Reader comments
Lost 'Book of Commandments' witnesses found
70 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 2:48 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Where does Joseph Smith get the idea that witnesses are needed to authenticate
the Book of Mormon and Book of Commandments. It seems he is somehow saying that
these books are inherently unbelievable, therefore he needs to bolster them up.
Do any other books have a group of witnesses?
Anonymous | 7:09 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Not inherentlhy unbelievable | 7:37 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
I don't think that Joseph Smith thought the Book of Mormon and Book of
Commandments were inherently unbelievable. I think he recognized that many
people would not believe the books, and he added witnesses to the books. Joseph
Smith wasn't trying to use logic or science to prove the books true. He
was, in my opinion, providing an opportunity for the Spirit of God to witnesses
to people that the books were true, if the people reading the testimonies were
sensitive to the Spirit of God. People not sensitive to the Spirit of God will
think the testimonies are just emotional responses and will ridicule the
testimonies.
Comments continue below
Two or three witnesses | 7:58 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
That's Matthew 18:16, for the record.
Ernest T. Bass & Zelph | 8:42 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Not this again.
Honest Questions | 8:55 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Do these witnesses establish the truthfulness of the doctrine of polygamy since
it is included in the Book of Commandments? Do they help establish that
polygamy was established by the spirit of God?
That's ridiculous!! | 9:09 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Just because they were dared to come up with a commandment or write in the name
of the Lord and they didn't DOESN'T prove anything. What exactly are
they testifying to? Joseph can speak like a prophet? Too bad he didn't live
like one.
And which book did they testify to? The book before all the changes were made in or the one after Joseph needed to prove he had a 'restoration' of priesthood authority.
It's all in the margins, but I'm sure this is conveniently left out of the JS papers project.
And which book did they testify to? The book before all the changes were made in or the one after Joseph needed to prove he had a 'restoration' of priesthood authority.
It's all in the margins, but I'm sure this is conveniently left out of the JS papers project.
RE: Two or Three witnesses | 9:22 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
"For the record", "And the honor be to the Father,and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost,which is one God. Amen" Oliver Cowdery,David Whitmer,
Martin Harris. The Testimony of the Three Witnesses. Also see(D&C: 20,28)
The BoM teaches,there is only one God.
Good grief | 9:28 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
It looks like some of the names were erased. Why is that? Some names even appear
to be erased with different names placed over others. What's goen on here?
Tedious Anne | 9:56 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
This stuff is getting waaaaaaay too weird for me.
JS | 9:58 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
It was prophesied that the Book of Mormon would be a stumbling block to the
unbeleiver.
Anonymous | 10:18 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
How many of those "Witnesses" remained in the LDS Church?
RE : gottscheer | 10:27 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
"Joseph Smith's divine guidance"? The ancients did not always
have the benefit of Scripture. But NT beleivers did. "And said,For this
cause shall a man leave father and mother; and the twain(two)shall be one
flesh.(Matthew 19:5)
"A [Mormon]Bishop then must be blameless,the husband of 'one wife',vigilant, sober,of good behavior,ruling their children and their own houses well."(1Timothy 3:2)Two witnesses against Polygamy(Joseph Smith)
"A [Mormon]Bishop then must be blameless,the husband of 'one wife',vigilant, sober,of good behavior,ruling their children and their own houses well."(1Timothy 3:2)Two witnesses against Polygamy(Joseph Smith)
Bill | 10:54 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Does it really matter how many of the Witnesses remained in the Church? If you
look at the so called eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon almost half left
the Church but still never, ever recanted their testimony. Weird that they
would do that even after they had a falling out with Joseph Smith. That is
totally illogical for one to do so yet we also know that two of those witnesses
who fell away returned to the Church.
The other is that WW Phelps who was excommunicated from the Church because of problems with the Prophet Joseph Smith and was responsible for him being jailed in Liberty, Missouri on trumped up charges later asked for forgiveness. He even stated later in life he actually signed it out of anger and that it WASN'T true what he testified to.
