Today I Stand with the Mormons

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

The BofM is a Biblically based work of fiction much as "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". The main difference between those is that the later was written with skill by a professional author.. Neither one of them was given by inspiration, neither one is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, or instruction in righteousness.. Such is reserved only for the word of God. IHS jim

I guess people will just have to read the Book of Mormon to see for themselves.

When I read the Book of Mormon, I gain a greater testimony and understanding of Jesus Christ and it also speaks of the role of the Americas in the world and what has been promised and what stands to be lost.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I guess people will just have to read the Book of Mormon to see for themselves.

When I read the Book of Mormon, I gain a greater testimony and understanding of Jesus Christ and it also speaks of the role of the Americas in the world and what has been promised and what stands to be lost.

I have read the Book of Mormon multiple times cover to cover and I think is it religious fiction. I even applied the promise in Moroni 10:3-5 and nothing.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I guess people will just have to read the Book of Mormon to see for themselves.

When I read the Book of Mormon, I gain a greater testimony and understanding of Jesus Christ and it also speaks of the role of the Americas in the world and what has been promised and what stands to be lost.

After reading the 1830 original edition I went cross eyed.
BJ, try reading it and maybe you'll see it was dictated by a mormon god with a third grade education.
PS, guess how many time you'll find the quote, (and it came to p***?) in the first edition?

[dberrie2000]

Billyray----Thinking back when I was LDS it seems like the only thing they really taught was that things will get really bad then Christ comes back. They have no idea what pre trib, mid trib, or post trib means but if we were to label them they would be post trib.

Maybe you could point us to the place in the scriptures that use any such terms?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

After reading the 1830 original edition I went cross eyed.
BJ, try reading it and maybe you'll see it was dictated by a mormon god with a third grade education.
PS, guess how many time you'll find the quote, (and it came to p***?) in the first edition?

Did you read a first edition Book of Mormon? I have seen one. My neighbor had one---did a comparison to the one we have today. She didn't see any differences that alarmed her. How did you come across a first edition BoM?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Did you read a first edition Book of Mormon? I have seen one. My neighbor had one---did a comparison to the one we have today. She didn't see any differences that alarmed her. How did you come across a first edition BoM?

It is a copy of the 1830 edition. Boy would I love to have one of the remaining original copy. I wonder what one is worth on the open market now?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

It is a copy of the 1830 edition. Boy would I love to have one of the remaining original copy. I wonder what one is worth on the open market now?

Oh, so you don't really have the real deal---just a copy. My friend sold her original for quite a sum.

So, you read a copy and ***ume it is the real deal. Okay, real fake...you believe that if you like.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Oh, so you don't really have the real deal---just a copy. My friend sold her original for quite a sum.

So, you read a copy and ***ume it is the real deal. Okay, real fake...you believe that if you like.

After the first aint they all a copy?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

After the first aint they all a copy?

After the first hand-written, you mean? So---are you saying you read a copy of the first hand-written one?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

After the first hand-written, you mean? So---are you saying you read a copy of the first hand-written one?

The printed one.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

The printed one.

Okay, so you think you read a copy of the first edition Book of Mormon---not the real deal as you originally lead the reader to believe.

So, have you done a comparison with the printed first edition (real deal) with the hand-written one (real deal) to make sure there were no errors from one to the other? Or do you make the ***umption that the typecaster made no errors?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I guess people will just have to read the Book of Mormon to see for themselves.

When I read the Book of Mormon, I gain a greater testimony and understanding of Jesus Christ and it also speaks of the role of the Americas in the world and what has been promised and what stands to be lost.

It speaks to what Joseph Smith believed was the role in the world for America.. There is nothing in the BofM that can show it is a truthful history. There is no geography, no anthropology that matches anything written in the BofM.. Until there is an official statement from the Church that iden***ies the Land of Nephi, Zarahemla, there isn't even a starting place to tell us in what part of the western hemisphere we could find anything to support BofM history. It is all a man invented Myth and has nothing to do with reality.. Ancient cities have survived into this day, Jerusalem is there as proof that cities from antiquity may survive. In the Americas the ancient cities of Palenque, and Uxmal stand as proof that a whole civilization didn't just die without leaving testimony of it's existence. But what do we find anywhere in the Americas that supports the BofM.. ZIP.. How did Palenque, and Uxmal come come to us in tact while BofM cities just vanished?

I am glad if the BofM add strength to your faith in Jesus.. I am sorry that your religion has twisted and perverted Him into being a god created bu another created god instead of being the Mighty God, the EVERLASTING Father.. If this twisted idolized view of Jesus is what mormonism brings you to then you have no faith in the God who created all things both visible and invisible and you have no hope for salvation in such a preversion.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by James Banta

It speaks to what Joseph Smith believed was the role in the world for America.. There is nothing in the BofM that can show it is a truthful history. There is no geography, no anthropology that matches anything written in the BofM..

