It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by bigrex
Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
I just watched this link you posted. Just have to say that many many people have died for one bad idea or another faced with the same resolve and knowing they would leave widows and orphans. It really doesnt speak to veracity. Naturaly some will say now that they knew they were going to die well I dont even believe that. The mormons have been very good at post history embellishment. They have been doing it so long that its a natural reflex to historical reporting for them. Just look at some of the main ideas of their way of doing things at the beginning that they have had to reconsider and toss out and stay relevant in the current times. Lots of fancy footwork there for them over the years. And if the death of these guys was such a testment to veracity why are some of thier early practices now tabo for the modern mormon?
Anyway, I keep religion as a matter of prayer, you can research and find any information to suit your particular fancy, pro-lds or anti, just depends on who you are willing to believe. All your contentions have been covered ad infinitum but I'm sure you would not accept the alternate research because it definitely will not suit your views.
I did my own research without any anti-mormon books open near by or with the direction of known anti-mormon teachers. I got one of their bibles and studied it. I spent many hours talking with mormons that came to my home about every week for almost a year.
And let me tell you something I am not the sort that looks for things to back up my "fancy" or other ideas. Its much more than who one is willing to believe and frankly I dont subcribe to anyones ideas about the mormons dont even know anyone to subcribe to, I do my own figuring on what to believe based on an open minded look and study and did the favor of letting the mormons speak for themselves against it face to face.
So you keep religion as a matter of prayer oh how pious of you. Dont need to study you are getting direct feed in the mystic ozone layer. I would not pray about something like this unless it reached a point where it was hard to discern and I have never been to that point on this subject it being so plain that a bat could see it.
Originally posted by bigrex
You studied a religion for a year and did not pray about it, I find that to be unusual.
Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
I just watched this link you posted. Just have to say that many many people have died for one bad idea or another faced with the same resolve and knowing they would leave widows and orphans. It really doesnt speak to veracity. Naturaly some will say now that they knew they were going to die well I dont even believe that. The mormons have been very good at post history embellishment. They have been doing it so long that its a natural reflex to historical reporting for them. Just look at some of the main ideas of their way of doing things at the beginning that they have had to reconsider and toss out and stay relevant in the current times. Lots of fancy footwork there for them over the years. And if the death of these guys was such a testment to veracity why are some of thier early practices now tabo for the modern mormon?
Originally posted by bigrex
Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
I just watched this link you posted. Just have to say that many many people have died for one bad idea or another faced with the same resolve and knowing they would leave widows and orphans. It really doesnt speak to veracity. Naturaly some will say now that they knew they were going to die well I dont even believe that. The mormons have been very good at post history embellishment. They have been doing it so long that its a natural reflex to historical reporting for them. Just look at some of the main ideas of their way of doing things at the beginning that they have had to reconsider and toss out and stay relevant in the current times. Lots of fancy footwork there for them over the years. And if the death of these guys was such a testment to veracity why are some of thier early practices now tabo for the modern mormon?
. Whatever it was, in a nutshell, no one knows, and it is probably the easiest thing to attack, right along with blacks and the priesthood.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by bigrex
You studied a religion for a year and did not pray about it, I find that to be unusual.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by bigrex
You studied a religion for a year and did not pray about it, I find that to be unusual.
Well had you ever studied anything even frogs for one year you would end up knowing about 1000x more that you did before you started depending on the intensity of your efforts.
Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
Well here is one thing. Whole sections of Isaiah are lifted right out of the King James and set down in one of the books of Mormon. I talked this over with the missionaries at length. Their answer was that the spirit can move on anyone and if they repeat what was writen in the old text, word for word, it was just a show of Gods power ect.
Now we must remember at this point the King James was translated from Hebrew to english of 1611 and the translation was agreed on by several translaters. So then Smith would of had to translated that section of the plates, that contained sections of Isaiah, into an exact reproduction on the King James text. Even if Smith knew how to translate hebrew, and the plates would have had to been in hebrew, the chances of an exact reproduction at that are so large as to not even be worth mentioning. Not to mention that in Smiths day the King James 1611 english was a bit out of fasion to say the least and yet Smith translated these plates using outdated english words. In other words his translation should have been of a more modern english. This one fact points to rank plagiarism. As it is we know Smith didnt know hebrew to translate it to begin with even if the plates had been in hebrew. Smith said the plates were in "reformed Egyptian" and so to make it even harder to believe that Smith could have produced an exact english translation of the isaiah sections.
And this is only one section. The book of mormon is full to the hilt with stolen chapters, paragraphs, verses and phrases ect taken right out of the King James bible. It is also clear in the whole work that Smith continued to mimic King James english even in areas that have no conection with the KJV. There are many volumes of american english of Smiths day to show that americans didnt speak that way anymore and yet Smith insisted in translating the plates in old english style clearly for effect.
As well Smith is said to have translated these plates around 1830. I just happen to have a thick volume with extensive notes writen by Adam Clarke in 1830 and it is clear that americans of that time didnt speak 1611 king james and in fact for the very large part spoke and wrote as we do today. In fact I cant find a single case where Clark even uses a thee, thou, hath or ye in all of his comentary!
