19th Century Photo of Joseph Smith’s “Caractors” Discovered [Archive]

RealFakeHair

08-26-2013, 02:15 PM

How I WISH that it was just funny.. None of these characters have any reference at all to Egyptian. As I have shown they are much closer to English.. Here compare the two...

183 184

Just where are these anywhere similar.. This supports the idea that mormonism is sad deathly sad, not funny, not funny at all.. IHS jim

All the proof in the world wont change the minds of the LDSinc TBM. I was watching the BYU channel this mormon and stand amazed even today just how much they believe in the fairytale book of mormon. There they were these five men having discussion about the book as if it really really happened. As if it were an historical book of importance to the rest of the world.
Hint, TBM out there, it is a joke, the Book of Mormon is at best a poorly written novel. I guess this is why I love to study mormonism; it show alot about our human brain and how it works or not when it comes to religion and belief. Cognitive dissonance working overtime!

James Banta

08-27-2013, 08:30 AM

All the proof in the world wont change the minds of the LDSinc TBM. I was watching the BYU channel this mormon and stand amazed even today just how much they believe in the fairytale book of mormon. There they were these five men having discussion about the book as if it really really happened. As if it were an historical book of importance to the rest of the world.
Hint, TBM out there, it is a joke, the Book of Mormon is at best a poorly written novel. I guess this is why I love to study mormonism; it show alot about our human brain and how it works or not when it comes to religion and belief. Cognitive dissonance working overtime!

I so want the LDS to show how their BofM was given to them a record in the language of my father (Lehi), which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians (1 Nephi 1:2). Shouldn't we see some of the Egyptian characters in the example of the characters Smith sent to Professor Anton? But as anyone can see these characters are better described as "Deformed English" rather than "Reformed Egyptian" IHS jim

RealFakeHair

08-27-2013, 09:06 AM

I so want the LDS to show how their BofM was given to them a record in the language of my father (Lehi), which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians (1 Nephi 1:2). Shouldn't we see some of the Egyptian characters in the example of the characters Smith sent to Professor Anton? But as anyone can see these characters are better described as "Deformed English" rather than "Reformed Egyptian" IHS jim

On the BYU channel today the Moderator asked, "How could anyone not believe the Book of Mormon, because it was written in only 60 days?"
Answer, because it reads like it was only written in 60 days!

James Banta

08-27-2013, 10:37 AM

On the BYU channel today the Moderator asked, "How could anyone not believe the Book of Mormon, because it was written in only 60 days?"
Answer, because it reads like it was only written in 60 days!

Really only 60 days? The conversion of Alma the Younger was all new, right? Lehi's dream (According to Lucy Mac Smith, Joseph's mother) was Joseph Smith Sr dream.. The m***ive copying of both the Old and New Testaments (Including all initialize words), The stories Joseph regaled his family with long before he had the Gold plates make 60 days seem kind of long.. Most of the story was all put together he just needed someone who could write to take it all down.. IHS jim

RealFakeHair

08-27-2013, 11:21 AM

MacG

08-27-2013, 04:02 PM

Really only 60 days? The conversion of Alma the Younger was all new, right? Lehi's dream (According to Lucy Mac Smith, Joseph's mother) was Joseph Smith Sr dream.. The m***ive copying of both the Old and New Testaments (Including all initialize words), The stories Joseph regaled his family with long before he had the Gold plates make 60 days seem kind of long.. Most of the story was all put together he just needed someone who could write to take it all down.. IHS jim

I would think that the grammar and syntax following the KJV in thousands of places would be enough to prove plagiarism. I mean if the KJV translation team (not inspired by the HG) made grammar mistakes then ok. Through time they have been corrected. It would be unlike that another uninspired English team 100 years later would make those very same mistakes in type and quan***y translating from the very same documents. But along comes someone who translates from a third foreign language about a different land and people and it contains not insignificant portions of another text but also the same grammar mistakes that uninspired the 16th century English translators made and some how that is proof of Divine guidance. To me if it was a Divinely inspired translation would it not be grammar mistake free? If it was Divinely inspired and the earthen vessel is allowed some mistakes how making the same exact mistakes a proof of Divine inspiration?

In a court of law or any college paper it would be plagiarism.

James Banta

08-27-2013, 05:33 PM

I would think that the grammar and syntax following the KJV in thousands of places would be enough to prove plagiarism. I mean if the KJV translation team (not inspired by the HG) made grammar mistakes then ok. Through time they have been corrected. It would be unlike that another uninspired English team 100 years later would make those very same mistakes in type and quan***y translating from the very same documents. But along comes someone who translates from a third foreign language about a different land and people and it contains not significant portions of another text but also the same grammar mistakes that uninspired the 16th century English translators made and some how that is proof of Divine guidance. To me if it was a Divinely inspired translation would it not be grammar mistake free? If it was Divinely inspired and the earthen vessel is allowed some mistakes how making the same exact mistakes a proof of Divine inspiration?

In a court of law or any college paper it would be plagiarism.

I can't rep, you on this so I'll just have to say.. I AGREE.. IHS jim

Snow Patrol

08-27-2013, 06:37 PM

I would think that the grammar and syntax following the KJV in thousands of places would be enough to prove plagiarism. I mean if the KJV translation team (not inspired by the HG) made grammar mistakes then ok. Through time they have been corrected. It would be unlike that another uninspired English team 100 years later would make those very same mistakes in type and quan***y translating from the very same documents. But along comes someone who translates from a third foreign language about a different land and people and it contains not significant portions of another text but also the same grammar mistakes that uninspired the 16th century English translators made and some how that is proof of Divine guidance. To me if it was a Divinely inspired translation would it not be grammar mistake free? If it was Divinely inspired and the earthen vessel is allowed some mistakes how making the same exact mistakes a proof of Divine inspiration?

