Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 423

Thread: 10 facts

  1. #26
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    BigJulie;155610]James made the claims, the proof behind it lies with him. He has been told many times that these historical documents are just that, historical documents and are not considered our doctrine---as many of them are not full in content, out of context, may be opinions, may be the learning of the day, etc. He then takes these historical documents and extrapolates things that are not true, half truths, and flat out lies about our beliefs.

    I have challenged him to show his claims using our scriptures the doctrines he claims.

    To have to refute someone who, like Walter Martin, grabbed tidbits here and there to sensationalize is ridiculous. One could spend all day doing it. It is why the proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Because we have hundreds of pages of scriptures, he has ample to go through and show our doctrine using it. If he can do it, he surely will.
    Are the statements made in general conference by members of the LDS general authorities merely historical documents? Smith taught in conference of the Church Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844 that there are three Gods not one (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Chapter 23, p. 473).. It would seem to e that before she says that these things are half truths and out and out lies she would check the reference.. Here it is in full context:

    I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. 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? Our text says "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above. for Paul says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly. and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.

    Here is the site I get this information from (http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/). In the ***le we read "This history was produced by ***ignment from Church leaders at the beginning of the 20th century. The History editor was B. H. Roberts, a prominent LDS leader. Roberts' ***ignment was to take the m****cript history produced by Joseph Smith (1805-1844) and his clerks between 1838 and 1857 and publish it together with explanatory notes. The history was written as though dictated by Joseph Smith, however he dictated only a small portion of it. The bulk of the m****cript was based on Church records, Church newspaper excerpts and journals of Joseph Smith kept by various men who recorded his activities as well as the diary entries of men who were with Joseph Smith at various times and places or who performed Church missionary efforts, or other tasks of historical importance."

    This History of the Church is owned and controlled by the LDS church. What is in it is their responsibility.. If it isn't true then it wasn't I that is the liar it is the leaders of mormonism that ***igned this work to be done.. Much of the first 6 volumes were the work of BH Roberts who Himself was a general authority being a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. Still the statements made by Smith recorded in the History of the church came down in the records of his scribes.. These were the teaching of Joseph Smith.. These are today the teachings of the modern LDS church.. Most ever LDS believes that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods not one.. Most LDS deny that Smith had more than one wife in agreement with what Smith said in History of the church Vol 6 chapter 19.. That was a lie as has been confirmed by the LDS church (Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2001, p. 327.)..

    While many LDS doctrines are not contained in the LDS scriptures that doesn't stop the church from believing them. As an example in JSH the beings that addressed Smith never are referred to as the Father and the Son but that is just what mormonism teaches.. Pure conjecture is all that supports such an important doctrine.. To say that Smith taught there are three Gods or that he wasn't involved in polygamy is just as much conjecture as what is taught in JSH.. IHS jim

  2. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    BigJulie, This is the lamest excuse of all time! (No, because the problem with history is that you and I were not there.)
    Not at all. History is difficult to truly understand precisely because we were not there.

    If I wanted to make the same arguments you are, I could go through all of the Apocrypha and make you answer as to why the church leadership decided not to include it as scripture. I think what you are doing is called hypocritical because you do not hold yourself up to the same standard you put on others.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  3. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    Are the statements made in general conference by members of the LDS general authorities merely historical documents?
    First off, not all of our history and that used by critics were general conference talks. Second, general conference talks are historical documents--but because of the lack of ability to record them, the leaders of the day must decide what is consistent with revealed doctrine.

    As I noted to Real Fake---if I was to do the same to you, I would pull out the Apocrypha and make you account for every thing in them and ask why they are not part of your doctrine today.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  4. #29
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    Not at all. History is difficult to truly understand precisely because we were not there.

    If I wanted to make the same arguments you are, I could go through all of the Apocrypha and make you answer as to why the church leadership decided not to include it as scripture. I think what you are doing is called hypocritical because you do not hold yourself up to the same standard you put on others.
    The Church is NOT the care taker of the Apocrypha.. We didn't write it. We have no control of changes that might be made in it.. The History of the church is much different. It was written by the LDS and controlled by LDS authority. There is no correlation between a volume of books controlled and written by the same people that now are ready to deny it, EVEN when the doctrines explained there are the same doctrines that they teach as being the truth.. In the History of the church Smith teaches that there are three Gods. And that is just what is taught today in mormonism.

    "Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. ... Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life." (Ensign Mag., Nov. 1998, pp. 70-71)

    In the book of Abraham Smith tells is that creation was accomplished by a council of gods.

    BofA 4:1
    And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.