No, it really doesn't matter because some of the most ardent critics of the Church are those who have left it. They have actually ensured the growth of much of the so called anti-Mormon sentiment towards the Church. These witnesses have whether they stated truthfully or not given their honor to this.
The other is that WW Phelps who was excommunicated from the Church because of problems with the Prophet Joseph Smith and was responsible for him being jailed in Liberty, Missouri on trumped up charges later asked for forgiveness. He even stated later in life he actually signed it out of anger and that it WASN'T true what he testified to.
No, it really doesn't matter because some of the most ardent critics of the Church are those who have left it. They have actually ensured the growth of much of the so called anti-Mormon sentiment towards the Church. These witnesses have whether they stated truthfully or not given their honor to this.
Interested | 11:03 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Anonymous: A better question for you to ask would be did any of the witnesses
recind their testimony? The answer is NO! In the old testament King David fell
from the grace of God, did he then deny God existed? NO! Judas was chosen by
Jesus, he followed Jesus witnesses the miracles and learned from the Masters
hand, but what did he do? He loved money more than God and lost his place. Does
that mean that Jesus was not the Christ? NO! To ask if they remained members of
the church is a weak and foolish argument. It does not change what they did in
fact witness.
Lark | 11:37 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Do your homework before you comment - it reflects on your bias. Section 72 of
the Doctrine and Covenents was written in Dec. 1831. Section 73 in Jan of 1832.
At that time it was called the Book of Commandments and eventually contained
over 130 "sections" or chapters. The revelation on marriage
wasn't recorded until 1834. Therefore, the declaration of witnesses was mad
years earlier. A somewhat similar declaration was made on August 17, 1835 and
recorded as Section 134 in which the general congregation of the Church accepted
the first printing of the Doctrine and Covenants.
As to the question of other books needing witnesses consider the 4 gospels of the new Testiment and the prophets of the Old Testiment who often testified of the revelations of others. Like the second comment said "In the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses..." - this has always been God's command. We are always warned of false prophets and witnesses helps avoid that.
As to the question of other books needing witnesses consider the 4 gospels of the new Testiment and the prophets of the Old Testiment who often testified of the revelations of others. Like the second comment said "In the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses..." - this has always been God's command. We are always warned of false prophets and witnesses helps avoid that.
Anonymous | 11:39 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
The Bible says that that any proposition must be established by two or more
witness.
Now that the names are out it will be easy to establish which remained in the church. It is likely simple geneology.
Now that the names are out it will be easy to establish which remained in the church. It is likely simple geneology.
The Point is | 11:41 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009
that HOW could someone that actually saw these plates, choose to leave the fold.
Wouldn't the first hand experience of actually seeing these plates
transcend any other petty differences? And 1/2 left?
And about WW Phelps... most people know right from wrong and most have a conscience. He did something wrong and asked for forgiveness.
And yes, I understand about ardent critics leaving the church.. but then, they didn't "the goods" now did they?
And about WW Phelps... most people know right from wrong and most have a conscience. He did something wrong and asked for forgiveness.
And yes, I understand about ardent critics leaving the church.. but then, they didn't "the goods" now did they?
jim | 12:04 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
some people will do or say anything to keep Old Joe's name from being ruin.
But he did that himself. Tricky Dicky, Maybe, but also a joe smo.
Cats | 1:23 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
All three of the witness left the Church. NONE ever denied their testimony of
the Book of Mormon. David Witmer was so adamant that he even took out a full
page ad in the newspaper proclaiming that he had never changed his testimony.
He even had his testimony put on his headstone. I have seen this headstone and
it does proclaim his insistance of the truth of the Book of Mormon.
And to Jim....those are the kinds of comments people make when they have no intelligent, legitimate response. You think that ridicule invalidates truth? IT DOES NOT. It merely shows your lack of knowledge.
And to Jim....those are the kinds of comments people make when they have no intelligent, legitimate response. You think that ridicule invalidates truth? IT DOES NOT. It merely shows your lack of knowledge.
Anonymous | 1:40 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
No the point is miracles or miraculous events never produce faith. But faith
does produce miralces. One might think how could one who saw Jesus do what he
did ever think that he wasn't the Christ, yet there were many who
didn't believe in Christ and walked away from him. Agency is still in
force and Satan still works on people even if they see miraculous things.
