LDS More Information:

[Gregory Thompson]

Which things?

1 Nephi 11 basically gives a spoiler of what happened during the time of Jesus Christ in the time of Jeremiah, not in the vague sense that was common among the prophets in the bible, but in a very specific way that appears to contradict Matthew 13:17 and the related theme in the gospels.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Nephi is having a vision of the future of the world. In the chapter 13 verse it appears the church is Rome, with all its riches. They kill the early new testament saints. But as the vision moves forward into chapter 14 there are two churches only, the church of God or followers of Jesus vs the church of the devil, the wicked of the world. Anyone denying Jesus is the Messiah of the world and fights against him is of the church of the devil, atheist, Islam, Scientology etc.

Thank you for explaining.
.
The story gives me a very "time travel" sort of vibe. A lot of anachronisms. From reading it, it's obvious it was written with a copy of the Christian canon available.

 

[Jane_Doe]

1 Nephi 11 basically gives a spoiler of what happened during the time of Jesus Christ in the time of Jeremiah, not in the vague sense that was common among the prophets in the bible, but in a very specific way that appears to contradict Matthew 13:17 and the related theme in the gospels.

And... do you have a problem with people prophesying of Christ?

(Note: for context, chapter 11 doesn't happen in the Old World, but in the New one).

Thank you for explaining.
.
The story gives me a very "time travel" sort of vibe. A lot of anachronisms. From reading it, it's obvious it was written with a copy of the Christian canon available.

For a different perspective: is it outside of God's power to make scripture sound like scripture?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Thank you for explaining.
.
The story gives me a very "time travel" sort of vibe. A lot of anachronisms. From reading it, it's obvious it was written with a copy of the Christian canon available.

I'll answer some of the other question later, got a doctors appointment.

Actually he didn't, those that witnessed the translation said he had nothing in front of him except his seer stone and what they called the Urim and Thummim. There seems to be some confusion as to what he was using when depending on the witness. No one else looked in that hat but him.

From the time Oliver Cowdery came to him, it took 63 days with a major move, that's 10 words a min 8 hours a day. They have 40%of the original manuscript and there are no rewrites, no crossing out and starting over. There is also very little in the way of punctuation which Oliver a school teacher would have used. There are no verses or chapters, it just starts and keeps on going.

Some scholars who have studied it very closely say some of writings which seem to come from the KJV don't exactly. Seems there was an on going argument way back with William Tyndale and Thomas More.

"In 1526 William Tyndale’s English-language The New Testament started showing up in England, printed in the Low Lands ....Tyndale’s translation was vigorously attacked by Sir Thomas More, the King’s minister and counselor (and later chancellor), in his Dialogue, published in 1528. ........The translation issues that Thomas More attacked William Tyndale over were basically settled in the King James Bible (1611), yet the Book of Mormon takes those translation issues to their final conclusion by explicitly resolving the conflict by (1) frequently declaring charity to be love, as in the “pure love of Christ”, (2) allowing for both elders and priests as offices in the church, and (3) explicitly stating that the word church refers to both congregation and God’s [Page 8]organization. The Book of Mormon resolves the controversy in favor of the King James solution but from the point of view of William Tyndale."

Why would Joseph do that? How could even know about it, he wasn't a student of biblical history?

There are also some points about his phraseology, it's not a work done by a young man growing up in the early 1800s. They have looked at Joseph's first written history and how he worded things. Then compared it to the Book of Mormon and it doesn't match. But in his later life there is a certain flow which feel Biblical and Book of Mormon-ish especially in the D&C. It's as if the Book of Mormon influenced him and not the other way around.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'll answer some of the other question later, got a doctors appointment.

Actually he didn't, those that witnessed the translation said he had nothing in front of him except his seer stone and what they called the Urim and Thummim. There seems to be some confusion as to what he was using when depending on the witness. No one else looked in that hat but him.

From the time Oliver Cowdery came to him, it took 63 days with a major move, that's 10 words a min 8 hours a day. They have 40%of the original manuscript and there are no rewrites, no crossing out and starting over. There is also very little in the way of punctuation which Oliver a school teacher would have used. There are no verses or chapters, it just starts and keeps on going.

Some scholars who have studied it very closely say some of writings which seem to come from the KJV don't exactly. Seems there was an on going argument way back with William Tyndale and Thomas More.