In a court of law or any college paper it would be plagiarism.

It has been a while since I've been in college but from what I remember as long as you give credit then it is not plagiarism, right?

James Banta

08-27-2013, 09:25 PM

It has been a while since I've been in college but from what I remember as long as you give credit then it is not plagiarism, right?

I own an 1830 replica of the original BofM. There is no credit their for the m***ive amounts of Biblical scripture Smith added to the BofM.. Credit has to be given in the first addition not later telling people to compare the more recent work with the older publication.. Smith just plagiarized without giving credit.. IHS jim

MacG

08-28-2013, 12:36 AM

Let's say for the sake of argument there is no plagiarism. There are two predominant languages which are translated into 17th century English, KJV. It was unusual at the time for its common man street vernacular. By the nineteenth century other translations from the same original languages into nineteenth century English were produced not sounding like stale two hundred year old common English. Maybe not so unusual is that another story of the main protagonist comes to light in the 19th century set in another country in yet a third language not native to the land where the story takes place.

What is unusual is that this third language has portions translated by a man speaking from birth 19th century English translating a character based language into 17th century English - the "Authorized" language of the long dead King. OK it may have been that language that the translator was most familiar with for his love of the scriptures and was so influenced by it. But this is the hardest part for me. The KJV is 17th century English translation of a known ancient middle eastern alphabet based language and a known ancient western alpha-numeric based language when along comes along a 19th century English translation of an unknown ancient character based language telling a third story which has portions within the translation that match word-for-word, spelling and grammar mistakes of 17th century translations included, of two ancient and disparate alpha-numeric languages.

I think I lost myself there a bit. In their respective tongues, try having a German man write about guy which he went to school with and a Spanish man who went to school with the same guy and the same school at the same time. Now have a Chinese man write about the same guy that he went school with in another country at a different time. Have studied men translate the German and the Spanish into English but have the Chinese translated by smart guy without the credentials of man and also has no knowledge of Chinese much less of a dialect that few are familiar with. What are the chances that the translation of third account will match word-for-word, significant portions of each of the German and Spanish accounts of their scholastic time together with the same guy? Do not forget that the studied men made some spelling and grammar mistakes in English and the unlearned translator of the Chinese made the very same mistakes.

James Banta

08-28-2013, 08:03 AM

Let's say for the sake of argument there is no plagiarism. There are two predominant languages which are translated into 16th century English, KJV. It was unusual at the time for its common man street vernacular. By the nineteenth century other translations from the same original languages into nineteenth century English were produced not sounding like stale three hundred year old common English. Maybe not so unusual is that another story of the main protagonist comes to light in the 19th century set in another country in yet a third language not native to the land where the story takes place.

What is unusual is that this third language has portions translated by a man speaking from birth 19th century English translating a character based language into 16th century English - the "Authorized" language of the long dead King. OK it may have been that language that the translator was most familiar with for his love of the scriptures and was so influenced by it. But this is the hardest part for me. The KJV is 16th century English translation of a known ancient middle eastern alphabet based language and a known ancient western alpha-numeric based language when along comes along a 19th century English translation of an unknown ancient character based language telling a third story which has portions within the translation that match word-for-word, spelling and grammar mistakes of 16th century translations included, of two ancient and disparate alpha-numeric languages.

I think I lost myself there a bit. In their respective tongues, try having a German man write about guy which he went to school with and a Spanish man who went to school with the same guy and the same school at the same time. Now have a Chinese man write about the same guy that he went school with in another country at a different time. Have studied men translate the German and the Spanish into English but have the Chinese translated by smart guy without the credentials of man and also has no knowledge of Chinese much less of a dialect that few are familiar with. What are the chances that the translation of third account will match word-for-word, significant portions of each of the German and Spanish accounts of their scholastic time together with the same guy? Do not forget that the studied men made some spelling and grammar mistakes in English and the unlearned translator of the Chinese made the very same mistakes.

Other then the KJV being completed in the 17th century (1611), I fully agree with your claims here.. The only way this could have happened is if God really did give the translation of the BofM. If that were the case wouldn't the 1830 BofM have been given in perfect 19th century (1830) English? But no there have been nearly 4,000 changes made to the BofM most of which were repair the English syntax putting it into proper English for the day and removing the backwoods manner of speech. No longer does it say that Amulek went "a journeying to see a very near kindred" (1830 Page 249), now he "was journeying to see a very near kindred" (Alma 10:7). If Smith didn't make up the wording he used in the BofM, if God gave him each and every word, then God speaks English like a common hillbilly. God was so bad at translation into proper English that in later editions of the BofM it required 3,913 changes.. The God Christian worship is a perfect being. He makes ZERO errors. He never requires mere men to come behind Him to correct His mistakes.. IHS jim

MacG

08-28-2013, 09:56 AM

Other then the KJV being completed in the 17th century (1611), I fully agree with your claims here.. The only way this could have happened is if God really did give the translation of the BofM. If that were the case wouldn't the 1830 BofM have been given in perfect 19th century (1830) English? But no there have been nearly 4,000 changes made to the BofM most of which were repair the English syntax putting it into proper English for the day and removing the backwoods manner of speech. No longer does it say that Amulek went "a journeying to see a very near kindred" (1830 Page 249), now he "was journeying to see a very near kindred" (Alma 10:7). If Smith didn't make up the wording he used in the BofM, if God gave him each and every word, then God speaks English like a common hillbilly. God was so bad at translation into proper English that in later editions of the BofM it required 3,913 changes.. The God Christian worship is a perfect being. He makes ZERO errors. He never requires mere men to come behind Him to correct His mistakes.. IHS jim

I corrected the dates, thanks you. I was thinking in the late hours of the Gutenberg press...

