LDS

[StankApe]

Religion is like NASCAR, everybody picks their favorite driver, acquires said driver's t-shirts,jackets, beer coozies...etc . They gather together in their "church" they all feel they have a chance to win ,and boy do they get angry when another driver puts their's out of the race!

They fans all want the same thing, victory! (or confirmation in the case of religion)


Mormonism would definitely be Jimmy Johnson

 

[pakeha]

It was god playing spot the deliberate mistake.

 

[skyrider44]

I had already edited my post to clarify my meaning: Yes, I saw your post.

Most curious. The Article is clear that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the words of God himself, but admits to human error only for the Bible. You, on the other hand, admit to human error in the Book of Mormon which the Article does not.

Joseph Smith himself, in at least two statements, suggested that the BoM was not perfect, using the term "most correct" and stating on the title page ". . .if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men. . . ."

Consequently, the Article--in concert with Joseph Smith's statements--puts the Bible and the BoM on common ground in the context of human error. Nothing curious about it.

 

[StankApe]

most correct? moster correct than what exactly?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Joseph Smith himself, in at least two statements, suggested that the BoM was not perfect, using the term "most correct" and stating on the title page ". . .if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men. . . ."

Consequently, the Article--in concert with Joseph Smith's statements--puts the Bible and the BoM on common ground in the context of human error. Nothing curious about it.

Then why should anyone believe they are divinely inspired ?

There is nothing to distinguish them from any other made up story ..

 

[jsfisher]

Joseph Smith himself, in at least two statements, suggested that the BoM was not perfect, using the term "most correct" and stating on the title page ". . .if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men. . . ."

Consequently, the Article--in concert with Joseph Smith's statements--puts the Bible and the BoM on common ground in the context of human error. Nothing curious about it.

Now you are denying plain English. Article eight, all by itself says quite clearly that the Bible was subject to translation error while the Book of Mormon was not. Had the article meant to agree with your view, it would have been worded entirely differently. Instead it is worded to point out that both are the words of God, but only the former has the potential for errors in translation.

The introduction to the Book of Mormon and the Articles of Faith do not agree on this point.

Now, I've showed you how I parse the statements; please show me how you parse them to maintain harmony.

 

[Pup]

Joseph Smith himself, in at least two statements, suggested that the BoM was not perfect, using the term "most correct" and stating on the title page ". . .if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men. . . ."

Consequently, the Article--in concert with Joseph Smith's statements--puts the Bible and the BoM on common ground in the context of human error. Nothing curious about it.

What do you think about Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible? If it had been finished, would it have been perfectly correct? Are the parts he did change or amplify, perfectly correct now?

 

[Giordano]

Joseph Smith himself, in at least two statements, suggested that the BoM was not perfect, using the term "most correct" and stating on the title page ". . .if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men. . . ."

Consequently, the Article--in concert with Joseph Smith's statements--puts the Bible and the BoM on common ground in the context of human error. Nothing curious about it.

Well, that's pretty damning, isn't it? Unless you know which parts are correct, you can't know what to trust and what not to trust. Maybe thou shall not kill really meant people shouldn't wear kilts? Or shouldn't fire clay pots in kilns? How can we know? And why is the word of the living prophet more reliable than that of the founder of the religion with direct access to holy revelation brought by angels?

Finally, as pointed out by others, why would a perfect god allow an mperfect transcription of such an important document?

 

[RandFan]

Joseph Smith himself, in at least two statements, suggested that the BoM was not perfect, using the term "most correct" and stating on the title page ". . .if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men. . . ."

Consequently, the Article--in concert with Joseph Smith's statements--puts the Bible and the BoM on common ground in the context of human error. Nothing curious about it.

The Bible was the result of oral traditions that were told and retold and retold and written down and coppied and copied and copied and copied and... well, you get the picture.

The BofM was ostensibly dictated to Joseph Smith by the power of god. There is simply no comparison.

 

[tsig]

Joseph Smith himself, in at least two statements, suggested that the BoM was not perfect, using the term "most correct" and stating on the title page ". . .if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men. . . ."