"In 1526 William Tyndale’s English-language The New Testament started showing up in England, printed in the Low Lands ....Tyndale’s translation was vigorously attacked by Sir Thomas More, the King’s minister and counselor (and later chancellor), in his Dialogue, published in 1528. ........The translation issues that Thomas More attacked William Tyndale over were basically settled in the King James Bible (1611), yet the Book of Mormon takes those translation issues to their final conclusion by explicitly resolving the conflict by (1) frequently declaring charity to be love, as in the “pure love of Christ”, (2) allowing for both elders and priests as offices in the church, and (3) explicitly stating that the word church refers to both congregation and God’s [Page 8]organization. The Book of Mormon resolves the controversy in favor of the King James solution but from the point of view of William Tyndale."

Why would Joseph do that? How could even know about it, he wasn't a student of biblical history?

There are also some points about his phraseology, it's not a work done by a young man growing up in the early 1800s. They have looked at Joseph's first written history and how he worded things. Then compared it to the Book of Mormon and it doesn't match. But in his later life there is a certain flow which feel Biblical and Book of Mormon-ish especially in the D&C. It's as if the Book of Mormon influenced him and not the other way around.

It's interesting to say the least, I have other reasons for thinking of a time paradox, because of other religious movements in the founding era of LDS, but it's just a theory I use to entertain myself, based on coincidences.
.
It's really possible that there are two timelines here that merged at one time, of course there's no proof. lol

 

[Gregory Thompson]

And... do you have a problem with people prophesying of Christ?

(Note: for context, chapter 11 doesn't happen in the Old World, but in the New one).

For a different perspective: is it outside of God's power to make scripture sound like scripture?

Hmmm the genetics of scripture, that takes me back.

 

[withwonderingawe]

1 Nephi 11 basically gives a spoiler of what happened during the time of Jesus Christ in the time of Jeremiah, not in the vague sense that was common among the prophets in the bible, but in a very specific way that appears to contradict Matthew 13:17 and the related theme in the gospels.

I think the way u are interpreting that passage is wrong. How could someone desire to see something they didn't know about. I believe the intent was they desired to be in the position they his apostle were in. To sit at his feet and be taught. They desired that because they knew about.

Job wrote ".. I know that my redeemed liveth and shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this body yet in my flesh shall I see God."

He had the concept of redemption and of resurrection. The whole reason for the law of sacrifice, the scape goat and the day of atonement was to point toward the last great and infinite atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Isaiah 53 is about the atonement, he poured out his soul unto death.

Jesus told the Jews search the scriptures for they testify of me. In Luke 24 he opens up the scripture to the men he is walking with and explains the real meanings. In Acts 17 Paul sets down with some Jews and opens up the scriptures to them explaining why Jesus had to die.

The point is the prophets of the Old Testament knew and prophesied of his coming. The Mormon church contends that many precious things were removed from the Bible we now have by the Jews who ran the sanhedrin before and after Christ death. They wanted to wipe away any support for the atonement and that they would kill their own God.

This is why Joseph called the Book of Mormon the most correct book and that you could get closer to God by living by its principles. The Bible tells us the atonement happens, the Book of Mormon explains why.

 

[Rescued One]

Jesus told the Jews search the scriptures for they testify of me. In Luke 24 he opens up the scripture to the men he is walking with and explains the real meanings.
In Acts 17 Paul sets down with some Jews and opens up the scriptures to them explaining why Jesus had to die.

The point is the prophets of the Old Testament knew and prophesied of his coming. The Mormon church contends that many precious things were removed from the Bible we now have by the Jews who ran the sanhedrin before and after Christ death. They wanted to wipe away any support for the atonement and that they would kill their own God.

This is why Joseph called the Book of Mormon the most correct book and that you could get closer to God by living by its principles. The Bible tells us the atonement happens, the Book of Mormon explains why.

"In Acts 17 Paul sets down with some Jews and opens up the scriptures to them explaining why Jesus had to die."
"The Bible tells us the atonement happens, the Book of Mormon explains why."

You've contradicted yourself.

And, no, Mormonism takes people away from God. It was a horrible, lonely experience because of that.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think the way u are interpreting that passage is wrong. How could someone desire to see something they didn't know about. I believe the intent was they desired to be in the position they his apostle were in. To sit at his feet and be taught. They desired that because they knew about.