Snow Patrol

08-28-2013, 10:36 AM

I own an 1830 replica of the original BofM. There is no credit their for the m***ive amounts of Biblical scripture Smith added to the BofM.. Credit has to be given in the first addition not later telling people to compare the more recent work with the older publication.. Smith just plagiarized without giving credit.. IHS jim

The m***ive amounts you are talking about are probably the sections in 2 Nephi that quote Isaiah. In 2 Nephi 6:4 it says

4 And now, behold, I would speak unto you concerning things which are, and which are to come; wherefore, I will read you the words of Isaiah. And they are the words which my brother has desired that I should speak unto you. And I speak unto you for your sakes, that ye may learn and glorify the name of your God.

nrajeffreturns

08-28-2013, 03:04 PM

The m***ive amounts you are talking about are probably the sections in 2 Nephi that quote Isaiah. In 2 Nephi 6:4 it says

4 And now, behold, I would speak unto you concerning things which are, and which are to come; wherefore, I will read you the words of Isaiah. And they are the words which my brother has desired that I should speak unto you. And I speak unto you for your sakes, that ye may learn and glorify the name of your God.

Yup. If Mac were to say, "And now I will tell you what Walter Martin once wrote...." and then proceeded to recite what WM had written, it wouldn't be fair to Mac to accuse him of plagiarism.....

MacG

08-28-2013, 06:27 PM

Yup. I Mac were to say, "And now I will tell you what Walter Martin once wrote...." and then proceeded to recite what WM had written, it wouldn't be fair to Mac to accuse him of plagiarism.....

" I will read you the words of Isaiah. "

Not being as well read as you two in the book of Nephi, please tell me which Isaiah p***ages he read after "I will read..."

nrajeffreturns

08-28-2013, 08:42 PM

" I will read you the words of Isaiah. "

Not being as well read as you two in the book of Nephi, please tell me which Isaiah p***ages he read after "I will read..."

Well, if you're making the accusation of plagiarism from Isaiah p***ages, shouldn't you already know the p***ages in question?

MacG

08-29-2013, 12:06 AM

Well, if you're making the accusation of plagiarism from Isaiah p***ages, shouldn't you already know the p***ages in question?

My apologies, see post #9

James Banta

08-29-2013, 07:52 AM

The m***ive amounts you are talking about are probably the sections in 2 Nephi that quote Isaiah. In 2 Nephi 6:4 it says

4 And now, behold, I would speak unto you concerning things which are, and which are to come; wherefore, I will read you the words of Isaiah. And they are the words which my brother has desired that I should speak unto you. And I speak unto you for your sakes, that ye may learn and glorify the name of your God.

That is a quote how about these:

In 3 Nephi 13:27, we read: "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?" see Matthew 6:27 for the p***age this was plagiarized from.

The Sermon on the mount is given almost word from word in 3 Nephi 12.. There is no reference at all to Matthew in these writings.. These are too close to the KJV text of Matthew to be considered anything but plagiarism.. IHS jim

Snow Patrol

08-29-2013, 08:24 AM

That is a quote how about these:

In 3 Nephi 13:27, we read: "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?" see Matthew 6:27 for the p***age this was plagiarized from.

The Sermon on the mount is given almost word from word in 3 Nephi 12.. There is no reference at all to Matthew in these writings.. These are too close to the KJV text of Matthew to be considered anything but plagiarism.. IHS jim

You do know who was speaking, right? If God does not change, why would Christ give a different version of the sermon? This doesn't mean it is plagiarism.

RealFakeHair

08-29-2013, 09:17 AM

You do know who was speaking, right? If God does not change, why would Christ give a different version of the sermon? This doesn't mean it is plagiarism.

As the BYU channel turns, or something. On todays progam it was once again, (Discussions on the Book of Mormon.)
One of the mentally dificient members of the round table quoted a verse from the Book of Mormon that went something like this. "The Word is mightier than the sword." And then one of the make believe jews in the crowd asked by. "Sword, what's a sword?" lol

James Banta

08-29-2013, 09:56 AM

You do know who was speaking, right? If God does not change, why would Christ give a different version of the sermon? This doesn't mean it is plagiarism.

Then it is your contention that Jesus spoke the King's English? That He used Thee and Thou. Since the whole of the BofM is written in that style it can only be ***umed that such is the case.. OR, Smith in his need to have the BofM be seen as "Another Testament" wrote it in that style.. Last I heard in the 19th century such language was limited to the Quakers..

Jeff wanted to see where the BofM was plagiarized from the KJV of the Bible I showed Him.. You want to say that Jesus taught this to the Nephites, fine. Show Biblically that Jesus ever taught He would appear to the populations of the Americas.. The other sheep Jesus has are clearly the one who are not of that fold, not Israel. THAT MEAN THE GENTILES.. Not some other Israelite people.. There is no way of showing that Jesus ever walked the Americas other than the stories from the BofM.. There is no evidence that any of the BofM actually happened. It's all hinges on your feelings and the one man testimony of Joseph Smith. who made a living tricking men into the idea that he could find them buried treasure.. Not the best person to trust with your eternal destiny.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns

08-29-2013, 11:39 AM

My apologies, see post #9

You mean this post, that was made by fakehair?