    Here then is the same teaching that Smith delivered and had recorded in the History of the church only here it is in modern teaching from the new Era as well published as part of the standard words of the church.. But if I say it and quote a p***age of Smith word's from the History of the Church that He had recorded and the GAs of the church instructed a faithful member of the quorum to compile I am a liar and a teller of half truths.. And because I reject the volumes of the Apocrypha, that the Church had not written nor had any control over I am a hypocrite.. I think I am safe by asking the others of the forum to decide who here is the hypocrite and who isn't.. IHS jim

  5. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    The Church is NOT the care taker of the Apocrypha.. We didn't write it. We have no control of changes that might be made in it.. The History of the church is much different. It was written by the LDS and controlled by LDS authority. There is no correlation between a volume of books controlled and written by the same people that now are ready to deny it, EVEN when the doctrines explained there are the same doctrines that they teach as being the truth.. In the History of the church Smith teaches that there are three Gods. And that is just what is taught today in mormonism.
    The Church IS the caretaker of the Apocrypha. It was the leadership of the church who decided what to keep as scripture and what not to. The history of my church is no different. The only difference is that you have detached yourself from your original leadership. You have no real leadership and not real control--of that I understand, but it is like a child stating that it has no connection to their parent only because they say so.


    So, you failed at your hypocritical defense. Start by explaining why you do not use the Apocrypha. I understand you do not have authority over it. You then must accept that you have no connection or authority to when it comes to the Bible as well as those leaders who decided what was in the Bible were also the ones who made decisions regarding the Apocrypha.

    Oh, that red Gods you showed, that is just the true definition of elohim. We have already discussed that as well.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  6. #31
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    Not at all. History is difficult to truly understand precisely because we were not there.

    If I wanted to make the same arguments you are, I could go through all of the Apocrypha and make you answer as to why the church leadership decided not to include it as scripture. I think what you are doing is called hypocritical because you do not hold yourself up to the same standard you put on others.
    First of all, I have no standards, but thanks anyways.
    Second, I have no problem with history, when it comes to my religious belief. I stand on the Holy Word of God from the 66 books of the Holy Bible. If you know of some reason why there should be some books taken out and some books added that is find with me. I on the other hand find no reason at all.

  7. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    First of all, I have no standards, but thanks anyways.
    Second, I have no problem with history, when it comes to my religious belief. I stand on the Holy Word of God from the 66 books of the Holy Bible. If you know of some reason why there should be some books taken out and some books added that is find with me. I on the other hand find no reason at all.
    Yes, you have made it quite clear why your stance is hypocritical when you admit you have no standards and no concept of your own history or how you have 66 books in the Bible.

    In the words of God Himself:

    "And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people."


    Yup, go ahead and pretend the Bible dropped in your lap with no history, no connection to the early church leaders who decided what would stay and what would go and certainly no connection to the God who promised the Jews (or those who wrote your Bible) His blessings.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  8. #33
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    Yes, you have made it quite clear why your stance is hypocritical when you admit you have no standards and no concept of your own history or how you have 66 books in the Bible.

    In the words of God Himself:

    "And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people."


    Yup, go ahead and pretend the Bible dropped in your lap with no history, no connection to the early church leaders who decided what would stay and what would go and certainly no connection to the God who promised the Jews (or those who wrote your Bible) His blessings.
    If it makes you feel better to call me a hypocrite, I can live with it.
    I guess you're saying I pretend the Holy Bible dropped in my lap, Okay if you wish. However are you comparing it to the way the Book of Mormon dropped into Joseph Smith jr. Lap?
    Your logic is very weak. On the one hand we have the Holy Bible a collection of books brought together over the centuries. Then we have the Book of Mormon that came out of no where and you have staked your eternal soul on it, but find the Holy Bible to be suspect, go figure.

  9. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    All I want is either Julie or Pheonix to show me how I am in error in these first three..
    Here is one of your ***ertions that is either partially or totally false:

    13. That God didn't created ANYTHING. He just knew how to take eternally existing elements and use them to organize this world.
    Some might say it is totally false to claim that it's an LDS doctrine that God didn't create anything, since the LDS canon of scripture, which includes the BIble, mention God creating lots of things and beings.

    Others might say it's a half-truth because LDS actually DO reject the incorrect belief that God created stuff ex nihilo--from absolutely nothing.
    But just because you didn't create sodium and chlorine, doesn't mean that when you combine them you didn't create salt.

  10. #35
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Some might say it is totally false to claim that it's an LDS doctrine that God didn't create anything, since the LDS canon of scripture, which includes the BIble, mention God creating lots of things and beings.
    Let's start with the universe. Did the lds gods create the universe OR did they simply organize it out of existing material?