Job wrote ".. I know that my redeemed liveth and shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this body yet in my flesh shall I see God."

He had the concept of redemption and of resurrection. The whole reason for the law of sacrifice, the scape goat and the day of atonement was to point toward the last great and infinite atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Isaiah 53 is about the atonement, he poured out his soul unto death.

Jesus told the Jews search the scriptures for they testify of me. In Luke 24 he opens up the scripture to the men he is walking with and explains the real meanings. In Acts 17 Paul sets down with some Jews and opens up the scriptures to them explaining why Jesus had to die.

The point is the prophets of the Old Testament knew and prophesied of his coming. The Mormon church contends that many precious things were removed from the Bible we now have by the Jews who ran the sanhedrin before and after Christ death. They wanted to wipe away any support for the atonement and that they would kill their own God.

This is why Joseph called the Book of Mormon the most correct book and that you could get closer to God by living by its principles. The Bible tells us the atonement happens, the Book of Mormon explains why.

The reason why it needs to be explained because the prophets available did not make it clear, the religious authorities were expecting God to come as a military leader and kick the Romans out.
.
The way Jesus did it indicated that only the Holy Spirit could reveal it to someone reading the scriptures of the day, because from a purely fleshly understanding of what was available (not 1 Nephi) it was not possible to know.
.
In the same way when Atheists look at the bible and its contemporary philosophers, and say "the bible writer is just copying what the other guy said" and I understand it as "God responding to the philosopher of the age" .. the book of Mormon does not pass this test. By this analytical pattern it seems to be be entirely written by Joseph Smith and perhaps a few others during his time period.

 

[mmksparbud]

In the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 19:1 reads:
Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.

This verse is a quotation of Isaiah 9:1, which reads in the latest KJV as follows:

Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.

Why would Joseph Smith insert the 'Red Sea' instead of just 'the sea'?
Because there was an error in the 1769 KJV version that he was copying from which included the words 'Red Sea'.

How do we know that 'Red Sea' is an error?

During the Kingdom Age (about 1000 BC and onwards), the land of Naphtali bordered the Sea of Galilee to the West. The land of Zabulun bordered Naphtali to the West and South. It is within this region that we find many names from Jesus' ministry - Capernaum, Cana, Genneserat, Bethsaida and, of couse, Galilee. The quotation from Isaiah thus neatly pinpoints the area of the Messiah's future ministry.

The Red Sea, however, is over 250 miles to the South of Galilee, near the Egyptian border. There is no way that Isaiah could at any stage have contained the geographical qualifier "Red".
There is further proof of this assertion. Firstly, the quotation also mentions that "the sea" is beyond Jordan, in Galilee. The Jordan River, of course, empties into the Dead Sea, and never reaches the Red Sea at all. Further, the Red Sea is definitely nowhere near Galilee.
Secondly, this verse from Isaiah was quoted by Matthew in Matthew 4:12-16, specifically with reference to Galilee and Capernaum. The quotation in Matthew is also missing the reference to the Red Sea.


This is funny:

I told my story in another tread and was asked to make a separate post of it.

I'm from Europe and I had never heard about mormons (I had seen boys with name tags but I didn't know who they were) until a while ago when the following happened:

In the 80s my father had remote success with a family saga type novel that was very vaguely based on the story of his ancestors (Andre Kaminski:Kith and Kin). Most of the events and characters in the book were purely fictional though.

A couple of years ago I took interest in genealogy. I started researching online and was amazed to find a very detailed family tree of my father on a website called familysearch. But then I realized that the tree was completely based on the novel and therefore totally inaccurate. What puzzled me even more was that every name in the tree had a baptism date attached because a. my father and his ancestors were all jewish, b. the baptisms all took place 1994 when even my father was already dead for years and c. the baptisms where performed somewhere in Utah...

it took me quite a bit of time and research to connect at least some of the dots.

This is how I found out about mormonism and also your sub, which I frequent since from time to time.

The mormons baptized not only my dead jewish father but also all the fictional characters from one of his novels. • r/exmormon


Satyrs are of Greek mythology:
Isa 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

BOM 2 Nephi 23:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

Note that the Satyr is more of an anachronism than mistranslation. The translation does translate to wild goat, perhaps demonic wild goat, but Satyrs weren't in artwork until 520-500 BC, and weren't given an English name until around the 14th century AD.

