Changes to God's dictation of the Book of Mormon..

[_subgenius]

I thought one of the eye witness accounts said that the next word or words would not appear on the seer stone until the part they were working on was correctly repeated by the scribe back to Joseph Smith?

actually, Edward Stevenson was reported in an 1881 news article (reported not quoted) to have stated that Martin Harris told him :
...if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.
Joseph Knight Sr. also reported a similar requirement, but termed is as being "spelt rite". David Whitmer (a big seer stone fan) also states that it was requirement but was "character by character"
The first hand account of Michael Morse makes no mention of that requirement.
However, all accounts seem to reinforce the same notion that it was indeed a tranlsation by "divine inspiration" not divine dictation.
The prophet was not merely a fax machine as you would try, feebly, to characterize it.

[_Fence Sitter]

I thought one of the eye witness accounts said that the next word or words would not appear on the seer stone until the part they were working on was correctly repeated by the scribe back to Joseph Smith?

actually, Edward Stevenson was reported in an 1881 news article (reported not quoted) to have stated that Martin Harris told him :
...if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.
Joseph Knight Sr. also reported a similar requirement, but termed is as being "spelt rite". David Whitmer (a big seer stone fan) also states that it was requirement but was "character by character"
The first hand account of Michael Morse makes no mention of that requirement.
However, all accounts seem to reinforce the same notion that it was indeed a tranlsation by "divine inspiration" not divine dictation.
The prophet was not merely a fax machine as you would try, feebly, to characterize it.

So you have two first hand accounts and a second hand account that corroborates the other two. Those pesky witnesses just won't seem to go away.

Thanks for the information.

[_Fence Sitter]

David Whitmer relates that "A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared writing."
His brother John Whitmer added "the words remained in sight until correctly written..." and Martin Harris also stated that "sentences would appear".

[_Drifting]

also, your modest 5 point list here is rather incomplete and not an accurate accounting of the reasons why revisions and corrections have been necessary.

That's a very interesting observation subgenius.

Because my five point list is actually the Church's official five point list that I quoted verbatim from off LDS.org!

So you think (and i agree with you) the Church's official explanation for the changes to be 'rather incomplete and not an accurate accounting'.
Good to know.

[_DrW]

also, your modest 5 point list here is rather incomplete and not an accurate accounting of the reasons why revisions and corrections have been necessary.

That's a very interesting observation subgenius.

Because my five point list is actually the Church's official five point list that I quoted verbatim from off LDS.org!

So you think (and i agree with you) the Church's official explanation for the changes to be 'rather incomplete and not an accurate accounting'.
Good to know.

It is obvious that subgenius is gaining some valuable life experience through his participation on this board.

Drifting, Tarski and some of the others who have taken their time to impart great wisdom unto subgenius should send him an bill.

[_Drifting]

It is obvious that subgenius is gaining some valuable life experience through his participation on this board.

Drifting, Tarski and some of the others who have taken their time to impart great wisdom unto subgenius should send him an bill.

There seems to be a common trend running through the believing Mormons that are newish to posting here - that they do not recognise their Church's official stance or teaching on a significant number of the topics we discuss. Even when it is blatantly staring them in the face.

I don't know if that's a compliment to the posters on this board and the clarity and honesty with which they explain the Church's official position, and the freedom of expression that this board allows. Or if it's a sad indictment on the Church in that they are obviously failing to deliver appropriate education and discussion on doctrinal matters - and that it is failing miserably on its proclaimed objective of perfecting the Saints.

[_Yoda]

also, your modest 5 point list here is rather incomplete and not an accurate accounting of the reasons why revisions and corrections have been necessary.

That's a very interesting observation subgenius.

Because my five point list is actually the Church's official five point list that I quoted verbatim from off LDS.org!

So you think (and i agree with you) the Church's official explanation for the changes to be 'rather incomplete and not an accurate accounting'.
Good to know.

ROTFLMAO!!

[_DrW]

It is obvious that subgenius is gaining some valuable life experience through his participation on this board.

Drifting, Tarski and some of the others who have taken their time to impart great wisdom unto subgenius should send him an bill.

There seems to be a common trend running through the believing Mormons that are newish to posting here - that they do not recognise their Church's official stance or teaching on a significant number of the topics we discuss. Even when it is blatantly staring them in the face.

I don't know if that's a compliment to the posters on this board and the clarity and honesty with which they explain the Church's official position, and the freedom of expression that this board allows. Or if it's a sad indictment on the Church in that they are obviously failing to deliver appropriate education and discussion on doctrinal matters - and that it is failing miserably on its proclaimed objective of perfecting the Saints.

The LDS Church is sort of between a rock and a hard place here, don't you think?

If the LDS Church were to teach and preach an honest representation of Mormon doctrine, as set forth in the scriptures and the words of the modern prophets, it would not be able to convince literate folks to join and would certainly lose young people at a higher rate than now.

The trade-off is that, by sticking to the mashed and strained and correlated basics (pabulum), they simply do not, as a matter of course, adequately prepare members (including missionaries) to defend their religion, given all of the factual information that is now readily available (most of which is unfavorable) to the general public from non-Church sources.

The subject of this thread is but one of the dozens or hundreds of issues that the Church has not honestly or adequately addressed. And now the unfortunate apologists who try to defend the Church find themselves without the background or knowledge to do so.

And when I say "defend", I mean come up with adequate obfuscation, red herrings, straw men, convoluted logic and pseudo-science to convince themselves, at least, that they have rendered some assistance.

[_subgenius]

That's a very interesting observation subgenius.

Because my five point list is actually the Church's official five point list that I quoted verbatim from off LDS.org!

So you think (and i agree with you) the Church's official explanation for the changes to be 'rather incomplete and not an accurate accounting'.
Good to know.

Yet another disingenuous and deceitful post from Drifting. This is not the "only" official explanation.
Your lack of integrity, as applauded by others with the same dismal intellect, is showing again.
I am sure you purposely omitted the reference link (http://LDS.org/ensign/2011/10/common-qu ... n?lang=eng) because of the typical nefarious reasons, but, as usual, the inadequacies of your argument are exposed. The article you posted from actually references that these are some "possible" responses.
Hence, my statement that your listing was incomplete, and being such in the context of your post, was also an inaccurate proposition (by you, no surprise for this).
Now, obviously you have been unable to grasp the simple concept behind what constitutes church policy or doctrine and seemingly are content with putting forth "gnats". This is exemplified by such "selective" posts as the one above.
i suggest you look deeper, because to date your criticism have been quite shallow.
http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?local ... 82620aRCRD

[_subgenius]

...that they do not recognise their Church's official stance or teaching on a significant number of the topics we discuss. ..

actually, it has been proving on several occasions that it is you, and your ilk, that often do not have an understanding or ability to recognize what actual stances and teachings are from the church.
instead you insist upon cherry-picking through various obscurities and deeming them as official "doctrine" and "teaching", even when evidence is presented to the contrary or when clear guidlines for interpretation and application are provided.
However, much like your insistence that people do not answer when the answer is not to your liking, we see that your claim of doctrine differs from what actual doctrine is....simply because the former is more suited to your "cause".....which seems to be gnat farming.