Consequently, the Article--in concert with Joseph Smith's statements--puts the Bible and the BoM on common ground in the context of human error. Nothing curious about it.

So the BoM is the absolute truth of god, except where it isn't true?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Much of what I saw in the BOM was flat out incorrect. DNA proves it and so does many other things [emphasis by me].

Are you sure about that? I suggest you enter "Neal A. Maxwell Institute" into your search engine, then enter "DNA" into the search box. You will get links to nine articles that cast doubt on claims such as yours, including "A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist" and "Does DNA Evidence Refute the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon?" In an introduction to the articles ("Prolegomena to the DNA Articles"), Daniel C. Peterson concludes: "Given the grossly inflated claims of the Book of Mormon critics on this issue, these carefully and scientifically grounded defenses do precisely what they needed to do: They pop the balloon." (Neal A. Maxwell Institute, Vol. 15, Issue 2)

Of course, the critics' rejoinder will be that the articles are biased, originating as they do from an LDS institution.* Apparently, then, the critics are free to use any source they desire to savage the Book of Mormon, but they do not grant the same liberty to Mormons themselves. How very fascinating.

*Note that the Church, in a disclaimer preceding the articles, does not necessarily endorse them.

 

[StankApe]

lol, no, we just ask for verifiable evidence.

 

[jsfisher]

You know, reading the passage skyrider44 has been harping on in its full context, it looks to me that he is way off in his interpretation.

The introduction itself is two paragraphs in length. It is short and completely free of copyright, so it should be allowable to post it in its entirety, here:

BOOK OF MORMON:
AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF MORMON,
UPON PLATES TAKEN FROM
THE PLATES OF NEPHI​

Wherefore it is an abridgement of the Record of the People of Nephi; and also of the Lamanites; written to the Lamanites, which are a remnant of the House of Israel; and also to the Jew and Gentile; written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of Prophesy and of Revelation. Written, and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed; to come forth by the gift and power of God, unto the interpretation thereof; sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by the way of Gentile; the interpretation thereof by the gift of God; an abridgment taken from the Book of Ether.

Also, which is a Record of the People of Jared, which were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people when they were building a tower to get to Heaven: which is to shew unto the remnant of the House of Israel how great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever; and also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting Himself unto all nations. And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men; wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ.

BY JOSEPH SMITH, JUNIOR,
AUTHOR AND PROPRIETOR 1830​

Note: I cite the original version of the introduction.

The each paragraph is foreshadowing what is to be found in the Book, proper. The second paragraph tells of the people of Jared. Apparently, they displeased God so he invoked a heavenly smack-down. The "if there be fault" reference in final sentence is clearly to the actions of the people of Jared. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Smith's workmanship.

 

[StankApe]

You know, reading the passage skyrider44 has been harping on in its full context, it looks to me that he is way off in his interpretation.

The introduction itself is two paragraphs in length. It is short and completely free of copyright, so it should be allowable to post it in its entirety, here:


Note: I cite the original version of the introduction.

The each paragraph is foreshadowing what is to be found in the Book, proper. The second paragraph tells of the people of Jared. Apparently, they displeased God so he invoked a heavenly smack-down. The "if there be fault" reference in final sentence is clearly to the actions of the people of Jared. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Smith's workmanship.

Too bad..... if JS had only written it as "there may have been some fault" we could clear this whole mess up!

 

[skyrider44]

The Bible was the result of oral traditions that were told and retold and retold and written down and coppied and copied and copied and copied and... well, you get the picture.

The BofM was ostensibly dictated to Joseph Smith by the power of god. There is simply no comparison.

Sorry, but your response is light years wide of the mark. The point I made was that both the Bible and the BoM have man-made flaws; and re. the BoM, Joseph Smith admitted as much (God didn't write down the translation that went to the printer.)

 

[jsfisher]

Sorry, but your response is light years wide of the mark. The point I made was that both the Bible and the BoM have man-made flaws; and re. the BoM, Joseph Smith admitted as much (God didn't write down the translation that went to the printer.)

No, sorry, he didn't.

 

[RandFan]

Are you sure about that?