John Pack Lambert | 2:01 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
If the 8:55 questioner is asking honest questions they ought to not make
statements on things they know not.
The problem with their question is that Polygamy is not mentioned in the Book of Commandments. The revelation on polygamy was first RECORDED in 1843. There is evidence on many fronts that it was first recieved by Joseph Smith in the early 1830s, but it was not written down until 1843.
Thus polygamy has no part in a discussion of the Book of Commandments and events of 1831.
The problem with their question is that Polygamy is not mentioned in the Book of Commandments. The revelation on polygamy was first RECORDED in 1843. There is evidence on many fronts that it was first recieved by Joseph Smith in the early 1830s, but it was not written down until 1843.
Thus polygamy has no part in a discussion of the Book of Commandments and events of 1831.
John Pack Lambert | 2:06 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
To the 10:27 commentator,
Paul is giving instuction for bishops at the time of his writting. The exact requirements for serving in offices varies from time to time.
If you fully embrace Timothy, do you have married bishops in your Church? If you do, how did they get their authority? Don't tell me you trace it through the Catholics, because they rejected having bishops married at all.
With the twain becoming one flesh, that is also mentioned in Genesis. Yet, Abraham and Jacob were both highly favored of the Lord and both had multiple wives. Nathan tells David that the Lord has given him many wives, and identifies David's sin as taking a woman who had been given as a wife to another.
I am not advocating that anyone practice polygamy now, only when it is authorized from God through his prophet on earth. However, I am saying that you need to add up the whole of the scriptures, and your adding creates major problems.
Paul is giving instuction for bishops at the time of his writting. The exact requirements for serving in offices varies from time to time.
If you fully embrace Timothy, do you have married bishops in your Church? If you do, how did they get their authority? Don't tell me you trace it through the Catholics, because they rejected having bishops married at all.
With the twain becoming one flesh, that is also mentioned in Genesis. Yet, Abraham and Jacob were both highly favored of the Lord and both had multiple wives. Nathan tells David that the Lord has given him many wives, and identifies David's sin as taking a woman who had been given as a wife to another.
I am not advocating that anyone practice polygamy now, only when it is authorized from God through his prophet on earth. However, I am saying that you need to add up the whole of the scriptures, and your adding creates major problems.
At a loss... | 2:15 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
I am having a hard time grasping the importance of this "discovery".
Of course the pro-Book of Commandments crowd could latch on to this as proof that the revelations as originally given and published in the Book of Commandments are correct and should never have been changed.
Of course the pro-Book of Commandments crowd could latch on to this as proof that the revelations as originally given and published in the Book of Commandments are correct and should never have been changed.
Re: The Point is | 2:47 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
"that HOW could someone that actually saw these plates, choose to leave the
fold. Wouldn't the first hand experience of actually seeing these plates
transcend any other petty differences?"
The witnesses that left the church came to believe, over time, that Joseph Smith was no longer a prophet. They believed that he was at one time, but that he had fallen. Most of the reasons had to do with Joseph's personal business dealings, not his calling as a prophet. Because he lost heavily in several financial endeavors, they claimed that he was no longer a prophet - as though Heavenly Father should have given him a divine revelation on the best way to run a grocery store or something.
Being called of the Lord is not a guarantee against personal hardship and struggles, and most of these men didn't seem to realize that at the time. They felt that once they became members of the church, they shouldn't have any trials in life, and when they did, or when Joseph did, they gradually fell away. Several came back to the church and were rebaptized at a later date, and none of them ever recanted his testimony.
The witnesses that left the church came to believe, over time, that Joseph Smith was no longer a prophet. They believed that he was at one time, but that he had fallen. Most of the reasons had to do with Joseph's personal business dealings, not his calling as a prophet. Because he lost heavily in several financial endeavors, they claimed that he was no longer a prophet - as though Heavenly Father should have given him a divine revelation on the best way to run a grocery store or something.
