Mormons and Alma 11:28-30

[BJ_Colbert]

DeFide:

I will take the Tanners’ reservations into consideration. Thank you. However, don’t you find it disquieting that at the time of publication, so many people of so many different walks of life were able to identify Spalding’s old personal novel in the pages of the Book of Mormon?

Coupled with the KJV errors being translated into the Book of Mormon despite Smith’s alleged mystical translation from “golden plates” that he can’t produce, it makes it easy not to trust Smith’s testimony.

How many people would have read a book like that? It was only produced later by rabid anti-mormons. I doubt it was a best seller if it existed before the BoM was published. If it was a published work it would still stand today as a testimony against the BoM. Have you seen the original pages that the Catholic Church used to translate from and put together into the Holy Scripture?
Can you imagine the security that Joseph would have had to protect Golden plates in that day and age. Even now it would be a huge problem. God does not need to prove, he only asks for faith. You believe in your leaders and their word that your Bible is translated correctly, we believe in our leaders and their word that the Book of Mormon is true. I have seen the lands and ruins spoken of in the Book of Mormon, many years after reading the Book of Mormon. At the time I was out of the church, and would rather have found it not to be true. I would have jumped on this forum then and praised the Catholic church for setting me free from my doubts, then I could have partied and drank my life away,
and attended mass once a week and been saved. What a happy carefree life.
When I saw the ruins and heard the stories from the mouths of the Mayan people, my blood ran cold and I knew the BoM was true, I could no longer try to deny the truth. The stories handed down in their civilization tell many of the stories of the BoM and I doubt that they plagerized a book from New England. Their ancestors lived the BoM and they know the story. They tell the story of Jesus Christ appearing on the American Continent, that is why they thought Cortez was the Great White God returning.
Just as Joseph Smith and the prophets of the OT, I can not deny the testimony of the truth of these things and the faith that I have been given by God. My soul burns within me with the truth and none of your whinings about the English language or whinings of plagerism can shake my faith, because God gave it to me, personally and I do not set my faith in man’s words but by God’s words. I believe God speaks in my language, or your language, or whatever language He can use to impart the message He wants us to hear. Joseph translated in the language that he knew to be the language of Holy Scripture. BJ

 

[DeFide]

BJ Colbert:

How many people would have read a book like that? It was only produced later by rabid anti-mormons. I doubt it was a best seller if it existed before the BoM was published. If it was a published work it would still stand today as a testimony against the BoM. Have you seen the original pages that the Catholic Church used to translate from and put together into the Holy Scripture?
Can you imagine the security that Joseph would have had to protect Golden plates in that day and age. Even now it would be a huge problem. God does not need to prove, he only asks for faith. You believe in your leaders and their word that your Bible is translated correctly, we believe in our leaders and their word that the Book of Mormon is true. I have seen the lands and ruins spoken of in the Book of Mormon, many years after reading the Book of Mormon. At the time I was out of the church, and would rather have found it not to be true. I would have jumped on this forum then and praised the Catholic church for setting me free from my doubts, then I could have partied and drank my life away,
and attended mass once a week and been saved. What a happy carefree life.
When I saw the ruins and heard the stories from the mouths of the Mayan people, my blood ran cold and I knew the BoM was true, I could no longer try to deny the truth. The stories handed down in their civilization tell many of the stories of the BoM and I doubt that they plagerized a book from New England. Their ancestors lived the BoM and they know the story. They tell the story of Jesus Christ appearing on the American Continent, that is why they thought Cortez was the Great White God returning.
Just as Joseph Smith and the prophets of the OT, I can not deny the testimony of the truth of these things and the faith that I have been given by God. My soul burns within me with the truth and none of your whinings about the English language or whinings of plagerism can shake my faith, because God gave it to me, personally and I do not set my faith in man’s words but by God’s words. I believe God speaks in my language, or your language, or whatever language He can use to impart the message He wants us to hear. Joseph translated in the language that he knew to be the language of Holy Scripture. BJ

1. Do you believe that God put the 1611 KJV errors into the Book of Mormon for some purpose?
2. The originals of the Bible HAVE been seen by countless people of ages past, but could not be preserved indefinitely, while Smith’s “golden plates” were never brought forward, and being made of gold should last quite a bit longer than papyrus! There’s no comparison.

I invite you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If at any time you get a “burning in your soul”, would you then become Catholic?

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Joseph Smith was attacked by a mob while being held in a Carthage jail cell, the guards who were terrified by the attacking mob fled. The mob was shooting through the door, Joseph’s brother was killed and Joseph jumped out the window mortally wounded and fell to the street below where he was attacked by the mob. There were over 150 black-faced men bearing rifles who attacked Joseph and his brother in the jail cell. That to me does not sound like a gun battle.