  11. #36
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    it says he created the heavens and theearth in the beginning...

    i dont see room to have anything before

  12. #37
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    when you make use of stuff that's already around you are more or less doing "baking".....not really creating...

    when I think of God creating in the beginning, the image I have is that out of nothingness God made everything.

    that there was zero, and in the next moment there was everything needed for everything.


    When I read the words "in the beginning" t me it means that there was nothing before this moment...no time...no past...
    I don't believe that "in the beginning" was talking about 'a lot later"



    I like the way the Bible talks about God being alone different than all of His creation...that He and He alone is outside creation and not part of it.

  13. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    If it makes you feel better to call me a hypocrite, I can live with it.
    I guess you're saying I pretend the Holy Bible dropped in my lap, Okay if you wish. However are you comparing it to the way the Book of Mormon dropped into Joseph Smith jr. Lap?
    Your logic is very weak. On the one hand we have the Holy Bible a collection of books brought together over the centuries. Then we have the Book of Mormon that came out of no where and you have staked your eternal soul on it, but find the Holy Bible to be suspect, go figure.
    I'm saying you have no idea what decisions were made to make the Bible, what was kept, what was kept out. I'm saying you don't know your own history and then sit arrogantly and judge me.

    As Christ puts it: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    I do not find the Holy Bible suspect, I just recognize that you ignore your own history and how this collection of books came to be. You think that God can guide the hand of many men, but do not think he can work a miracle with one.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  14. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    it says he created the heavens and theearth in the beginning...

    i dont see room to have anything before
    But God states that he is without beginning....if there was no room for anything more, than what was God doing BEFORE the beginning?
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  15. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    when you make use of stuff that's already around you are more or less doing "baking".....not really creating...

    when I think of God creating in the beginning, the image I have is that out of nothingness God made everything.

    that there was zero, and in the next moment there was everything needed for everything.


    When I read the words "in the beginning" t me it means that there was nothing before this moment...no time...no past...
    I don't believe that "in the beginning" was talking about 'a lot later"



    I like the way the Bible talks about God being alone different than all of His creation...that He and He alone is outside creation and not part of it.
    What was God doing when there was zero anything? What was he doing before the beginning? You state "there was nothing before this moment, no time, no past"---but if God existed, are you saying that he existed in nothingness?
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  16. #41
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    I'm saying you have no idea what decisions were made to make the Bible, what was kept, what was kept out. I'm saying you don't know your own history and then sit arrogantly and judge me.

    As Christ puts it: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    I do not find the Holy Bible suspect, I just recognize that you ignore your own history and how this collection of books came to be. You think that God can guide the hand of many men, but do not think he can work a miracle with one.
    Well, **** me down. My guess is the LDSinc. Is going to amend Article of Faith #8 just for you.

  17. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    Well, **** me down. My guess is the LDSinc. Is going to amend Article of Faith #8 just for you.
    Oh, that we understand that parts of the Bible are not interpreted correctly? Oh my, it seems that every non-denominational church recognizes this. But what does this have to do with the fact that you don't seem to understand your own history regarding the Bible and the beam in your own eye?
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  18. #43
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    Well, **** me down. My guess is the LDSinc. Is going to amend Article of Faith #8 just for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    Oh, that we understand that parts of the Bible are not interpreted correctly? Oh my, it seems that every non-denominational church recognizes this.
    LDS 8th article of faith
    8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

    Perhaps you can tell me exactly what you meant when you said "every non-denominational church recognizes this"?
    Last edited by Billyray; 04-29-2014 at 10:17 AM.

  19. #44
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    I'm saying you have no idea what decisions were made to make the Bible, what was kept, what was kept out.
    Give us you theory so we can talk about it BigJ.

    Let's start with this one.

    Which books are out there that should be in the Bible that are not currently in the Bible?

  20. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    LDS 8th article of faith
    8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

    Perhaps you can tell me exactly what you meant when you said "every non-denominational church recognizes this"?
    I mean that every non-denominational church I have interacted with will debate with me regarding the KJV noting that there are words added not in the "original" text etc....in fact, haven't you even done that? And yet, when a real history of even the text is looked at, it becomes clear that even that becomes an opinion of which are the right ones to translate and which are not---let alone which books should and were included and which were removed.

    But this is once again not the point....the point is that most non-denominationals do not look at the history of the Bible when pointing fingers at others.
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  21. #46
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T View Post
    Your reply creates a logical chasm, as big as the Grand Canyon. Here is why:

    You agree that those doctrines are "historical" so to that extent, you agree with James and Allen, right? Since they are thus historical it is not wrong to logically say that those were once taught by the LDS church.