"I wonder if the phrase,( and it came to p***.) was in any of the Smith's dreams?
As many times as it appears in the Book of Mormon it may explain why Smith family were so weird."

What am I supposed to be seeing in there that is worthy of a serious response?

RealFakeHair

08-29-2013, 11:54 AM

You mean this post, that was made by fakehair?

"I wonder if the phrase,( and it came to p***.) was in any of the Smith's dreams?
As many times as it appears in the Book of Mormon it may explain why Smith family were so weird."

What am I supposed to be seeing in there that is worthy of a serious response?

Why thanks for askin. With hat in hand Joseph Smith jr. placed his face into said hat and read word for word the great Mormon god had given him to read. Question to Nrajeffreturns, do you really think the great Mormon god got stuck on the phrase (and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p*** and it came to p***.) and so forth?

Snow Patrol

08-29-2013, 11:57 AM

"Not the best person to trust with your eternal destiny"

Good thing I don't then.

RealFakeHair

08-29-2013, 12:01 PM

"Not the best person to trust with your eternal destiny"

Good thing I don't then.

Why that is very thoughtful. For this reason I'd never trust my Eternal destiny to anyone, but the Jesus of the Holy Bible. Althougth The 72 virgins of Islam sound pretty good to me. I got only one question do they stay virgins?

MacG

08-29-2013, 12:15 PM

You mean this post, that was made by fakehair?

"I wonder if the phrase,( and it came to p***.) was in any of the Smith's dreams?
As many times as it appears in the Book of Mormon it may explain why Smith family were so weird."

What am I supposed to be seeing in there that is worthy of a serious response?

Sorry. Unbeknownst to me the post numbers are not static...

This is the post here (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3162-19th-Century-Photo-of-Joseph-Smith%92s-%93Caractors%94-Discovered&p=147412#post147412) which I tried to direct you to.

Snow Patrol

08-29-2013, 12:24 PM

Sory. Unbeknownst to me the post numbers are not static...

This is the post here (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3162-19th-Century-Photo-of-Joseph-Smith%92s-%93Caractors%94-Discovered&p=147435#post147435) which I tried to direct you to.

You may want to try again. The post you linked to was created hours after your "See post #9". It would have been impossible to send him to James' post because it wasn't created yet.

MacG

08-29-2013, 12:35 PM

You may want to try again. The post you linked to was created hours after your "See post #9". It would have been impossible to send him to James' post because it wasn't created yet.

Thanks. I fix. :)

nrajeffreturns

08-29-2013, 02:57 PM

Thanks. I fix. :)

OK, I can give a response to that if you want. Give me a little time to look at it and consider it.

nrajeffreturns

08-29-2013, 06:31 PM

Let's say for the sake of argument there is no plagiarism.
ok

There are two predominant languages which are translated into 17th century English, KJV.
You are referring to Hebrew for the OT, and Greek for the NT?

By the nineteenth century other translations from the same original languages into nineteenth century English were produced not sounding like stale two hundred year old common English.
Source of this claim?

Maybe not so unusual is that another story of the main protagonist comes to light in the 19th century set in another country in yet a third language not native to the land where the story takes place.
You don't find that unusual? I think some would call it sensational.

What is unusual is that this third language has portions translated by a man speaking from birth 19th century English translating a character based language into 17th century English - the "Authorized" language of the long dead King.
You find that to be more unusual than 3 guys being thrown into a furnace and coming out fine? If a man claims that God helped him to accomplish something "unusual" then doesn't that pretty much resolve issues of implausibility? Are there things that God is unable to help a man accomplish? Suppose it's the 19th century, and God wants the BOM to be translated from its imperfect original ancient language into imperfect 19th-century English. What's the big deal? The first English Bible was translated in the 14th century, into 14th-century English--yet the original languages were Hebrew and Greek, and very old. Should that really be a problem?

In their respective tongues, try having a German man write about guy which he went to school with and a Spanish man who went to school with the same guy and the same school at the same time. Now have a Chinese man write about the same guy that he went school with in another country at a different time. Have studied men translate the German and the Spanish into English but have the Chinese translated by smart guy without the credentials of man and also has no knowledge of Chinese much less of a dialect that few are familiar with.
Are any of these translators being helped by God?

What are the chances that the translation of third account will match word-for-word, significant portions of each of the German and Spanish accounts of their scholastic time together with the same guy?
If the translation is sufficient to be understandable by the intended audience, who cares?

Do not forget that the studied men made some spelling and grammar mistakes in English and the unlearned translator of the Chinese made the very same mistakes.
What if it wasn't their goal to eliminate all mistakes made by former compilers or translators?

James Banta

08-29-2013, 09:31 PM

"Not the best person to trust with your eternal destiny"

Good thing I don't then.

You don't? The Bible teaches us that Jesus is the way to the Father.. What does mormonism teach?