Being called of the Lord is not a guarantee against personal hardship and struggles, and most of these men didn't seem to realize that at the time. They felt that once they became members of the church, they shouldn't have any trials in life, and when they did, or when Joseph did, they gradually fell away. Several came back to the church and were rebaptized at a later date, and none of them ever recanted his testimony.
LOL! | 2:50 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
What a lot of MALARKEY!
To at a loss... | 2:54 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
It's not vitally important. It's just an interesting fact, something
that we knew existed but that we didn't have any proof of. We knew there
had been witnesses to the Book of Commandments, we just didn't know who
they were or what happened to them. Now we know.
It's not offered up as proof of anything, just evidence that these men believed the book was revelation from God and signed their names attesting to that fact. You can choose to believe that, or to find out for yourself, or to reject it. It's your call. That's not the point of the article.
The point is, now we know who these witnesses were, and it's easy enough to find out what happened to them. I recognize nearly every name on the list, and am pretty sure most of them remained in the church throughout their lives.
It's not offered up as proof of anything, just evidence that these men believed the book was revelation from God and signed their names attesting to that fact. You can choose to believe that, or to find out for yourself, or to reject it. It's your call. That's not the point of the article.
The point is, now we know who these witnesses were, and it's easy enough to find out what happened to them. I recognize nearly every name on the list, and am pretty sure most of them remained in the church throughout their lives.
Hope | 3:04 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
What gave me my testimony of the truthfulness of the BoM was the fact that some
witnesses actually left the church but NEVER denied having seen the plates from
which the BoM was translated by the power of God! Yes, some of these men were
humbled and returned to the LDS church! Why would they have not tried to slander
and try to destroy the LDS church by denying they had ever seen the plates? I am
sure they would have been offered money and power to deny what they had seen!
Is it possible these witnesses feared GOD more than men? Anyone who will read
the BoM, with an open mind, free of preconceived biases or beliefs, ponder its
contents then seek the Lord through HUMBLE prayer will learn of its
truthfulness! The key word is HUMBLE!!!
to Hope | 3:19 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Most people dont like to publicly (or privately) admit that they are liars. But
please, explain how they ALL left the church after seeing the plates. What
would be that powerful to cause you to walk after seeing that? If them
"never denying" told you something, surely, the fact that they left
speaks volumes. Sounds like you are being very selective in what moves you.
to to at a loss... | 3:23 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Well, I guess it is up to you to decide whether you believe these witnesses
also... Are the revelations in the book they are testifying about, the Book of
Commandments, correct, or are all the updates to the revelations as found in the
D&C correct?
I believe their witness of the Book of Commandments, because the revelations printed there pass the scrutiny of the Bible and Book of Mormon (mostly), whereas the D&C does not.
I believe their witness of the Book of Commandments, because the revelations printed there pass the scrutiny of the Bible and Book of Mormon (mostly), whereas the D&C does not.
Cats | 3:48 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
To LOL...Again that is the response of someone who has nothing intelligent or
valuable to say. Laughing is the response of someone who has no answer and
nothing to back up their attacks. No amount of your ridicule in any away
invalidates the truth. laugh all you want. Truth is still truth no matter how
much you choose to laugh.
and @To Hope...William Mclellan left the Church. Ten years after being completely alienated from Joseph Smith he proclaimed that he had once asked Joseph for a revelation about five things he had been praying about to the Lord. He did not tell Joseph what they were. Joseph gave him a revelation which, he said, answered perfectly everything he had been asking the Lord. He knew at that time that Joseph was a true prophet. He ADMITTED this in writing ten years after leaving the Church and attacking Joseph. That should tell you something.
David Witmer even published a full page ad in the newspaper and had his testimony chiseled on his headstone. I have seen this headstone. It verifies his witness of the BofM. He feared God more than man. He proclaimed the truth.
and @To Hope...William Mclellan left the Church. Ten years after being completely alienated from Joseph Smith he proclaimed that he had once asked Joseph for a revelation about five things he had been praying about to the Lord. He did not tell Joseph what they were. Joseph gave him a revelation which, he said, answered perfectly everything he had been asking the Lord. He knew at that time that Joseph was a true prophet. He ADMITTED this in writing ten years after leaving the Church and attacking Joseph. That should tell you something.