Originally posted by bigrex
. . . the Nephi version of Isaiah is not a word for word exact copy of the King James version of Isaiah. I just quickly found a verse here, Isaiah 6:13 "But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return,..". 2nd Nephi 16:13 "But yet there shall be a tenth and they shall return,.." of course we believe that Isaiah was a prophet preceding Nephi, and of course Nephi often referred to Isaiah in his own writings. He expressly tells us when he quotes Isaiah. I will add that Joseph Smith did a revised version of the King James New Testament, I'm sure you know that, but I mention it here because others may not know.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by bigrex
Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
I just watched this link you posted. Just have to say that many many people have died for one bad idea or another faced with the same resolve and knowing they would leave widows and orphans. It really doesnt speak to veracity. Naturaly some will say now that they knew they were going to die well I dont even believe that. The mormons have been very good at post history embellishment. They have been doing it so long that its a natural reflex to historical reporting for them. Just look at some of the main ideas of their way of doing things at the beginning that they have had to reconsider and toss out and stay relevant in the current times. Lots of fancy footwork there for them over the years. And if the death of these guys was such a testment to veracity why are some of thier early practices now tabo for the modern mormon?
. Whatever it was, in a nutshell, no one knows, and it is probably the easiest thing to attack, right along with blacks and the priesthood.
Well just those points right there end up saying a lot that fly into the face of the new testement. Smith could have never had the ideas about blacks he had had he been in line with the revelation of the gosple being open to the gentiles. This very mystery as Paul called it and said that the old prophets longed to understand it was now shown to the apostles of that day.
And the priesthood types that the mormons embrace were clearly shown as defunct in the book of Hebrews.
As far as many wives Paul was clear about a minister being the husband of one wife.
These points are not passe to this discussion. Especially when we consider that Smith said his mission and revelation was to set the church back on the right path and yet he cant even get the foundational truths in order but goes back even behind the new testement to priest classes that had palyed out, establishes racist ideas about the mark of cain that are no where in the bible really but born out of current biblical interpretation of his day and promotes adultry.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by bigrex
You studied a religion for a year and did not pray about it, I find that to be unusual.
Well had you ever studied anything even frogs for one year you would end up knowing about 1000x more that you did before you started depending on the intensity of your efforts.
Originally posted by Intelearthling
reply to post by Annee
I know you and I had differences of opinions in the past but this is where we find common ground.
I'd rather be hated by the world for Jesus Christ's namesake than to be loved by it and risk eternal damnation.
The world didn't understand Jesus' work 2000 years ago and it doesn't understand His work now. Nothings changed.
Originally posted by bigrex
Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
Well here is one thing. Whole sections of Isaiah are lifted right out of the King James and set down in one of the books of Mormon. I talked this over with the missionaries at length. Their answer was that the spirit can move on anyone and if they repeat what was writen in the old text, word for word, it was just a show of Gods power ect.
Of course he attempted to preserve the original English but made commentary and adjusted phrases so they made more theological sense. Things such as "lead us not into temptation" changed to "suffer us not to be led into temptation". Joseph Smith had three years of formal schooling.
Originally posted by bigrex
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by bigrex
You studied a religion for a year and did not pray about it, I find that to be unusual.
Well had you ever studied anything even frogs for one year you would end up knowing about 1000x more that you did before you started depending on the intensity of your efforts.
reply to post by Logarock
Yes, as I said it is good to study things out, but prayer does have a place, especially in a search for what is considered a faith based religion. I've been studying it for years, I was born into it, but that does not automatically give you a testimony.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by bigrex
Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by bigrex
Well here is one thing. Whole sections of Isaiah are lifted right out of the King James and set down in one of the books of Mormon. I talked this over with the missionaries at length. Their answer was that the spirit can move on anyone and if they repeat what was writen in the old text, word for word, it was just a show of Gods power ect.
Of course he attempted to preserve the original English but made commentary and adjusted phrases so they made more theological sense. Things such as "lead us not into temptation" changed to "suffer us not to be led into temptation". Joseph Smith had three years of formal schooling.
Here is the problem with "suffer" as he used it. We can see what he is saying. Dont suffer or allow or let or permit us to go into temptation.
The problem is that there are several greek words for suffer.....but none of these words was used here (Matt 16:13 or Luke 11:4). The greek word there is εἰσφέρω eispherō used only 7 times in the greek NT and it has a very confined meaning....to lead into or bring into like taking hold of something and leading it like say a horse or a man by the arm. Thats why the KJv translaters used "lead" for eisphero and both matthew and Luke were carefull to use it. Had they wanted to say allow they would have use any one of several words that mean allow.
The word suffer as used in the greek KJV mean to allow, permit, grant as in "suffer me first to go bury my father" or "suffer us to go into the pigs".
Smith use of suffer here is just very poor greek and not a translation at all. Suffer changes the meaning of the passage. In fact many have had issues with this passage becouse it suggests to some that God will lead some into a wrong way. Be that as it may the word is "lead" like leading a horse to water not "suffer" or allow a horse to water.
As well the rest of the passage also supports the word eisphero in "deliver" us from evil- ῥύομαι rhyomai deliver. Both words eisphero and rhyomia represent outside force working on the subject....to lead or to deliver. Anyway suffer will not work here. Sounds good but the greek is more precise and it just shows that Smith was not greek sage and in fact its clear that he was changing KJV greek translation according to his understanding of the passage in english not from an understanding of the greek.edit on 28-12-2010 by Logarock because: sp