We cannot return to our Heavenly Father’s presence unless we are clean, and so we must continue to repent. Ideally, we repent moment by moment, but we also attend sacrament meeting each week to partake of the sacrament and renew our baptismal covenants. Second, enduring to the end requires the Holy Ghost, who will both guide and sanctify us. Third, we must be an integral part of a community of Saints, serving and receiving service from our brothers and sisters in the gospel. With baptism we become part of the body of Christ

Fourth, we must share the gospel with others. The promises of bringing even one soul unto the Lord are profound and eternal (see D&C 18:15). Moreover, the gospel takes deeper root in those who share it frequently. Finally, we must always maintain faith and hope in Christ to endure to the end, and among the many ways we do this are praying, fasting, and reading the scriptures. These practices will fortify us against the subtle schemes and fiery darts of the adversary. (Elder L. Tom Perry, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, April 2008, The Gospel of Jesus Christ).

This then is the message of Smith that salvation is NOT the promise of God to us through faith in Jesus and not of Works. No, this is pointing out that we must do, do, do, do, and do.. Mormonism believing more in Joseph Smith as a prophet than it does in Jesus as the Mighty God the Everlasting Father.. Too Much of Smith writings and not enough of God's messages to us.. If you are half the mormon you make yourself out to be then you put a man and man's teaching above God and His teachings.. IHS jim

Snow Patrol

08-30-2013, 07:47 AM

You don't? The Bible teaches us that Jesus is the way to the Father.. What does mormonism teach?

We cannot return to our Heavenly Father’s presence unless we are clean, and so we must continue to repent. Ideally, we repent moment by moment, but we also attend sacrament meeting each week to partake of the sacrament and renew our baptismal covenants. Second, enduring to the end requires the Holy Ghost, who will both guide and sanctify us. Third, we must be an integral part of a community of Saints, serving and receiving service from our brothers and sisters in the gospel. With baptism we become part of the body of Christ

Fourth, we must share the gospel with others. The promises of bringing even one soul unto the Lord are profound and eternal (see D&C 18:15). Moreover, the gospel takes deeper root in those who share it frequently. Finally, we must always maintain faith and hope in Christ to endure to the end, and among the many ways we do this are praying, fasting, and reading the scriptures. These practices will fortify us against the subtle schemes and fiery darts of the adversary. (Elder L. Tom Perry, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, April 2008, The Gospel of Jesus Christ).

This then is the message of Smith that salvation is NOT the promise of God to us through faith in Jesus and not of Works. No, this is pointing out that we must do, do, do, do, and do.. Mormonism believing more in Joseph Smith as a prophet than it does in Jesus as the Mighty God the Everlasting Father.. Too Much of Smith writings and not enough of God's messages to us.. If you are half the mormon you make yourself out to be then you put a man and man's teaching above God and His teachings.. IHS jim

This from the person that jumps all over a story about two people fighting in a church. You have a hypocritical stance. You, yourself say that the way one shows they are a christian is by them loving one another, not fighting, repenting if one does something wrong, etc. etc. Your "hyper-criticism" is kicking in here. "Finally, we must always maintain faith and hope in Christ to endure to the end, and among the many ways we do this are praying, fasting, and reading the scriptures." Oops, there it is.... we must always maintain faith and hope in Christ.

James Banta

08-30-2013, 09:18 AM

This from the person that jumps all over a story about two people fighting in a church. You have a hypocritical stance. You, yourself say that the way one shows they are a christian is by them loving one another, not fighting, repenting if one does something wrong, etc. etc. Your "hyper-criticism" is kicking in here. "Finally, we must always maintain faith and hope in Christ to endure to the end, and among the many ways we do this are praying, fasting, and reading the scriptures." Oops, there it is.... we must always maintain faith and hope in Christ.

Is that what you are teaching enduring to the end is? It is maintain our faith in Jesus and our hope in the resurrection through Him? Is that the full teaching of mormonism for the best salvation God has prepared for His children? Seems to me that you are ignoring most of what mormonism teaches in respect to "All I must do to live with Him someday".. IHS jim

Snow Patrol

08-30-2013, 09:37 AM

Is that what you are teaching enduring to the end is? It is maintain our faith in Jesus and our hope in the resurrection through Him? Is that the full teaching of mormonism for the best salvation God has prepared for His children? Seems to me that you are ignoring most of what mormonism teaches in respect to "All I must do to live with Him someday".. IHS jim

Absolutely I am. Enduring to the end means to continue to the end to have faith in Jesus Christ and His work on behalf of me. Do I maintain my living faith by my works? Yes. I always remember that faith without works is dead.

James Banta

08-30-2013, 10:07 AM

Absolutely I am. Enduring to the end means to continue to the end to have faith in Jesus Christ and His work on behalf of me. Do I maintain my living faith by my works? Yes. I always remember that faith without works is dead.

Then the temple means nothing to you to gain God's best that he has in store for those that believe.. And your baptism is no more effective than those that believe in a spiritual baptism, sprinkling or even infant baptism. Your priesthood has no more authority that the priesthood of all believers.. After all it is by your faith you are saved and the works God does through you are His and not your own.. You do them not for salvation's sake but to honor God with your sacrifice of your efforts and time.. That isn't the mormonism I was ever taught. I was taught that baptism is a required ordinance and that only by the proper authority and through the authorization of those holding the correct keys.. That a man can't receive God's best salvation (exaltation) without temple marriage. That enduring to the end meant in righteousness not just in faith.. You have come up with your own version of mormonism.. It is so different that calling it mormonism is anything but honest..