David Witmer even published a full page ad in the newspaper and had his testimony chiseled on his headstone. I have seen this headstone. It verifies his witness of the BofM. He feared God more than man. He proclaimed the truth.
Anonymous | 3:49 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
In (Mt 19:5) "Two shall be one flesh' is quoting the creation account
in (Gen 2:24) God does not ordain polygamy,(the order of confusion). The NT
makes it clear,disobey God at your own risk. Bishop in Greek(episkopos)means
overseer,I am not Roman Catholic,I am catholic though.where do I get my
authority?"But as many as received him, to them gave the
power(esousian)authority to become sons of God,even to them that beleive.(John
1:12)
to Cats | 3:56 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
You say David Whitmer feared God more then man and proclaimed the truth, to
which I totally agree. But that makes me wonder... Why do you not believe his
comments made in, "An Address to All Believer in Christ". He
can't be God-fearing and truthful when it is only when it is convenient, he
either was or he wasn't. I believe he was.
Darla | 4:04 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Re: Cats
How come you are always such an angry Troll? Why don't you say something worth while instead of always reading everyone the riot act. "MEOW"
I find this article very interesting and would like to learn more about these things.
LDS in OGDEN
How come you are always such an angry Troll? Why don't you say something worth while instead of always reading everyone the riot act. "MEOW"
I find this article very interesting and would like to learn more about these things.
LDS in OGDEN
Anonymous | 4:18 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
to -- John Pack Lambert | 2:06 p.m
["I am not advocating that anyone practice polygamy now, only when it is authorized from God through his prophet on earth."]
it never ceases to amaze me that you can start out your posts with logical worthwhile statements, and then just fall apart and say something crazy like "his prophet on earth". it's almost a multiple personality kind of thing you have going on... scary...
["I am not advocating that anyone practice polygamy now, only when it is authorized from God through his prophet on earth."]
it never ceases to amaze me that you can start out your posts with logical worthwhile statements, and then just fall apart and say something crazy like "his prophet on earth". it's almost a multiple personality kind of thing you have going on... scary...
to -- Hope | 3:04 p.m | 4:21 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
["What gave me my testimony of the truthfulness of the BoM was the fact
that some witnesses actually left the church but NEVER denied having seen the
plates from which the BoM was translated by the power of God!"]
i guess not being a mormon makes it so I don't understand your special language, but what exact does it mean for something to give you "testimony"? is that the same as "faith"? and if so, why the special words?
i always see mormons commenting on their "testimony". I just don't know what that means...
i guess not being a mormon makes it so I don't understand your special language, but what exact does it mean for something to give you "testimony"? is that the same as "faith"? and if so, why the special words?
i always see mormons commenting on their "testimony". I just don't know what that means...
Anonymous | 4:27 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
John Pack Lambert | 2:06 p.m
["With the twain becoming one flesh, that is also mentioned in Genesis"]
what is a "twain"?
["With the twain becoming one flesh, that is also mentioned in Genesis"]
what is a "twain"?
To: Honest Question | 5:00 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
According to the story, this signing took place in late 1831. D&C 132, the
one that deals with marriage, where
polygamy is referred to, came much later in time. SO
the signers in 1831 could have not yet known anything about any "plural" marriage. The "Book Of Commandments"
was just the first portion of what is now known as the
"Doctrine and Covenants". This was in 1831 A Work In Progress. So then in 1831 they only signed on to what was there in 1831.
polygamy is referred to, came much later in time. SO
the signers in 1831 could have not yet known anything about any "plural" marriage. The "Book Of Commandments"
was just the first portion of what is now known as the
"Doctrine and Covenants". This was in 1831 A Work In Progress. So then in 1831 they only signed on to what was there in 1831.
RE: Anonymous | 4:27 p.m. Oct. 2 | 5:08 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
YOu fail to understand proper polygamous marriage.
polygamy when practiced correctly each marriage is a SEPERATE MARRIAGE between two people, a man and a women.
it is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT marrying more than ONE at a time,
Bob is NOT married to sally AND Ann AND debbie,
but Bob is married to sally,
Bob is also married SEPARATLY to Ann (with sally's permission)
and Bob is married separately to debbie (also with sally's persmission)
and there is NO marriage to ann or debbie without GOd commanding it.
and no marriage is done without them being legally old enough to marry.