I disagree. I have known too many missionaries that have shared stories that confirm that the history of the Book of Mormon is part of the oral history of native amerians.

Ancient cities have survived into this day, Jerusalem is there as proof that cities from antiquity may survive.

Just because a city does survive, does not mean that all cities will survive.

I think the most interesting part of the Book of Mormon is the comparison to what is happening today within our own lands--corrupt lawyers and judges, secret combinations, etc. all aiming to destroy the liberty of God-fearing people.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Okay, so you think you read a copy of the first edition Book of Mormon---not the real deal as you originally lead the reader to believe.

So, have you done a comparison with the printed first edition (real deal) with the hand-written one (real deal) to make sure there were no errors from one to the other? Or do you make the ***umption that the typecaster made no errors?

I am sure to read all the stories about the printing of the book, and do you recall any misgivings about the printer's work?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

I am sure to read all the stories about the printing of the book, and do you recall any misgivings about the printer's work?

I don't think it really matters. I think anyone who values the book, values it on the content, not on the printer's work. This is why Talmage, who was a college professor, picked up a pamphlet that was written in horrific English and joined the LDS church. He said that all of the eloquent speakers and writings he had ever come across and rejected, he was very intriqued by this pamphlet in which the author was obviously lacking education and yet made one of the most brilliant cases he had ever read.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

After reading the 1830 original edition I went cross eyed.
BJ, try reading it and maybe you'll see it was dictated by a mormon god with a third grade education.
PS, guess how many time you'll find the quote, (and it came to p***?) in the first edition?

Now, now... You know that the BofM is a translation of an ABRIDGMENT.. It would get wordy like that.. Adding such words that have no real real meaning..
There are no run on sentences for wordy descriptions. P***ages like 4 Nephi 1:6 don't exist in the BofM how do they:

4 Nephi 1:6
And thus did the thirty and eighth year p*** away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had p***ed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had p***ed away

Or am I wrong and it would be much harder to say "

59 years p***ed"?

Yes I am showing how ridiculous it is to say that the BofM wasn't wordy especially for a book that calls it's self an abridgment.. When looked at as a book written by an uneducated man trying to write a book based on the legends of the day in Biblical sounding language is is very successful. The problem is to educated people it is easily see to be just that a fraud invented in the mind of seriously uneducated but imaginative individual.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Now, now... You know that the BofM is a translation of an ABRIDGMENT.. It would get wordy like that.. Adding such words that have no real real meaning..
There are no run on sentences for wordy descriptions. P***ages like 4 Nephi 1:6 don't exist in the BofM how do they:

4 Nephi 1:6
And thus did the thirty and eighth year p*** away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had p***ed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had p***ed away

Or am I wrong and it would be much harder to say "

59 years p***ed"?

Yes I am showing how ridiculous it is to say that the BofM wasn't wordy especially for a book that calls it's self an abridgment.. When looked at as a book written by an uneducated man trying to write a book based on the legends of the day in Biblical sounding language is is very successful. The problem is to educated people it is easily see to be just that a fraud invented in the mind of seriously uneducated but imaginative individual.. IHS jim

Read the Bible in Hebrew .....and you will find that there are verses that repeat themselves many times.

Do you know that the Book of Mormon translates very easily into Hebrew? Why, because it is written in the same sentence structure. And no one is that brilliant. You try it and see how you do.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Do you know that the Book of Mormon translates very easily into Hebrew?

BigJ you claim to be the expert language guru here. Perhaps you can translate part of the book of mormon for us
Reformed Egyptian--Anthon Transcript

http://www.utlm.org/images/newslette...transcript.jpg

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

BigJ you claim to be the expert language guru here. Perhaps you can translate part of the book of mormon for us
Reformed Egyptian--Anthon Transcript

The way it is written in English is the same as Hebrew sentence structure. I can see this as I learned Hebrew. We don't speak in English the way they speak in Hebrew. James was making fun of the sentence structure. I note that it is not like English, that is why it was not translated in a way familiar to us.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Did you read a first edition Book of Mormon? I have seen one. My neighbor had one---did a comparison to the one we have today. She didn't see any differences that alarmed her. How did you come across a first edition BoM?