Explain it to Jeff just as you just did to me and have him agree with you.. That I would love to see.. IHS jim

Snow Patrol

08-30-2013, 10:16 AM

Then the temple means nothing to you to gain God's best that he has in store for those that believe.. And your baptism is no more effective than those that believe in a spiritual baptism, sprinkling or even infant baptism. Your priesthood has no more authority that the priesthood of all believers.. After all it is by your faith you are saved and the works God does through you are His and not your own.. You do them not for salvation's sake but to honor God with your sacrifice of your efforts and time.. That isn't the mormonism I was ever taught. I was taught that baptism is a required ordinance and that only by the proper authority and through the authorization of those holding the correct keys.. That a man can't receive God's best salvation (exaltation) without temple marriage. That enduring to the end meant in righteousness not just in faith.. You have come up with your own version of mormonism.. It is so different that calling it mormonism is anything but honest.. IHS jim

You know, I won't ever be able to satisfy your demands because you keep changing those demands. Are we talking about being saved or are we now talking about exaltation and receiving all the rewards in heaven that the father has? Even mainstream christians believe that there are different rewards in heaven and that one must live up to the requirements in order to obtain the different rewards.

You know what, you can have the last word, but you will never be able to convince me that I place my faith and trust in anyone other than Jesus Christ. End of discussion.

Snow Patrol

08-30-2013, 10:17 AM

RealFakeHair

08-30-2013, 12:35 PM

Snow Patrol

08-30-2013, 12:52 PM

That's like running the race and never finishing it.

What's the alternative? From an "outsiders" view, the mainstream christian process could look like a person taking one step and then it doesn't matter what they do for the rest of their lives. How would you describe the christian process?

James Banta

08-30-2013, 01:05 PM

You know, I won't ever be able to satisfy your demands because you keep changing those demands. Are we talking about being saved or are we now talking about exaltation and receiving all the rewards in heaven that the father has? Even mainstream christians believe that there are different rewards in heaven and that one must live up to the requirements in order to obtain the different rewards.

You know what, you can have the last word, but you will never be able to convince me that I place my faith and trust in anyone other than Jesus Christ. End of discussion.

All I do is mention the parts of mormonism that you seem to deny.. You want to be seen as a Christian that believes that salvation come to us by the grace of God through faith in Jesus. But turn my back for an instance and you add baptism, laying on of hands, and enduring to the end IN RIGHTEOUSNESS as requirements.. I have not moved the Goal posts one inch. The requirements are to believe in Jesus and be saved.. Here is the trick, you can't believe in A JESUS, you have to believe in THE JESUS.. The difference is the second is the Jesus revealed in the Bible the first is a creation of a man's mind.. There is no moving the goal post in asking that holding faith in the real Jesus be part of the requirement to have faith in Jesus..

I said clearly that we receive the BEST salvation God can give to us.. Even access to the Celestial kingdom is taught within mormonism as a combination of what God has done and what we do.

Elder Russell M. Nelson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles teaches:

People may also be saved from individual spiritual death through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, by their faith in Him, by living in obedience to the laws and ordinances of His gospel, and by serving Him. (April church conference 2008, lds.org/general-conference/2008/04/salvation-and-exaltation?lang=eng).

It is mormonism that is moving the goal post here. Throwing in mere resurrection and calling it salvation, then spinning 90 degrees and calling gaining the Celestial kingdom salvation and then turning another 90 degrees and calling exaltation the only real salvation and piling up the requirements at each new turn is the real moving the goal posts that mormons commonly do.. Christians have one salvation, that is everlasting life with God.. There is no goal post to move.. You are either obedient to Matthew 5:48 in Jesus or you are not.. Perfection in Jesus, or ****ation in the Lake of Fire no part way nor levels of salvation.. It's a simple either or situation. You man invented levels and part way salvations are just not biblical.. They are a confused mess of lies to satisfy Joseph Smith universalistic ideas planted into him by his parents; they are not found in the scripture. IHS jim

RealFakeHair

08-30-2013, 01:22 PM

What's the alternative? From an "outsiders" view, the mainstream christian process could look like a person taking one step and then it doesn't matter what they do for the rest of their lives. How would you describe the christian process?

Glad you asked. The alternative is to put your trust in Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible, and what He did for the believer.
Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible paid a debt that no human could ever do. The Jesus of the Holy Bible died for the sins of the world. He didn't die on the Cross for you or I to take advantage of by our works. Christ would not had to die on the Cross just for us to further our works toward a goal of some kind. It doesn't make any sense for Him to sacrifice Himself just so we can continue a process that the Old Testament already offered, ie works for forgiveness.
As Paul put it, the law became of no effect, thus we had Jesus of the Holy Bible pay for our sins.
It may not sound fair, we get all the credit and He did all the work. Okay that is the way mankind in our on mind should look at it, but God's ways are not our ways.
To put it simply Christ did it, and all I did was accept His offer, and that's all there is to it.

nrajeffreturns

08-30-2013, 01:41 PM

Jeff, do you care to comment?

Sure: I agree with what you said:

Enduring to the end means to continue to the end to have faith in Jesus Christ and His work on behalf of me. Do I maintain my living faith by my works? Yes. I always remember that faith without works is dead.

The Bible supports the LDS belief that we demonstrate or prove that we have faith by obeying Christ's commandments.

RealFakeHair

08-30-2013, 02:14 PM

Sure: I agree with what you said:

Enduring to the end means to continue to the end to have faith in Jesus Christ and His work on behalf of me. Do I maintain my living faith by my works? Yes. I always remember that faith without works is dead.

The Bible supports the LDS belief that we demonstrate or prove that we have faith by obeying Christ's commandments.

Let me see if I understand you. Faith is works, and works is on a balance beam with sin on one side and non-sin on the other side with a watchman in the middle on the level judging which way or the other are on for the moment?
I guess I get it?