 

[Peter1000]

The "this generation" is a future generation, the one which will experience the great tribulation events described here. That's reinforced by the fig tree parable.

Good try, but the word 'this generation' never means a 'future generation. If it was a future generation it would have said 'this will all happen in a future generation'.

I would be willing to say this, if you are willing to say that 'this generation' means a 'future generation' for Jesus, then it must be the same for JS. Am I right about that?

 

[Peter1000]

John 1:1.

John 1:1 says that the Word was 'with' God twice. Being with God is not being God. So there is God the Father and God the Son (who is also known as the Word) and They are with each other in the beginning.

John 1:1 also says that the Word was God. That is true also, but the Word of God is not God the Father, but is also known as God the Son.

So John 1:1 is a little confusing because it uses the word 'with God', and uses the word 'is God' all in the same verse. So that predictably has generated many interpretations about the make up of God and His Word in the beginning. One interpretation is no better or no worse than other reasonable interpretations.

The only reason that the interpretation that Mormons rely on is because JS saw the Father and the Son personally, which gave him a real advantage over those that have not seen God the Father and God the Son.

One other person that saw God the Father and God the Son, agreed with JS and that was Stephen in the NT. So our interpretation is at least reasonable too.

 

[mmksparbud]

Good try, but the word 'this generation' never means a 'future generation. If it was a future generation it would have said 'this will all happen in a future generation'.

I would be willing to say this, if you are willing to say that 'this generation' means a 'future generation' for Jesus, then it must be the same for JS. Am I right about that?

Context----
Mar 13:28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
Mar 13:29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
Mar 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

The generation that sees the branch putting forth leaves---then it is near. It isn't near till the branch puts forth leaves---bare branches doesn't mean it is near.

That was said after this:
Mar 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
Mar 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
Mar 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Mar 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
Mar 13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
Mar 13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
Mar 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

The generation that sees these things, the tribulation, the false prophets, sun and moon darkened, stars fall, that generation and not any other. Jesus was specific as to which generation.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Good try, but the word 'this generation' never means a 'future generation. If it was a future generation it would have said 'this will all happen in a future generation'.

I would be willing to say this, if you are willing to say that 'this generation' means a 'future generation' for Jesus, then it must be the same for JS. Am I right about that?

Jesus is God. Joseph Smith is a false prophet. So no, what works for Jesus does not work for JS. Nice try, though!

 

[BigDaddy4]

Context----

So important, yet seemingly escapes most lds...

 

[BigDaddy4]

So John 1:1 is a little confusing because it uses the word 'with God', and uses the word 'is God' all in the same verse. So that predictably has generated many interpretations about the make up of God and His Word in the beginning. One interpretation is no better or no worse than other reasonable interpretations.

It's confusing because you don't understand who God is and instead rely on the false lds teaching of 3 separate gods. But that's the lds fall back position, isn't it - to blame the "many interpretations"? That position is intended to create more confusion so that the lds "interpretation" can be held as clearing all that confusion up. Strawman theology - create a solution to a problem that does not exist.

The only reason that the interpretation that Mormons rely on is because JS saw the Father and the Son personally, which gave him a real advantage over those that have not seen God the Father and God the Son.

Which goes against Scripture, so it cannot be the truth! See John 4:24, John 6:46, and 1 Timothy 6:15-16.

One other person that saw God the Father and God the Son, agreed with JS and that was Stephen in the NT. So our interpretation is at least reasonable too.

Again, you misinterpret Scripture. Stephen saw the glory of God, with Jesus standing at the right hand of that glory, as in a position of authority.

In Acts 7, Stephen is talking to the Sanhedrin and first introduces God's glory appearing to Abraham in verse 2. Then he proceeds to summarize the history of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc. Why? Because is/was a Jew like them and they are his "fathers" in a religious sense and is showing this commonality.

Where they differ is in regard to Jesus and who Jesus is. So in verse 55, Stephen is tying together the glory of God that appeared to Abraham in verse 2 is the same glory he is speaking of. By saying that Jesus is standing at the right hand of God, Stephen is tying in verses 48-50, which is a direct quote of Isaiah 66:1-2, whom the Sanhedrin were (or should have been) very familiar with.