I have one.. It is a 150 Year replica published under the authority of the First Presidency by Desert Book. And it does have changes from the original that make it easier to separate God into the three Beings of the Mormon Godhead.. Mary was said to be the Mother of God in the 1830 and the mother of the Son of God in the modern.. That allowed a huge change in the way the 1842 version of the first vision reported the nature of God. Instead of the insistence of the BofM that there is one God (Mosiah 15:2-4).. I guess he should have changed more than he did. It certainly shows that he changed the nature of God to suite himself as he taught in 1844:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473)

Who is right then? Who contradicted this three Gods doctrine that Smith taught? The BofM does!! The Bible Does!! Only believers in Smith above the word of God accepts this created tangible God doctrine that Smith invented!!
IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I don't think it really matters. I think anyone who values the book, values it on the content, not on the printer's work. This is why Talmage, who was a college professor, picked up a pamphlet that was written in horrific English and joined the LDS church. He said that all of the eloquent speakers and writings he had ever come across and rejected, he was very intriqued by this pamphlet in which the author was obviously lacking education and yet made one of the most brilliant cases he had ever read.

I see the Talmage bridge most days, but can't see the forest for the trees.
I've always been fascinated with how new religions get there start.
During the 19th century there were a crop of them, Jehovah Witness, Seventh day adventist, Mormonism, and to some degree Pentecostalism.
The Rapture movement began at the same time as the Mormon church in 1830 give or take a few years.
One does not need a pamphlet to find the Savior of the Holy Bible. All one needs is for someone to show them St John 3:16.
Given the choice between one sweet verse from the Holy Bible or a fictional Book of Mormon, which do we choose?
God gives us choices in life, but When it comes to His Son there is but One.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

I see the Talmage bridge most days, but can't see the forest for the trees.
I've always been fascinated with how new religions get there start.
During the 19th century there were a crop of them, Jehovah Witness, Seventh day adventist, Mormonism, and to some degree Pentecostalism.
The Rapture movement began at the same time as the Mormon church in 1830 give or take a few years.
One does not need a pamphlet to find the Savior of the Holy Bible. All one needs is for someone to show them St John 3:16.
Given the choice between one sweet verse from the Holy Bible or a fictional Book of Mormon, which do we choose?
God gives us choices in life, but When it comes to His Son there is but One.

The "transcendatlism" movement (in which men realized that they could have a direct relationship with God rather than through the church)--is that what you are refering to as the "rapture movement"?

I don't choose between the Book of Mormon and the Bible---I choose both. God is not locked into one book in which He speaks no more.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Read the Bible in Hebrew .....and you will find that there are verses that repeat themselves many times.

Do you know that the Book of Mormon translates very easily into Hebrew? Why, because it is written in the same sentence structure. And no one is that brilliant. You try it and see how you do.

The Bible never claims to be an abridgment of an ancient record as does the BofM.. There is all the space needed for the writers to say what the Holy Spirit was leading them to record.. The BofM claims not to have that much space but that it was difficult to record on the plates. But the BofM is far more wordy than the Bible.. If it was telling us the truth why not just say it was 59 Years without going through all the years leading up to it "Not 20, years not 42, not 43..." That is wordy and unnecessary. It proves that it's claim that it is an abridgment is a lie..

The BofM was written in English not Hebrew. According to Joseph Smith it was never recorded in Hebrew.. All you are saying here is that it translates from English to Hebrew easily.. I don't know it it translates easier to Hebrew than any other English book.. Since Smith said it was never written in Hebrew your point has no meaning.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

.. The BofM claims not to have that much space but that it was difficult to record on the plates. But the BofM is far more wordy than the Bible..

The BofM was written in English not Hebrew. According to Joseph Smith it was never recorded in Hebrew.. All you are saying here is that it translates from English to Hebrew easily.. I don't know it it translates easier to Hebrew than any other English book.. Since Smith said it was never written in Hebrew your point has no meaning.. IHS jim

The original writers of the Book of Mormon wrote in reformed Egyptian but were raised to understand Hebrew. Just as the NT writers wrote in Greek but were raised to speak Hebrew.

If you read the Bible in Hebrew, it is more wordy than the other translations--or I should say, that it reads in a different sentence structure. This same sentence structure can be seen in the Book of Mormon. There are many people who speak English and each have their own unique style depending on where in the U.S. they are from (or even out of the U.S.) That Hebrew style can be seen in the Book of Mormon.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

The way it is written in English is the same as Hebrew sentence structure. I can see this as I learned Hebrew. We don't speak in English the way they speak in Hebrew. James was making fun of the sentence structure. I note that it is not like English, that is why it was not translated in a way familiar to us.

I am showing that the translation was wordy.. It was unnecessary to write a p***age that goes through a list of years.. Not 40, not 41, not 42... Why not just say 59? You are making a claim here with not so much as one example.. So show us how Hebrew and Egyptian use this same kind of sentence structure. I would love to see this especially for the Egyptian since it is mostly engraved as the Gold plates were said to have been.. The fewer words used the better for such a recording.. You have to provide examples to have you claim be given any respect.. IHS jim