    So you have prima facie evidence (a legal term) indicating "This is what we believe." But to make your point valid about no longer teachings of the LDS church you use an argument from silence, your ***ertion of that as a fact, without providing any documentary evidence that those things were repudiated, and are no longer a part of the church. If this were not a "cowboy-style debate forum" then quite properly, the burden of proof now shifts to you because they said "This is historical LDS doctrine" and demonstrated the accuracy of their claims.

    I am sure that you got this phrase from elsewhere because it is not the way that you post: "...and are not considered our doctrine---as many of them are not full in content, out of context, may be opinions, may be the learning of the day, etc."

    I sincerely that is not a rhetorical ploy to get out of a ticklish situation, because the same thing can be applied to your present-day belief. Essentially that phrase is as solid as a jello salad, and cannot be nailed to the wall as something solid.

    And if that statement you copied is true, then by definition, this statement of yours is false: He then takes these historical documents and extrapolates things that are not true, half truths, and flat out lies about our beliefs. You cannot have it both days, Julie, since the LDS doctrines are "evolving" as you state, then who is to say that what you call "half truths" will not become (or once were) an accurate reflection of LSD beliefs?

    The other side of that coin is that in order to establish something as a "half truth" you need to provide the whole truth about your doctrines, which you have failed to do so far. So, BJ, you have much to do before you are able to post something like you just posted again.
    The LDS here have a problem in their denial that Smith remarks given in the history of the church aren't doctrine. Today's LDS doctrine teaches that there are many many more Gods than their denials here on WM would have us believe.. The primary hope of all believing LDS is to gain exaltation or Godhood.. In which case they would become eternal parents to the next generation of Spirit children that would begin their path to exaltation (Godhood). You must have heard them speak of their gospel as being one eternal round..This is what is meant by that term.. We were once mere eternal intelligences, then we were born of the Father and raise to spirit maturity in heaven. Then we came into mortality, we will be judge and ***igned into one of the three degrees of glory God has preprepared. Then those who are worthy are exalted and the whole circle begins again. ONE ETERNAL ROUND. Just holding that part of mormonism dear, an LDS believer confirms that there are more than one God. It is clear from the scriptures of the LDS church that a belief in many Gods is part of the LDS plan of salvation. It is summed up in the teaching Smith added to mormonism scripture in D&C 76:53-58.. Becoming a God is their goal, and it taught in their scripture. If they believe in becoming a God, and Jesus as their spirit brother then they believe he became a God.. If He became a God then that which Young taught that the Father lived on another world and did everything there Jesus did here then they have to believe that the Father also became a God. That leaves no doubt that Smith sermon in History of the Church Vol. 6, p. 473 is LDS doctrine.. Julie doesn't hold this as scripture, FINE, it isn't their scripture. But it is their doctrine as supported by their scripture.. That is beyond Julie, Alan, or any LDS or their supporters to deny.. IHS jim

  22. #47
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    I mean that every non-denominational church I have interacted with will debate with me regarding the KJV noting that there are words added not in the "original" text etc....in fact, haven't you even done that? And yet, when a real history of even the text is looked at, it becomes clear that even that becomes an opinion of which are the right ones to translate and which are not---let alone which books should and were included and which were removed.
    LDS 8th article of faith
    8 We believe the aBible to be the word of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

    The 8th article of faith speaks about the translation of the text. I have no issues with "translation" of the modern texts of the Bible. Can you give me an example of a verse or verses in either the NASB or the ESV so we can look at the "translation" so I can see what you are talking about?

  23. #48
    Billyray
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    --let alone which books should and were included and which were removed. . .
    What books should be in the Bible that currently are not in the Bible?

  24. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    LDS 8th article of faith
    8 We believe the aBible to be the word of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

    The 8th article of faith speaks about the translation of the text. I have no issues with "translation" of the modern texts of the Bible. Can you give me an example of a verse or verses in either the NASB or the ESV so we can look at the "translation" so I can see what you are talking about?
    Which are the "modern texts" of the Bible? Do you have issue with the King James translation of the Bible? Or do you agree with the way the modern texts is not always in agreement with the KJV?
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

  25. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
    What books should be in the Bible that currently are not in the Bible?
    I am asking you what you think? Do you agree with what was chosen to stay in and what was taken out? Do you agree that you should not use all the books found in the Catholic Bible for instance?

    Do you agree with the removal of this?

    Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).
    I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)--Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •