Which rendition of Malachi do you believe

[Guest]

...

[_ldsfaqs]

Plus isn't saying that Joseph used his memory during translation going to detract from the translation being revealed through the spirit. And if it is claimed he possessed a photographic memory , that actually would give credit to the claim he borrowed from other publications.

Only if you focus on the word "memory" as anti's and liberals do with things (focusing on words rather than context and actual teachings).

If you include the "rest" of what I said, I said the revelation would come to him and then he would state how those revelations "looked to him" in his own language, understanding, tongue, etc.

Mormons don't believe in "infallibility" of anything or anyone, including scripture, and neither did Joseph. He did after all say it was the "most correct book" of scripture, not that it was perfect or infallible. It was the purest thing we have that hadn't been messed with too much by man as everything else has.

Anyway, no..... to your question. The parts of revelation that matched what he already knew, he just dictated that because it conveyed what was to be gotten across. The very act of using ones own language itself is an act of what you describe. Further, everyone "plagurizes" without even knowing it also. Anyone that's learned and studied knows that when they listen to and study and expert in a subject, that person is quoting often verbatim things and people they have studied sometimes knowing it and at other times not. It becomes a part of you, and then you have your differences. Just like in the seeming quotes from the Bible. Of what the Book of Mormon has, much is quoted the same, but a lot also is different. But even more, the vast majority of the Book of Mormon clearly wasn't plagurized.

So, bottom line it simply is a non-issue. The Bible itself is full of plagurizm. Christ plagurized, and everyone else. But, their words and revelations are also FULL of their OWN Words, unique words from God, and so is the Book of Mormon. Nothing to get worked up about. If people want to get worked up, they need to see all the great evidences found especially in the last 60 years, information never known before of all the things that Joseph got right, his particular formating matching the Dead Sea scrolls, and many other historical finds, etc. The Church is true! :)

[_gdemetz]

LDS FAQS, I think you may have gotten a bit over their heads on this one, and I will also echo you statement that Joseph Smith definitely was raised on the Bible, and the superficial (what else is new) claim by the anti's that he didn't know where Christ was born ("O little town of Bethlehem") is just anothr shallow and foolish attempt to blindly and bitterly ATTACK!!!

[Guest]

...

[_gdemetz]

Mk, I would recommend that you take this much more seriously. You might even learn that there are things even more important than beer!

[_Albion]

gdemetz, it might surprise you but I think this issue of Jesus's birthplace is a weak one to attack Joseph Smith. I think one would have to be a fool in Smith's time and place not to know that Jesus was born in Jerusalem...and whatever else he was Joseph Smith was not a fool. I think there are plenty of places in the Book of Mormon to challenge its authenticity and I don't think this is one of them. "The land of Jerusalem" is a clumsy expression in relation to Jesus's birth but in and of itself not earth shattering.

[_ldsfaqs]

gdemetz, it might surprise you but I think this issue of Jesus's birthplace is a weak one to attack Joseph Smith. I think one would have to be a fool in Smith's time and place not to know that Jesus was born in Jerusalem...and whatever else he was Joseph Smith was not a fool. I think there are plenty of places in the Book of Mormon to challenge its authenticity and I don't think this is one of them. "The land of Jerusalem" is a clumsy expression in relation to Jesus's birth but in and of itself not earth shattering.

You're right that it's not an issue, nice to see for a change. But, you are wrong in it being "clumsy", if you studied the research, it becomes clear that it's an "evidence" for the Book of Mormon, rather than something against it.

And another thing, since most of you are wrong on this issue, ever consider you might be wrong about all your other false beliefs/judgments of Mormonism? Personally I know for sure you're wrong, having been in your religions and an anti-mormon. You use a little truth to tell great lies. Worse part is, is you're supposed to be "Christian" and not following the father of lies. One doesn't have to believe the same as others, but a true Christian doesn't bear false witness, which you all do in almost every issue. I don't misrepresent other religions, beliefs and believers, why are you so willing to???

[Guest]

...

[Guest]

...

[_Albion]

I will ask you again, ldsfaqs, where have I misrepresented anything in Mormonism. Disagreeing and offering as different opinion is not the same as misrepresenting IMV. I think you have things seriously in reverse. It is Mormonism that is the new kid on the block...its is Mormonism which has taken accepted Christian theology and added a "new gospel"...IMV, it is therefore Mormonism which has to prove itself....something, again IMV, it has utterly failed to do. Your premise that because you once were of "my religion" and are now Mormon just doesn't cut it. It is Mormonism which is the counterfeit and as currency experts do in determining a counterfeit, you examine the genuine article to determine how the counterfeit varies from it....you don't verify correctness by the counterfeit...which is exactly what Mormons do.

Returning to the topic at hand...you claim that what I call a "clumsy" expression is really evidence for the Book of Mormon but then fail to provide how it is evidence. Do you have any evidence or is that just bravado?