On being “Mormon.”

word salad

Would you be happy without your wife forever?
Happiness is replaced with joy.... what joy we will experience no matter what degree one attains...

D&C 76:89–106. Why Will Those Who Inherit the Telestial Kingdom Receive a Glory That “Surpasses All Understanding”?​

All who receive the telestial kingdom will have paid a price for this glory. The fact that after they pay this price they inherit a telestial glory is evidence of the Father’s love and mercy. Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote:

“The [Doctrine and Covenants] explains clearly that the lowest glory to which man is assigned is so glorious as to be beyond the understanding of man. It is a doctrine fundamental in Mormonism that the meanest sinner, in the final judgment, will receive a glory which is beyond human understanding, which is so great that we are unable to describe it adequately. Those who do well will receive an even more glorious place. Those who dwell in the lower may look wistfully to the higher as we do here. The hell on the other side will be felt in some such way.

“The Gospel is a gospel of tremendous love. Love is at the bottom of it. The meanest child is loved so dearly that his reward will be beyond the understanding of mortal man.” (Message of the Doctrine and Covenants, p. 167.)
 
Happiness is replaced with joy.... what joy we will experience no matter what degree one attains...

D&C 76:89–106. Why Will Those Who Inherit the Telestial Kingdom Receive a Glory That “Surpasses All Understanding”?​

All who receive the telestial kingdom will have paid a price for this glory. The fact that after they pay this price they inherit a telestial glory is evidence of the Father’s love and mercy. Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote:

“The [Doctrine and Covenants] explains clearly that the lowest glory to which man is assigned is so glorious as to be beyond the understanding of man. It is a doctrine fundamental in Mormonism that the meanest sinner, in the final judgment, will receive a glory which is beyond human understanding, which is so great that we are unable to describe it adequately. Those who do well will receive an even more glorious place. Those who dwell in the lower may look wistfully to the higher as we do here. The hell on the other side will be felt in some such way.

“The Gospel is a gospel of tremendous love. Love is at the bottom of it. The meanest child is loved so dearly that his reward will be beyond the understanding of mortal man.” (Message of the Doctrine and Covenants, p. 167.)
Answer my question.
 
dberrie said---"The fact is, Bonnie--you have precious little in common with the Biblical NT text."



I'm still waiting, Bonnie--for you to post us the Biblical NT scriptures which isn't also found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--as far as salvational doctrines go.

Crickets. Lots of accusations--but she just can't produce the goods. Silence. Hoot owls. Wolf howls--but no evidence.
Baloney. I gave you not one, but two bible verses. These verses are in your KJV Bible, but your church does not follow them, or believe them.


Scroll about 2/3 of the way down.
 
You are probably correct:
I am correct, but there's no way of knowing for sure because we don't have the original manuscripts.

The Bible we have isn't inerrant. There are obvious errors, some are translation errors some are intentional. That's just a simple fact.

That particular example has been questioned for some time and not just by scholars from our church. The point is, there are errors and that we believe the Bible as far as it has been correctly translated. It's is a doctrinal statement that the Bible is not inerrant.

Frankly, I don't think anyone will.ever.make it inerrant without the original manuscripts.
 
I am correct, but there's no way of knowing for sure because we don't have the original manuscripts.

The Bible we have isn't inerrant. There are obvious errors, some are translation errors some are intentional. That's just a simple fact.

That particular example has been questioned for some time and not just by scholars from our church. The point is, there are errors and that we believe the Bible as far as it has been correctly translated. It's is a doctrinal statement that the Bible is not inerrant.

Frankly, I don't think anyone will.ever.make it inerrant without the original manuscripts.
But the Book of Mormon was “translated” correctly?
 
I am correct, but there's no way of knowing for sure because we don't have the original manuscripts.

The Bible we have isn't inerrant. There are obvious errors, some are translation errors some are intentional. That's just a simple fact.

Oh, is it? And you are an expert on Biblical manuscript copies and Biblical Hebrew and Greek to know this?

As for errors, that describes Smith's version of the KJV--he changed many things in his version, with zero manuscript copy evidence for it--like his John 1:1. He also added a prophecy about himself near the end of Genesis, found nowhere in any ancient Hebrew copy of the OT.
That particular example has been questioned for some time and not just by scholars from our church.

Which is why it is always a good idea to use several different translations of the Bible, so one can compare and contrast. I prefer the NASB.
The point is, there are errors and that we believe the Bible as far as it has been correctly translated. It's is a doctrinal statement that the Bible is not inerrant.

Yes, I know it is a "doctrinal statement" in your church, made by Smith--which means he could add doctrines found nowhere in any manuscript copy, by simply claiming that scribes left it out of their copies, or the Bible isn't translated correctly, etc. Dangerous ground. But Smith had zero competency in the ancient Biblical languages, and no access to manuscript copies.
Frankly, I don't think anyone will.ever.make it inerrant without the original manuscripts.
That is why it is so important for translators to 1. Have a high regard for God's holy word, the Bible, which Mormons do NOT have, 2. Be experts in the Biblical languages. Your lying false prophet founder had neither of these things.
 
