon apologists are trying to wipe from memory the words of Joseph Smith regarding the location of the BoM. You are hoping that the next generation will never know he uttered these words or that the prophet was not speaking as a prophet.

To compare this to the claims of the Catholic Church, as stated in the Nicene Creed, is apples and oranges.

With all of the effort going into trying to find the BoM location in another part of the world, why hasn’t the Mormon church ever excavated Hill Cumorah in New York and made a definitive statement THAT IS DID NOT HAPPEN THERE?

Why? Because all the older Mormons who do not access the internet and live in their Mormon bubble would die of shock!!!
Instead, the Mormon apologists are slowly trying to keep the younger people from ever believing it until the LDS church can completely re-write history.

 

[Alma147]

but the Apostles didn’t write the NT in the same language as the OT.

Sure they did. Their Bible was the Greek Septuagint.

They wrote in Aramaic and in Greek. I don’t know what mistranslation you are talking about.

Psalm 2:9 quoted in Rev. 2:27: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers:

AA

 

[Stephen168]

." It seems that the ASSUMPTION of the world that was wrong being the same assumption of the Catholic church leaders is important to Stephen. I think the proper analogy to draw is that the NATURAL assumption was natural in both cases, but I think it was wrong in both cases.

1. All of 17th century humanity naturally assumed the earth rotated around the sun.
2. All of 19th century humanity naturally assumed the final scenes of the BoM took place at Cumorah.
   Both were “natural” assumptions?
   Yes, #1 is “natural” assumption because when we look into the heavens that is what all of humanity sees.
   No, #2 is an American work of fiction which only Mormons believe is a true history, and they believed it happened at Cumorah because the Mormon Church said it did.

The ability to speak infallibility (Catholic claim - though ONLY concerning faith and morals that none of us on this thread to exclude folks like Sungenis TODAY believe geocentrism concerns) and the ability to receive revelation (LDS claim - not precluded to faith and morals, but also not received just because LDS or non-LDS wish it would be received) didn’t preclude those who possessed these charisms from following the natural path that was wrong.

Yes, Sungenis is free to be wrong because he is wrong in science not faith and morals.
I don’t have a problem with Mormon prophets being wrong, but I would think a Mormon would. Which brings us back to the unanswered question.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm - Please stick around and let’s continue dialoguing

I am asking that you take a step back and look at the importance the history of the BoM has always played in the promoting of the LDS religion.

You and other Mormon apologists are trying to wipe from memory the words of Joseph Smith regarding the location of the BoM. You are hoping that the next generation will never know he uttered these words or that the prophet was not speaking as a prophet.

To compare this to the claims of the Catholic Church, as stated in the Nicene Creed, is apples and oranges.

With all of the effort going into trying to find the BoM location in another part of the world, why hasn’t the Mormon church ever excavated Hill Cumorah in New York and made a definitive statement THAT IS DID NOT HAPPEN THERE?

Why? Because all the older Mormons who do not access the internet and live in their Mormon bubble would die of shock!!!
Instead, the Mormon apologists are slowly trying to keep the younger people from ever believing it until the LDS church can completely re-write history.

I hope to not post too much more on this, but …
TOm the Lesser:
First, what is the REASON you want me to stick around. You have already acknowledged that I either dazzle with brilliance but merely confuse with B*****. What are you gaining from my presence? What has dazzled you, or has it all be B*****?

TOm the little, but maybe not as little:
I consider the historicity of the BOM to be an important issue, but not a central issue to the gospel.
I consider the NY Cumorah theory to be inconsistent with some things Joseph Smith said and inconsistent with some things said during your 165 year period. That being said, it is the NATURAL assumption and thus it carried the day.
I remember being in a small NM town with my Bishop and the young men. I had been a member for less time than the young men (a point I continually referenced during my time working with them). The Branch president said something that indicated that he held a hemispheric geography model for the BOM. I took my bishop aside and said we simply must correct him. The Bishop was very nice, but he said such was not an important part of the gospel. He never discouraged my learning about this or that and as best I could tell he rejected hemispheric geography theories too, but I learned something that day that I think is not well understood by folks who demand that the BOM live or die based on this or that concept about it.

The hemispheric geography model is inconsistent with the text of the BOM and though a NATURAL enough assumption, it does not fit the text at all.

Many faithful LDS do not die of shock when their preconceptions die. That some do is unfortunate. If you have not read Stages of Faith you should. I read it long before I knew of Dialogue and … To come to grips with aspects of your faith that were not properly understood is natural and sometimes painful. It happens in most or all religions. IMO it happens in all religions worth embracing.
I am quite convinced that virtually all General Authorities in the CoJCoLDS navigated such death of preconceptions without significant risk to their faith. I suspect my navigation was worse than some of theirs, but better than many of my fellow LDS. It is sometimes hard for me to see the shattering of faith experienced by folks when such things were either never believed by me or far more easily navigated.
But, while I doubt the CoJCoLDS is going officially claim there is no use looking in the NY hill, I think most LDS who have considered this have been looking in Mesoamerica for decades. I think what has been found is hard to explain via “Joseph Smith made it up.” (though I have not tried to separate the Old World BOM evidence from the New World evidence so it might be better to say that the sum of evidence IMO is incredibly hard to explain via “Joseph Smith made it up.”).
So for my part, I still emphasize the historicity of the BOM. I just find Sorenson’s geography of the new world to be compelling. And I find Old World geography in the BOM to be beyond explanation via natural means. I would not be a fan of erasing the past understanding of the BOM by LDS leaders flawed though it is. Such would be a mistake IMO. Instead it should be used to prevent the “shock” of which you speak.
Back to TOm the lesser:
I do not know what LDS you regularly talk with. I suspect they would be put off to know that they either dazzle with brilliance or confuse with B*****.
In addition to my question above, let me ask you this. Clearly to be a LDS is to be worthy of ridicule. Do you not also think that most non-Catholics ridicule the Catholic faith like the CoJCoLDS is ridiculed here? If not, why not?
Charity, TOm

 

[Telstar]

Sure they did. Their Bible was the Greek Septuagint.

I believe the Greek used in the Septuagint was not exactly the same as the Greek that was used at the time the Gospels were written. Someone that knows Greek can correct me if I’m wrong about that, but I think I remember reading about it, at some point. Also, the Jews didn’t always write everything down, and neither did the Apostles. Much of their teaching was done by word of mouth, because most people at that time (at least among the poor) were completely uneducated, and could not read. This was all part of Jewish Tradition that the Apostles also used (because they were all Jewish), as the best way of teaching the uneducated masses. The Apostles didn’t have any of the “Gospels”, as we know them, to teach from when they were sent out by Jesus, because they didn’t exist until much later. They were finally written down when it became clear to all of them, that they had to make sure everyone taught the same things, so the people would be less likely to be taught things that were incorrect. They certainly didn’t have a complete “Bible” to read for many years beyond that point.

Psalm 2:9 quoted in Rev. 2:27: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers:
AA

Lets look at them:
“Psalm 2:[9] Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron, and shalt break them in pieces like a potter’ s vessel.”
and:
Apocalypse 2:[27] And he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and as the vessel of a potter they shall be broken
I’m sorry, but your point escapes me. They are very nearly identical. The only difference is that one says “Thou” and the other says “he”. One (the Psalm) seems to be referring to Jesus, Himself, and the other (the Apocalypse) refers to one who follows Him. At least, that’s how I see it, by reading it in context with the rest of both passages. What difference do you see in the two, or are you just nitpicking them based on their not being exactly, word for word?