When read in context, there should be no confusion.

 

[Peter1000]

And???? His servant said the cup was for divining, not Joseph. God gave Joseph the interpretations to his dreams. He had no silver "divining cup" in prison.

Genesis 4:5 The servant does say that this cup is used for divining. Who's cup was it? It was Josephs cup. So a reasonable person would think that Joseph used the cup for divining. Not sure how, but he used it similar to JS using a stone.
Genesis 44:15 Josephs tell us himself that he can certainly divine. So putting the 2 scriptures together it is clear that Joseph uses a silver cup to do some of his divining (receiving revelation from God). He also received revelations from God in the form of dreams.

 

[mmksparbud]

Genesis 4:5 The servant does say that this cup is used for divining. Who's cup was it? It was Josephs cup. So a reasonable person would think that Joseph used the cup for divining. Not sure how, but he used it similar to JS using a stone.
Genesis 44:15 Josephs tell us himself that he can certainly divine. So putting the 2 scriptures together it is clear that Joseph uses a silver cup to do some of his divining (receiving revelation from God). He also received revelations from God in the form of dreams.

LOL: Joseph had the cup put into his brothers bag! Not exactly divining! He was obviously messing with his brothers and testing them. As usual---you are not putting together the right scriptures and reading them wrong. Again--He had no silver divining cup in prison. Nor with Potiphar. This incident is the only time it is mentioned. He did nothing even remotely similar to JS.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Genesis 4:5 The servant does say that this cup is used for divining. Who's cup was it? It was Josephs cup. So a reasonable person would think that Joseph used the cup for divining. Not sure how, but he used it similar to JS using a stone.
Genesis 44:15 Josephs tell us himself that he can certainly divine. So putting the 2 scriptures together it is clear that Joseph uses a silver cup to do some of his divining (receiving revelation from God). He also received revelations from God in the form of dreams.

In Genesis 44:15, did Joseph really use divination to know Benjamin had the cup? No! He had his servant put it there. No divination necessary. Instead, it was a ruse to trick his brothers to come back to his house. In Chapter 45 is the big reveal.

Are you saying Joseph Smith tricked his friends and family by using some peep stones to claiming divinating powers?

 

[Peter1000]

It's confusing because you don't understand who God is and instead rely on the false lds teaching of 3 separate gods. But that's the lds fall back position, isn't it - to blame the "many interpretations"? That position is intended to create more confusion so that the lds "interpretation" can be held as clearing all that confusion up. Strawman theology - create a solution to a problem that does not exist.

I don't expect to clear up anything for you, but for reasonable people they can look at John 1:1 and know that it is not clear, how can you be with God and be God? Being with God means that you are separate from God, just like in any other use of the word 'with' implies.

That the Word of God is God the Father is only 1 of many ways to interpret that scripture. If you don't know that, start a survey and you will quickly see that it is not clear. Jesus is God the Son, who you even say is distinct from God the Father. So Momons saying separate and you saying distinct is not too different. Are they one physically, or are they separate. Mormons rely on many scriptures in the bible that support our position. You have many scriptures in the bible to support yours. So it comes down to a standstill again. But if you to get serious and count all the scriptures that had to do with the Trinity, you would find many more indicate 3 separate and distinct rather than l physically.

Again, you misinterpret Scripture. Stephen saw the glory of God, with Jesus standing at the right hand of that glory, as in a position of authority.

This is what Stephen says:
Acts 7:55-56King James Version (KJV)
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

So vs 55 Stephen sees the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.
and vs 56 Stephen tells everyone that he sees Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

So twice Stephen uses the phrase 'Jesus standing on the right hand of God'.
One time he says he saw the glory of God. He does not even say, I saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of the glory of God.

I sure you will interpret that scripture to mean he saw the glory but not the figure of God. Well for our purposes I would disagree and since he said he saw God twice, I have better numbers for being right than you do.

And also, if Jesus is standing next to the glory of God or Jesus is standing next to God, it still says Stephen saw 2 distinct entities. In your case he saw 1)Jesus, and 2)the glory of God. Distinct and separate as in 'standing next to' rather than being blending into.

Here is a picture of Stephen seeing Jesus standing next to God. If you saw a picture of JS seeing the Father and the Son, it looks just like this picture.