Snow Patrol

08-30-2013, 05:40 PM

Please explain that in your race ****ogy. You say Mormonism is a race that never ends. What is Christianity?

RealFakeHair

08-31-2013, 08:41 AM

Please explain that in your race ****ogy. You say Mormonism is a race that never ends. What is Christianity?

In Joseph Smith jr. Doctrine, exaltation is a journey that begin when the mormon god did the tango with one of his wives, and sometime later a spirit baby was born and they named him Snow Patrol. Don't ask we how I know that, I just know.
Anyways, SNow Patrol was given to his earthly parents, and thus begin his earthly journey. He has now embark towards His exaltation as a TBM, but it is a perilous path, fraught with danger of all kind; Sex, Druges, Coca-Cola, god forbid. These things can not be overlooked by the mormon god unless you are a famous, and or rich, and then the Bishop just says, "well everyone can't be perfect."
This never ending race goes with the departed into the unknown world at which time Joseph Smith jr. You know the guy would made it all up. He is there to greet you with the secret handshake, and boy you better not forget it.
Anyways, you have made it to the highest heaven, well maybe you didn't. Just missed it by a few unanswered sins, who knows, but anyways, you aint finished yet. More work to be done, so you begin to work it all out with the head-guy-incharge. Soon after to paid your dues it is off to the Celestial heaven and a brief stop because it is EXALTATION, that awaits you. You own plante is in sight, but you have to look over the mormon heavens and pick out your wives to take with you. The only problem you have is a warning from some of the old timers not to make the mistake of picking a best looking your virgins for yourself because they belong to Smith and Brigham, and you don't want to be kicked down the the lowest of mormon heavens where RealFakeHair is, if you know what I mean.
Anyways, you see how now you are in a race you can never finish, it is impossible, buy hey atleast you know how to avoid being stuck in the lower heaven with me.

nrajeffreturns

08-31-2013, 09:20 AM

Let me see if I understand you.
Yeah, let's see.

Faith is works
Nope. You didn't understand. Faith is dead if it isn't accompanied by obedience. That doesn't mean that faith IS works. Your logic is like saying that flour is cake.
One Christian said that faith and good works are like the 2 blades of a scissors--the scissors are useless and unproductive if either one is missing. You need both to make it work.

But in your logic, there is only one blade called faith, which is also called works. Again, it seems you didn't understand.

and works is on a balance beam with sin on one side and non-sin on the other side with a watchman in the middle on the level judging which way or the other are on for the moment?
I guess I get it?

Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing, here are some nice consolation prizes....

RealFakeHair

08-31-2013, 09:35 AM

Yeah, let's see.

Nope. You didn't understand. Faith is dead if it isn't accompanied by obedience. That doesn't mean that faith IS works. Your logic is like saying that flour is cake.
One Christian said that faith and good works are like the 2 blades of a scissors--the scissors are useless and unproductive if either one is missing. You need both to make it work.

But in your logic, there is only one blade called faith, which is also called works. Again, it seems you didn't understand.

Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing, here are some nice consolation prizes....

What did I win, what did I win?
Anyways, which came first obedience or faith? Faith of course, it is obedience at its finest, anything after that is icing on the cake.
I know how much faith it takes to move a mountain, but I nor anyone knows how much work it takes to move the mountain.
You like so many work based religion will never know, and that is a sad thing, it leads many to depression beyound boundaries. I on the other hand put my Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible. He paid for my sins and Salvation, and it there are any rewards and crowns for me in Heaven, well that is just a plus.

Snow Patrol

08-31-2013, 12:21 PM

Did you even read what I asked? I asked that you explain Christianity with your race ****ogy.

RealFakeHair

08-31-2013, 12:40 PM

Did you even read what I asked? I asked that you explain Christianity with your race ****ogy.
Me no read to good, or something?
When Jesus of the Holy Bible said, "It is finished." I believe Him, so what am I to do but accept Him as my Savior?
I believe in Him, I worship Him, and I follow Him, and when I fall He is there to pick me up. I don't have to go back and re-step in my foot steps. I was Saved from the time I accepted and no man can take that away from me. Thus the race is as in His own Words. (Finished).
The race is won! Dog-gone-it, and I didn't get to race the car.

Snow Patrol

08-31-2013, 02:07 PM

Me no read to good, or something?
When Jesus of the Holy Bible said, "It is finished." I believe Him, so what am I to do but accept Him as my Savior?
I believe in Him, I worship Him, and I follow Him, and when I fall He is there to pick me up. I don't have to go back and re-step in my foot steps. I was Saved from the time I accepted and no man can take that away from me. Thus the race is as in His own Words. (Finished).
The race is won! Dog-gone-it, and I didn't get to race the car.

So in other words, the starting line and finish line are the same line to you. As soon as you believe you have crossed that line it is all over and it doesn't matter what you do for the rest of your life. Interesting, I can see the appeal.

nrajeffreturns

08-31-2013, 03:00 PM

What did I win, what did I win?
Your own free copy of the Book of Mormon. Call the toll-free number to claim your prize.

Anyways, which came first obedience or faith? Faith of course, it is obedience at its finest
Correct.

, anything after that is icing on the cake.
Not correct. Anything after that is what you MUST do in order to prove your faith is valid, alive, and long-lasting and not just a one-night stand. I can have faith that the guy in the fancy office where I work is the company's CEO, but the mere faith will not save me from being unemployed. I also have to obey what he wants me to do if I want to remain a "saved" employee of his company.