Yes.

I suggest you enter "Neal A. Maxwell Institute" into your search engine, then enter "DNA" into the search box. You will get links to nine articles that cast doubt on claims such as yours, including "A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist" and "Does DNA Evidence Refute the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon?" In an introduction to the articles ("Prolegomena to the DNA Articles"), Daniel C. Peterson concludes: "Given the grossly inflated claims of the Book of Mormon critics on this issue, these carefully and scientifically grounded defenses do precisely what they needed to do: They pop the balloon." (Neal A. Maxwell Institute, Vol. 15, Issue 2)

[hilite=Mormonism Research Ministry]Of course, the critics' rejoinder will be that the articles are biased, originating as they do from an LDS institution[/hilite].* Apparently, then, the critics are free to use any source they desire to savage the Book of Mormon, but they do not grant the same liberty to Mormons themselves. How very fascinating.

*Note that the Church, in a disclaimer preceding the articles, does not necessarily endorse them.

Bias should be considered but to dismiss the article simply because of the possibility of bias is a fallacy.

The articles are ad hoc and post hoc rationalization. IOW: They exist to rescue the theory. I was raised Mormon. Not once did anyone correct me when I said that the Book of Mormon was an account of the ancestors of extant native Americans.

The introduction to the Book of Mormon states that the book is "holy scripture comparable to the Bible" and that it is a "record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas." Since 1981 this same introduction claimed that the Lamanites "are the principle ancestors of the American Indians." However, in 2007, the LDS Church changed the wording to say that Book of Mormon Lamanites are now merely "among the ancestors of the American Indians."

Why didn't god correct his people? Why did god allow "the most correct book" to include a title page that claimed that extant native Americans are descendants of the Lamanites?

It wasn't until after DNA confirmed that the Church was wrong that the title page was changed. Either god needed help or god didn't care.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, but your response is light years wide of the mark. The point I made was that both the Bible and the BoM have man-made flaws; and re. the BoM, Joseph Smith admitted as much (God didn't write down the translation that went to the printer.)

Do you even know the process? Joseph put his head into a hat and then repeated what he saw to a scribe who wrote it down. How does that process result in "deer" becoming "horse"? How do these flaws get in there? If I'm not wrong the Smith proof read what was written.

Smith: Deer.
Harris: Horse?
Smith: That's right.
Harris: Okay, so horse it is.

Okay, so I don't want to be accused of a straw man. Give me your scenario that accounts for mistaking a horse for a deer.

Barley and wheat instead of maize? And other anachronisms.

Your explanation doesn't seem credible. Human error doesn't explain how deer become horses.

 

[StankApe]

Do you even know the process? Joseph put his head into a hat and then repeated what he saw to a scribe who wrote it down. How does that process result in "deer" becoming "horse"? How do these flaws get in there? If I'm not wrong the Smith proof read what was written.

Smith: Deer.
Harris: Horse?
Smith: That's right.
Harris: Okay, so horse it is.

Okay, so I don't want to be accused of a straw man. Give me your scenario that accounts for mistaking a horse for a deer.

Barley and wheat instead of maize? And other anachronisms.

Your explanation doesn't seem credible. Human error doesn't explain how deer become horses.

wizard

 

[skyrider44]

You know, reading the passage skyrider44 has been harping on in its full context, it looks to me that he is way off in his interpretation.

The introduction itself is two paragraphs in length. It is short and completely free of copyright, so it should be allowable to post it in its entirety, here:

Note: I cite the original version of the introduction.

The each paragraph is foreshadowing what is to be found in the Book, proper. The second paragraph tells of the people of Jared. Apparently, they displeased God so he invoked a heavenly smack-down. The "if there be fault" reference in final sentence is clearly to the actions of the people of Jared. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Smith's workmanship.

Nice try, JS. There's just one little problem with your analysis: You fail to take note of the long dashes sprinkled throughout the introduction. Those long dashes serve as subject transitions/breaks. Thus, the long dash that precedes "And now," (which you somehow left out of your reproduction) signifies a conclusion to the entire introduction, not merely to the Book of Ether.