Another subject, Do you believe that you have a mother in heaven and that God had a wife? Pope Benedictine the 1st believed that, how do you explain that? Why do I not hear it taught in the Catholic church? He was only pope for 33 days, but our priest said on Mother’s Day that Pope Benedictine believed we had a mother in heaven and espoused that belief from the pulpit while he was Pope. BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Actually, if I had the same burning faith that the Catholic church was true I would join the CC and be the best member that church ever had, as I would follow the commandments of God and try to do now and serve as an example of His gospel in every way possible including loving my fellow man and not throwing stones at his beliefs, no matter how far-fetched I found them. I just could not deliberately ridicule another’s beliefs. If I have caused you any pain by saying Pope Benedict taught there was a Mother in Heaven, I am sorry, I was only repeating what the Priest in my husband’s parish said. Have a great Day!!! BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

1. Do you believe that God put the 1611 KJV errors into the Book of Mormon for some purpose?

1. The originals of the Bible HAVE been seen by countless people of ages past, but could not be preserved indefinitely, while Smith’s “golden plates” were never brought forward, and being made of gold should last quite a bit longer than papyrus! There’s no comparison.

I invite you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If at any time you get a “burning in your soul”, would you then become Catholic?

I can’t believe you had the time to count the errors in the Bible, what do you do for a living? The Golden Plates were seen by counted individuals namely, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith , Sen. Hyrum Smith and Samuel H. Smith. Some of these men later left the church, but none ever took back their testimony that they had seen and handled the Golden Plates.
Am I hearing that you do not believe God has the power to take back the plates after translation? These are sacred and He did not want to leave them as a temptation to men. Some of the plates that were allowed to be shown to others were stolen and lost forever. Are we exchanging ideas here, or are we trying to disprove each others religion? I really don’t like the tone of the discussion lately and it is way off subject of Eternal progression which has been answered eternally in this posting and others ad infinitum. Do you really want to know or do you want to ridicule, my testimony and my faith.
BJ

 

[Casen]

RE: Smith wasn’t a martyr, he died in a shootout in a gunbattle where he fired shots.

This is an amazing statement. 150 men with black painted faces and rifles attack four men locked in a jail with only a small caliber six-shooter to defend themselves with and it’s called a “gunbattle”.

RE: *Smith’s “witnesses” of the golden plates didn’t die for the faith either. Of “the 8” witnesses, Page produced his own seer stone and made prophecies, leading Whitmer and Cowdery also astray. Jacob Whitmer and Page apostatized from the Mormon Church; John Whitmer was excommunicated.

The original three weren’t very reliable, joining other sects or religions on and off, and Cowdrey even once made a “full and final renunciation” of his Mormon beliefs. Smith called Harris “a wicked man”. By 1847, all eleven (8+3 orig.) witnesses were either dead or had joined competing sects.*

Oh yes, but amazingly **NOT ONE ** of the eleven witnesses ever recanted their testimony of seeing the plates.

 

[DeFide]

BJ Colbert:

I can’t believe you had the time to count the errors in the Bible, what do you do for a living? The Golden Plates were seen by counted individuals namely, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith , Sen. Hyrum Smith and Samuel H. Smith. Some of these men later left the church, but none ever took back their testimony that they had seen and handled the Golden Plates.
Am I hearing that you do not believe God has the power to take back the plates after translation? These are sacred and He did not want to leave them as a temptation to men. Some of the plates that were allowed to be shown to others were stolen and lost forever. Are we exchanging ideas here, or are we trying to disprove each others religion? I really don’t like the tone of the discussion lately and it is way off subject of Eternal progression which has been answered eternally in this posting and others ad infinitum. Do you really want to know or do you want to ridicule, my testimony and my faith.
BJ

If you don’t want to answer the KJV errors in the Book of Mormon issue, and want to return to the orginal two questions, that’s fine. I’m not trying to make you feel bad. I’ve yet to hear your explanation of the contradictions.

So far, all we have is mormonfool’s explanation that “God” doesn’t mean “God” but that Smith meant “Godhood” in Alma 11. He also said that “unchangeable from all eterntity to all eternity” only means unchangeable for a long time. I’ve already made my objections to this word meaning re-assignment known.

Is your explanation identical to mormonfool’s?

 

[Magnolia]

It seems to me that the bottom line is - who do you have faith in? Can we believe Jesus when he said “upon this rock I will be build my Church and the gates of hell will never prevail aganist it”? Mat 16:18-19 . “The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” 1Tim 3:15. “I am with you always, to the very end of the age” Mat 28:19-20. “I will never leave you: never will I forsake you” Heb 13:5, Duet 31:6, Jesus is like a wise man who built his house on a rock Mat 7:24 “the Holy Spirit will be with you always” John 14:16
“I will never leave you orphans” John 14-18.