SO "Twain" still works.
polygamy when practiced correctly each marriage is a SEPERATE MARRIAGE between two people, a man and a women.
it is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT marrying more than ONE at a time,
Bob is NOT married to sally AND Ann AND debbie,
but Bob is married to sally,
Bob is also married SEPARATLY to Ann (with sally's permission)
and Bob is married separately to debbie (also with sally's persmission)
and there is NO marriage to ann or debbie without GOd commanding it.
and no marriage is done without them being legally old enough to marry.
SO "Twain" still works.
Still different... | 5:18 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Setting aside the questionable doctrines that came after the printing of the
Book of Commandments, there are significant differences between the BofC and the
D&C in the sections they have in common. These witnesses testified to the
revelations as contained within the BofC, not the D&C. So are we to believe
the BofC versions (with it's witnesses) or the D&C version (which added
and deleted things from the existing revelation w/o advising the church and
without conference approval)?
RE: Jack Pack Lambert | 5:41 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
The Bereans in (Acts 17:11)checked the(Pauls wrote in Greek)scriptures daily and
were more noble. I have never met a Mormon that reads the Bible in context and
compares it to the apostles, lset alone there are very very few Mormons that
read Greek. So when the LDS Church undermines the Bible,they are not able to
look at the empirical evidences. Greek manuscripts and over 26,000 Greek
variants. The entire NT can be written from the quotes of the early church
fathers: Bishops(episkopos)overseers and Elders(presbuteros).
Anonymous | 5:55 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Research before you speak. Go back to the original doucments and read carefully
what the BoM withness testified to. Not one said they physcialy handled to
plates and not one testified to the truth of the translation or the material
contained there in.
Now tell me why their church allegiance or lack there of means any thin.
Now tell me why their church allegiance or lack there of means any thin.
Hope | 6:12 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
To Hope 3:04
I am a convert to the lds church and still have much to learn in expressing in words my love for this gospel of Jesus Christ. My testimony of the BoM or of Jesus Christ means that I am willing to stand before God and men and declare that I know these things to be true! I have received my testimony through the power of the Holy Ghost who testifies of God and His son Jesus Christ! FAITH - is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true (Heb.11:1). My strong faith in God led me to the LDS church! I had also been very humbled in life which made me seek for truth!
Thanks cats for your insightfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ! I always appreciate your comments.
I am a convert to the lds church and still have much to learn in expressing in words my love for this gospel of Jesus Christ. My testimony of the BoM or of Jesus Christ means that I am willing to stand before God and men and declare that I know these things to be true! I have received my testimony through the power of the Holy Ghost who testifies of God and His son Jesus Christ! FAITH - is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true (Heb.11:1). My strong faith in God led me to the LDS church! I had also been very humbled in life which made me seek for truth!
Thanks cats for your insightfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ! I always appreciate your comments.
Anonymous | 6:34 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Sorry but not buying it. I have found Christ and it is obvious he is not in the
mormon church. If it is true why do you have to try so much?
To 6:34 PM Anonymous | 6:52 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
I have found Christ and he is clearly in our church. The spirit has borne
witness of this to me multiple times. While not all of our members live a
christ like life, most of us try to follow his example.
Beowulf | 6:55 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Someone unknown wrote: The Bereans in (Acts 17:11)checked the(Pauls wrote in
Greek)scriptures daily and were more noble. I have never met a Mormon that reads
the Bible in context and compares it to the apostles, lset alone there are very
very few Mormons that read Greek. So when the LDS Church undermines the
Bible,they are not able to look at the empirical evidences. Greek manuscripts
and over 26,000 Greek variants. The entire NT can be written from the quotes of
the early church fathers: Bishops(episkopos)overseers and Elders(presbuteros).