I am correct, but there's no way of knowing for sure because we don't have the original manuscripts.

The Bible we have isn't inerrant. There are obvious errors, some are translation errors some are intentional. That's just a simple fact.

That particular example has been questioned for some time and not just by scholars from our church. The point is, there are errors and that we believe the Bible as far as it has been correctly translated. It's is a doctrinal statement that the Bible is not inerrant.

Frankly, I don't think anyone will.ever.make it inerrant without the original manuscripts.
That is the difference between the Textus Receptus on which the KJV was based and the NA27 on which more modern versions are based. There is a single word difference between these two manuscripts in this verse. Whether it was omitted or added by a copyist is unclear. What does the rest of scripture say regarding this? How does having anger compare to other scriptures regarding anger. That will be a better key to understanding.
 
That is the difference between the Textus Receptus on which the KJV was based and the NA27 on which more modern versions are based. There is a single word difference between these two manuscripts in this verse. Whether it was omitted or added by a copyist is unclear. What does the rest of scripture say regarding this? How does having anger compare to other scriptures regarding anger. That will be a better key to understanding.
Yes, that is true. In the 17th century, only a few late Greek manuscript copies of the NT existed. And the translators only had the Masoretic text for the OT, plus Jerome's Vulgate, fir the OT. Still, the translators did a remarkable job with their limited resources in this area.


I think it was in the 1870's, when a huge cache of Greek writings were found in Alexandria, Egypt, which included much older Greek manuscript copies and fragments of the NT, and also Coptic versions, though maybe they were founded elsewhere. I don't remember.

In the 1940's, the Dead Sea Scrolls, of the OT, and some other writings, started being discovered, which predated the Masoretic text.

No other ancient writing is as well attested to, in terms of ancient copies, as the Holy Bible is. And thank God for that!
 
Mormon posters here often complain about being referred to as Mormons. Or having their church referred to as the Mormon church. But that is what Mormons called themselves for generations.

Reflected in a talk by President Thomas Monson…

“Instantly there flashed through my mind the thought, “Monson, you are not a Catholic; you are not a Jew; you are not a Protestant. You are a Mormon, so you just stand here!” I can assure you that I felt completely alone. Courageous and determined, yes—but alone.

And then I heard the sweetest words I ever heard that chief petty officer utter. He looked in my direction and asked, “And just what do you guys call yourselves?” Until that very moment I had not realized that anyone was standing beside me or behind me on the drill ground. Almost in unison, each of us replied, “Mormons!” It is difficult to describe the joy that filled my heart as I turned around and saw a handful of other sailors.

The chief petty officer scratched his head in an expression of puzzlement but finally said, “Well, you guys go find somewhere to meet. And don’t come back until three o’clock. Forward, march!”

As we marched away, I thought of the words of a rhyme I had learned in Primary years before:

Dare to be a Mormon;
Dare to stand alone.
Dare to have a purpose firm;
Dare to make it known.”


Members used to be proud of being identified as Mormons because they felt it set them apart, and above, others. Until for some reason it became an embarrassment to them. And suddenly it’s disrespectful, and they’re offended by the label.

What happened to change that?
Let's face it, the proper name of the Mormons should be "The Church of Joseph Smith a Latter-day Fraud." The Jesus of Mormonism has absolutely nothing to do with the Jesus of Christianity. Mormon "jesus" is an imposter. In fact, Mormons pretend to be Christian, and run around deceiving people by using Christian terminology, but apply a totally different meaning to the terms:

See:
 
Happiness is replaced with joy.... what joy we will experience no matter what degree one attains...

D&C 76:89–106. Why Will Those Who Inherit the Telestial Kingdom Receive a Glory That “Surpasses All Understanding”?​

All who receive the telestial kingdom will have paid a price for this glory. The fact that after they pay this price they inherit a telestial glory is evidence of the Father’s love and mercy. Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote:

“The [Doctrine and Covenants] explains clearly that the lowest glory to which man is assigned is so glorious as to be beyond the understanding of man. It is a doctrine fundamental in Mormonism that the meanest sinner, in the final judgment, will receive a glory which is beyond human understanding, which is so great that we are unable to describe it adequately. Those who do well will receive an even more glorious place. Those who dwell in the lower may look wistfully to the higher as we do here. The hell on the other side will be felt in some such way.

“The Gospel is a gospel of tremendous love. Love is at the bottom of it. The meanest child is loved so dearly that his reward will be beyond the understanding of mortal man.” (Message of the Doctrine and Covenants, p. 167.)
What you are teaching is that those people won't care if their "heavenly father" and Mormon "jesus" don't love them. Bizarre!
 
Back
Top