I can have faith in God as a loving father that would never leave us. Not because we are faithful but because He is faithful. Because He is a father who keeps His promises. He is the rock upon which I place my hope.

My faith is not without reason. There is plenty of historical evidence that the Church is here today teaching the same message as the ECF taught.

So as for me and my family, we will follow the way of Jesus and bow and worship Him.

 

[oat_soda]

It seems to me that the bottom line is - who do you have faith in? Can we believe Jesus when he said “upon this rock I will be build my Church and the gates of hell will never prevail aganist it”? Mat 16:18-19 . “The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” 1Tim 3:15. “I am with you always, to the very end of the age” Mat 28:19-20. “I will never leave you: never will I forsake you” Heb 13:5, Duet 31:6, Jesus is like a wise man who built his house on a rock Mat 7:24 “the Holy Spirit will be with you always” John 14:16
“I will never leave you orphans” John 14-18.

seems pretty obvious to you and me along with the all of the evidence that proves mormonism is a total hoax. but mormons don’t listen to reason. their conviction is based totally on feelings. feelings can lead people to commit all sorts of errors. that’s why God gave us an intellect and his grace, so that we may with his help use our intellect to test our feelings. the fact that mormons can’t clearly state what they believe about the nature of God shows you how completely silly it is.

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

Actually, if I had the same burning faith that the Catholic church was true I would join the CC and be the best member that church ever had, as I would follow the commandments of God and try to do now and serve as an example of His gospel in every way possible including loving my fellow man and not throwing stones at his beliefs, no matter how far-fetched I found them. I just could not deliberately ridicule another’s beliefs. If I have caused you any pain by saying Pope Benedict taught there was a Mother in Heaven, I am sorry, I was only repeating what the Priest in my husband’s parish said. Have a great Day!!! BJ

We do have a mother in Heaven. Her name is Mary and she is the mother of God. She is the mother of our Church. And she is the most perfect mother anyone could ever have.

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

I can’t believe you had the time to count the errors in the Bible, what do you do for a living?

Actually, the KJV makes it very easy to know when there are changes. It says in the introduction that any words in italics were not in the original texts, but were added later. The BoM contains those italicized words when it quotes prophets. How? Those words wern’t added until at least 1611.

 

[Casen]

RE: but mormons don’t listen to reason. their conviction is based totally on feelings.

Wow, that’s a bit of a generalization don’t you think? 11 million Mormons all “don’t listen to reason”?

I’ve met several Catholics that didn’t know their Bible very well or even read it but I wouldn’t go around posting, “Catholics don’t read the Bible!”. That would be a bit silly, wouldn’t it?

 

[mormon_fool]

kindlylight:

mormon fool:

“This is a good question here. Why do I think Joseph Smith used Elizabethan English? Because it was the language of the scripture for that era. I enjoy the language in the Book of Mormon because it makes it seem more reverent.”

But it was not. It was the language of the scripture of Elizabethan times.

I agree with the latter. Can’t it be the language of scripture for both times? There is usually a lag between contemporary language and language of scriptures. For instance, see how long scripture was written in Latin well past its phasing out as common usage. Writing that uses older forms helps remind me of its antiquity and time honored venerability. The KJV was frontier America’s expectation for scripture at that time, so Joseph Smith’s translation fits well with what was expected of scriptures back then.

It was still used in Joseph’s time but was full of errors and long overdue for revision as did happen eventually.

The Bible is in need of constant revisions as new errors come to light. The Book of Mormon presents the optimal way for dealing for errors as man’s wisdom finds corrections. Mormons were way advanced in that time in recognizing the problems of errant Bible translations. The Book of Mormon allows for progress.

For example see Moroni’s suggestion about dealing with errors in the Book of Mormon in Mormon 9:31:

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

Lets get this straight. An unlettered farm boy translates by miraculous powers from reformed Egyptian written on gold plates.(BC/AD). What he translates is in a language and an idiom which is not his own vernacular including mistakes of translation peculiar to the scholars of King James’ time (1611).

I believe he used a mixture of his own venacular and emulating the style of KJV english.

This could not have been on the plates as it was not yet written.

Good point. However the Book of Mormon and the KJV derive from the same original quotations. Obviously the quotations have a separate transmission history. I see nothing wrong with a translator consulting the work of previous translators when ultimately it is the same original text being cited. Joseph Smith may have done so, but clearly he made some emendations while at times adopting some of the same errors of previous translators.

