Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What I find interesting, is that the writing style is so complex that it precludes anyone other than a masterful author from being the sole person responsible for writing the content and messages within its pages. Definitely, not the work of someone with a third grade education.
What I find interesting, is that the writing style is so complex that it precludes anyone other than a masterful author from being the sole person responsible for writing the content and messages within its pages. Definitely, not the work of someone with a third grade education.
How is it that a person could do all these things in the name of Jesus Christ, but Jesus does not recongnize that person, and asks them to depart?
The answer is found in Matthew:
Matthew 16:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
If a person does not have the keys to the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing, their endeavors on earth will not be bound or loosed in heaven. IOW their works will not be recongized in heaven and by Jesus.
Hence, Jesus will say to them: You have done all these great works in my name, but I did not give you the power or authority to do these things, therefore I do not recongize your works, and I do not know you, depart from me.
A person cannot just wake up one morning and say: I am going to preach the gospel, and start baptizing people in the name of Jesus Christ.
Heaven will not recog nize those baptisms and Jesus will not recognize this person, unless he goes through his recognized lines of authority.
Which brings us to: what church has the recognized power and authority, that when their men baptize (bind a person to Jesus), this baptism is bound (recognized) in heaven. And when their men excomunicate (loose a person from Jesus), this excomunication is bound (recognized) in heaven.
Which church has the true priesthood (keys of the kingdom), which is the power and authority to act for Jesus Christ on the earth today? Most churches (especially protestant, and born again, and evangelical churches) do not even see a need to have the priesthood of Jesus.
The only church that talks about the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the priesthood of Jesus is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is only the Church of Jesus Christ that declares these things. It is only the Church of Jesus Christ that ordaines men with the power and the authority to actually act in the authorized name of Jesus Christ. We will not be asked to depart from him. We have the same power and authority that Jesus gave Peter in the first century, which Peter used to grow and administer the true church of Jesus.
run on sentences is not complex
"
Since its first publication . . .
And? Since I didn't state anything even remotely similar to this partial sentiment, it doesn't seem to apply to me, or my comments.
However, I think I will take a moment to point out an interesting aspect of your post. I normally do not correct grammar on the forums, but "run on sentences ARE not complex." I mention this only because it seems silly to give any credence to a post about language that is itself flawed. The skill to recognize complex forms and patterns in writing is based on the ability to correctly use the language.
I'm sure you have an admirable level of expertise with the language (not sarcasm) even though the post itself is grammatically flawed. I'm only suggesting that your comments about language will be more effective if you take greater care with what you write.
Just saying.
The presence of run-on sentences in the Book of Mormon does not impact my original statement.
Did you compose any part of this post? Or is it just one massive cut and paste job?
I participate in a debate forum to discuss matters with others. If the person who wrote the comments you posted wants to come here and discuss the topic with me, then I am more than happy to oblige. I don't rely on anyone else to write my arguments for me. I am fully capable of forming my own thoughts and offering them on this forum. And I only debate topics on this forum with those who do the same.
And? Since I didn't state anything even remotely similar to this partial sentiment, it doesn't seem to apply to me, or my comments.
However, I think I will take a moment to point out an interesting aspect of your post. I normally do not correct grammar on the forums, but "run on sentences ARE not complex." I mention this only because it seems silly to give any credence to a post about language that is itself flawed. The skill to recognize complex forms and patterns in writing is based on the ability to correctly use the language.
I'm sure you have an admirable level of expertise with the language (not sarcasm) even though the post itself is grammatically flawed. I'm only suggesting that your comments about language will be more effective if you take greater care with what you write.
Just saying.
God did not write the Book of Mormon or the Bible. There are several authors to each. The Bible was written through inspiration from the Holy Ghost as was the Book of Mormon:What was that statement and why does it not matter? I would expect God in translating to have perfect grammar. An uneducated carbon life form would be the true source of very poor grammar.
This problem is confronted by third grade and usually corrected by fifth grade in most countries. It is sad, that today even Freshmen in College in the USA still has this problem. In most Countries, the problem is corrected early on.
Is God perfect? Yep
Is God all knowing? Yep
If God translated the gold plates, the grammar would be perfect.
Is that true for the Bible also? Is the Bible perfect? Which translation is perfect or is the Bible not from God?I am dealing with the virus again. So what!!! I never claimed to be perfect. But, God is perfect therefore anything that claims to be from him directly that has bad grammar is proof that whatever that was is not from Him.
I am dealing with the virus again.
So what!!!
I never claimed to be perfect.
But, God is perfect therefore anything that claims to be from him directly that has bad grammar is proof that whatever that was is not from Him.
If someone says something better than we can there is no problem using their words. Why reinvent the wheel?
Yes, they did say that we worship a different Christ, but there are not 2 Jesus's. There is only 1, and we may worship him differently.
The bible does not say: If you believe in Jesus (oh BTW it has to be the Jesus of BigDaddy4) then you will be saved. Jesus knew his name and doctrine would be muddled up by doctors of religion, and so he has made a way for us all to learn the true Jesus, and so you have your belief system about him, and you go about to worship him in your way. I have my belief system about Jesus, and I go about worhipping him in my way. We both believe in Jesus, although differently. But we both are good people working for the salvation of souls and one day we will be one in Jesus.
What was that statement and why does it not matter?
Usually, a con of this magnitude falls apart if all parties don't get rich. Which none did after many years.
The normal con would be up if one of the conmen threw out the other cons involved and divested their interest all to himself. The main men were JS, Oliver Cowdry, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. JS eventually excommunicated the other 3 from the church. This action, if it were a con, would have unravelled the con as the other men would have given up and reported the con in a book or newpaper or any number of ways. But none of them did. In fact to their dying days, they would not recant the supposed con. To their dying days they testify that they saw and hefted the golden plates, shown them by an angel of God, and would not give up JS to the wolves. It was not a con. These men were not conmen.
This is my original statement, "What I find interesting, is that the writing style is so complex that it precludes anyone other than a masterful author from being the sole person responsible for writing the content and messages within its pages. Definitely, not the work of someone with a third grade education."
Why does it not matter if there are run-on sentences? For several reasons. The first being that I didn't comment on grammar. I commented on content and the messages the Book of Mormon contains. Style and grammar are not the same thing. In order for you to offer an argument that would matter, you would have to address the way the message were presented and the general style of the writing. But you didn't.
A second reason is that run-on sentences would actually support the notion of a complex writing style.
Third, to whatever extent that your grammar comment is valid, it would provide an even greater argument to support the view that Joseph Smith was not the author of the Book of Mormon, only the imperfect translator. If your grammar comments are valid, then how could a person who makes so many language mistakes then go on to write a book that is stylistically complex and filled with message of great depth? Those two point contradict one another in your argument. An oxymoron, so to speak.
By the way, the perfection argument is a foolish argument. One that is easily broken.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?