I fail to understand this comment. I can read the NT in Greek. I know dozens of other LDS members who can read the Bible in Greek. So this generalization is false on its face. There are probably MORE LDS per capita who can read the Bible in Greek than Protestants. Yet this ability does not sway us to the view that the NT is inerrant. Sorry to pop your bubble.
I fail to understand this comment. I can read the NT in Greek. I know dozens of other LDS members who can read the Bible in Greek. So this generalization is false on its face. There are probably MORE LDS per capita who can read the Bible in Greek than Protestants. Yet this ability does not sway us to the view that the NT is inerrant. Sorry to pop your bubble.
Terry | 7:05 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
I have found Jesus Christ, as well and he definitely not a Mormon polygamist.
What a male farce the Mormon church is. Shame on you misleading and deceitful
people. Shame Shame Shame.
Across The Generations | 7:30 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
All right.
Very cool!
I saw "Luke Johnson" was one of the witnesses.
He is my great-great-great-grandfather and was also chosen as one of the original Twelve Apostles in this last dispensation.
He apostasized later for a period of time but went to Salt Lake city, was re-baptized and eventually become a bishop in the Tooele area.
I am very proud of this man and my heritage.
The caravan moves on!
Dan Maloy
Enid, OK
Very cool!
I saw "Luke Johnson" was one of the witnesses.
He is my great-great-great-grandfather and was also chosen as one of the original Twelve Apostles in this last dispensation.
He apostasized later for a period of time but went to Salt Lake city, was re-baptized and eventually become a bishop in the Tooele area.
I am very proud of this man and my heritage.
The caravan moves on!
Dan Maloy
Enid, OK
Each Must Choose For Themselves | 7:33 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
As expected, a lot of anti- comments on here.
That's OK.....fools mock but they shall mourn.
That's OK.....fools mock but they shall mourn.
Re: Beowulf 6:55 | 7:38 p.m. Oct. 27, 2009
Greek translation questions; Elder Jeffrey R Holland,states that the LDS
decline to introduce the non-Bibical categories of essence to the
discussion,because it is non-scriptural. But it is,can you tell me where?
Mormons beleive that" A Marvelous Work and Wonder" is a prophecy of
the BoM. (Is 29:14)What does the Greek Translation of The (Septuagint 29:14)
say? What is the Greek translation of(Jude 6) "kept not their "first
estate"? There are many more,these are easy for beginnners.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- George lost in rivalry hatefest 1:33 a.m.
- Paul returns after being out 1:04 a.m.
- Nets finally win 1:04 a.m.
- Olympus downs Box Elder 1:03 a.m.
- Saint Mary's next for Aggies 1:03 a.m.
- Cougars look to bounce back 1:03 a.m.
- Battle goes to PG's Hamson 1:03 a.m.
- Snow hopes to snap bowl game skid 1:03 a.m.
- U.S. gets favorable World Cup draw 1:03 a.m.
- Utah's Wynn healing up 1:03 a.m.
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony
- Mr. Football 2009: Tuni Kanuch
- 5A high school football All-State
- Miller predicted Tiger's rough road
- 4A high school football: All-State
- Utah Jazz going green with unis
- Harpring's NBA career is over
- Nutty Putty Cave to be sealed today
- MVPs wrap up stellar prep careers
- Jazz: Miles, Kirilenko to play Friday
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
410 - Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?294
- BYU says Hall incident resolved247
- Letters: Liberal because LDS237
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game189
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry184
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore118
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage118
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan104
Harvey Unga's future seems to be a hot talking point among fans so let's...
Latest comments
and they are correct. Good grief.
In the wake of a great, competitive game all people can talk about is Max...
For those who keep saying there are other places where you can go "to...
Boozer is just doing and showing what he has always had, Talent! As long as...
Condolences to the LeBaron family! He was the mission Pres in South Africa...
I've enjoyed reading Dick Harmon's articles through the years. An enduring...
I think we have found our stride. But we need to bring in one more player to...
to make a move until nearer the deadline. You can't get the best player until...
"If this team had an interior Defense for 48 minutes they would contend. "...
What have you done for me lately, Boozer? Well, lately Boozer has been...
Advertisements