But I know now why he did so…in your own words “to make it seem more reverent”;

Thank you for granting me this point.

Why could it not have stood in it’s own right without borrowings from a flawed tanslation which surely makes it seem less “reverent”;. would credible be a better word.

I think the optimal translation strategy was employed for the Book of Mormon. I can’t really argue with its success. It attracts the type of people who have the ability to find truth in imperfect-- though divinely approved–sources, and who can become humble enough to pray for help in that endeavor.

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

I will take the Tanners’ reservations into consideration. Thank you. However, don’t you find it disquieting that at the time of publication, so many people of so many different walks of life were able to identify Spalding’s old personal novel in the pages of the Book of Mormon.

I think the “Spaulding theory” says more about the lengths people will go to discredit Joseph Smith. I would be more impressed if someone could produce a manuscript that proves their case. It is not just the Tanner’s that disagree with the Spaulding theory butmany critics of the LDS church.

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

So far, all we have is mormonfool’s explanation that “God” doesn’t mean “God” but that Smith meant “Godhood” in Alma 11.

For the record, this completely misrepresents my position as outlined earlier in the thread, but I will let readers draw their own conclusions.

 

[oat_soda]

Wow, that’s a bit of a generalization don’t you think? 11 million Mormons all “don’t listen to reason”?

I’ve met several Catholics that didn’t know their Bible very well or even read it but I wouldn’t go around posting, “Catholics don’t read the Bible!”. That would be a bit silly, wouldn’t it?

it’s a huge generalization, how many of the 11 million mormons even seriously know or practice thier faith? the same can be said for catholics

those that do believe in mormonism is not because it is logical or reasonable, but because of a feeling that it is true. catholic theology about God is totally oposite. we believe in absolute truth and first things, that we all can agree on certain truths because they are manifested in the natural law. by observation of the world around us, we know that God orders everything by weight, number, and measure.

the quest for truth in science is totally harmonious with catholic doctrine and points to it. this is definitivley not the case w/mormonism. see irr.org/mit/Default.html.

what most mormons do on this website to get around scientific evidence is to say we can never know anything for certain and ultimately we must rely on faith. while catholics believe because we can know things for certain, we can know that God exists and that his teachings subsist in the catholic church and not the moromon church. there is no subjectivity about it.

 

[DeFide]

mormon fool:

For the record, this completely misrepresents my position as outlined earlier in the thread, but I will let readers draw their own conclusions.

Ok, I’ll use your own words, for the benefit of others.

“the Book of Mormon uses “God” like a title or name that can be shared by the beings in the Godhead [Godhood] either individually or collectively”

It doesn’t seem a far strech to say that Smith must have meant “God” to mean to “Godhood” “Godhead”] in general, based on your explanation. You will of course admit that Mormon theology teaches that there are countless gods, hence you’re talking about Godhood, not just Godhead, as if Mormonism was monotheistic, which it is not. (Since we’re in the spirit of being clear)

 

[dennisknapp]

I have some questions for the members of the LDS church:

What is the origin of God?

Was there ever a time when Jesus was not?

According to Mormon theology God the Father has a human body, so does the Son, what of the Holy Spirit?

I think a discussion of these topics will flush out the issue at hand.

Peace

 

[mormon_fool]

DeFide:

Ok, I’ll use your own words, for the benefit of others.

“the Book of Mormon uses “God” like a title or name that can be shared by the beings in the Godhead [Godhood] either individually or collectively”

It doesn’t seem a far strech to say that Smith must have meant “God” to mean to “Godhood” “Godhead”] in general, based on your explanation.

Thanks for helping clearing up confusion. It appears you were rephrasing my position in a way that doesn’t look a stretch to you, but in fact is a big stretch to me and one I can’t own up to.

First I do not equate “Godhood” with “Godhead”. I associate “Godhood” with divine nature. Wikipedia does too, so no redefinition on my part. “Godhead” embodies the concept that three persons act in harmony as one God. Also a standard definition, although it is widely recognized that different theologies have a different way of explaining how that is possible. No where have I attempted to define “God”, I have merely pointed to conceptual differences among people when they use that designation. These differences do not originate with Joseph Smith.

I disagree that categorizing Latter-day Saint Christians as polytheistic is helpful, given our commitments to worship just one Godhead. You might want to brush up on a discussion of basic types of theisms in here.

 

[mormon_fool]

What is the origin of God?

He has always existed.

Was there ever a time when Jesus was not?

No. He is co-eternal with God.

According to Mormon theology God the Father has a human body, so does the Son, what of the Holy Spirit?

No physical body for the Holy Spirit (yet!). For the others yes.