I know how much faith it takes to move a mountain, but I nor anyone knows how much work it takes to move the mountain.
I bet the amount of work required to move a mountain could be calculated. I can ask my son who is studying math and engineering at MIT if you want.

nrajeffreturns

08-31-2013, 03:07 PM

When Jesus of the Holy Bible said, "It is finished."
Yeah, HIS *** of atoning for your sins was finished. But Him saying "It is finished" wasn't intended to mean that YOUR requirements to avail yourself of that atonement were finished. Your part of the equation hadn't even BEGUN when Jesus finished His part.

I believe Him, so what am I to do but accept Him as my Savior?
Quite a lot, actually. Read Jesus' commandments for the details. He said that eternal life is knowing Him and the Father who sent Him. The only way to know Him is to love and obey Him. If you don't obey Him, you don't love Him, and if you don't obey or love Him, then can't know Him. John spells it out for you.

I believe in Him, I worship Him, and I follow Him, and when I fall He is there to pick me up. I don't have to go back and re-step in my foot steps.
It's true that if you got baptized once, you probably don't need to go back and get baptized again. But if you sin, part of forgiveness is repentance, which entails going back and trying to get it right.

I was Saved from the time I accepted and no man can take that away from me. If you are a man, then you can take it away from yourself. It's quite easy to lose your salvation, actually. All you need to do is stray off the path that leads to eternal life, and stay on the other path until Judgment Day.

MacG

09-03-2013, 07:51 PM

Source of this claim?

19th century English translations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations#18th_and_19th_ce ntury_translations)

What if it wasn't their goal to eliminate all mistakes made by former compilers or translators?

So a translation is made from the Hebrew and Greek. It contains English spelling errors and grammar mistakes.

Two hundred years later new translators publish their translation of the same Hebrew and Greek into their contemporary English. Is it not suspicious that they will make the same English spelling and grammar mistakes that were made by a different team two hundred years hence?

James Banta

09-03-2013, 09:06 PM

so a translation is made from the Hebrew and Greek. It contains English spelling errors and grammar mistakes.

Two hundred years later new translators publish their translation into English. Is it not suspicious that they will make the same English spelling and grammar mistakes that were made by a different team two hundred years hence?

Hello, No one ever claimed they got the translation directly from God.. They can have some errors because it was made through man's knowledge not God's IHS jim

nrajeffreturns

09-04-2013, 05:28 AM

RealFakeHair

09-04-2013, 08:03 AM

So in other words, the starting line and finish line are the same line to you. As soon as you believe you have crossed that line it is all over and it doesn't matter what you do for the rest of your life. Interesting, I can see the appeal.

I think you got it, but let me add something to better clarify. When a believer steps to the line it is Jesus of the Holy Bible who carries the new babe in Christ upon His shoulders and the both of them make the journey together through the valley of tears, and the mountain of joy, and when we reach the end of our road we are handed our pardon.
Unjustified as we as sinners are, and unworthy as I am, it is just the way of the Cross. Thank God!

James Banta

09-04-2013, 08:04 AM

"Critics have long adopted the cynical position that Joseph Smith simply copied the King James Version (KJV) Bible text for the relevant portions of Isaiah, Malachi, and the Sermon on the Mount. Even some Church members have presumed that the close match between the texts indicates that Joseph simply opened a Bible and copied those chapters when he came to material on the gold plates that he recognized as being from the Bible.
Did Joseph simply copy the KJV text?

There are several problems with this view....

We often find differences in Book of Mormon Isaiah texts where modern texts disagree.[4] One verse (2 Nephi 12:16), is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which had not been translated into English in Joseph Smith's day.[5]

It is also significant that the chapters of Isaiah actually quoted in the Book of Mormon (chapters 2-14 and 48-54) are those which modern scholars widely agree correspond closely to the original Isaiah collection and therefore would have been the most likely to have existed in Lehi's day....

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV

Sure, if I was trying to copy the text of the Bible into my own religious work I would add a bit of my own thoughts salted through it.. Smith didn't understand that it is FORBIDDEN to add to or remove from the text of the word as it was given.. You say that Lehi and for that matter all of his party had access to all the text of Isaiah.. I disagree with that since there are parts of the history that occurred after Jerusalem was surrounded in full siege. Yet the BofM tell us that Nephi and his brothers moved in and out of the city without trouble.. Yes and the KJV also corresponds closely to the original Isaiah collection. The same meaning is there in all the differing wording found in the Isaiah test. Take the 53rd Chapter as an example. Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The three remaining letters comprise the word LIGHT, which is added in verse 11 and which does not affect the meaning of the p***age. Then there is the problem with Mathew and Malachi. They wouldn't be written for hundreds of years but there they are almost word for word what we find in the KJV of the Bible.. It is clear that these p***ages were taken from the KJV of the Bible. (I used http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_masorite.html as my referance to this post) IHS jim

MacG

09-04-2013, 09:07 AM

... This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, [B]which had not been translated into English in Joseph Smith's day....[5]

Your source is mistaken.

"Different Translations of the Septuagint in English (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint#Different_Translations_of_the_Septuagin t_in_English)

The Septuagint has been translated a few times into English, the first one (though excluding the Apocrypha) being that of Charles Thomson in 1808."

It took him 19 years to complete meaning he started in 1791 before Joesph Smith was born and completed when Joseph Smith was 3 years old.

Please note: I did not say your source intentionally misrepresented, just mistaken or perhaps was not aware of Thompson's work.