Discussion between depperm and Matthew

Mason Wheeler

03:03

> [resurrection] involves a miracle that seemingly cannot be counterfeited.

Why not? In our modern age, doctors perform what one might reasonably refer to as "counterfeit resurrection" *literally every day.* It's even frequently referred to, in the vernacular, as a "medical miracle" or "miracle of modern medicine."

Jesus cured the sick. We can do that today. Jesus reattached a severed ear; we can reattach *entire limbs* today. Jesus was born to a woman who became pregnant without ever having sex. We can do that today too.

If you're trying to build your faith off of miracles, that's a very good way to be deceived, and is the precise opposite of how Christ told us it's supposed to work in Mark chapter 16: signs will follow those who believe. Signs and miracles do not precede and create faith; they arise as a result of it, and Jesus specifically called out those who demand a sign as a condition of belief as "wicked and adulterous" in Matthew chapter 16.

Wyrsa

06:11

Smiles and jumps in.

@depperm I don't think my expression is a stretch. Even the modern semisecular saying, the greatest thing the devil ever pulled off was convince the world he didn't exist.

All of the LDS teachings seem to spring forth from "Moroni's book" (judging only by J.S.History)

The artifact, the other artifact required to translate it (as if the gift of tongues or interpretation required a physical connection)

I'm not going into the "first vision" but that angel is sus.

The immediate first issue I see is I recall something along the lines of "well demons can't take physical form" alright... explain the multiple angels who did?

I mean... they are both the same "creature" they are both angels

That seemed odd

I try my best to see things from within the perspective/framework of the otherside before I ask the question.

So I appreciate that you noticed that @depperm

I looked at your example of Luke and Isaiah. They are the same meaning, nothing was changed. The NU does omit "to heal the brokenhearted" but if you notice the intent of the verse is unchanged. I could still paraphrase it as "The speaker is chosen by the Spirit of God to help those who need help"

anyways...

I ramble a bit and I should get to the point

I have other issues with the first vision, but I am trying to stay put on the angel.

So while Luke and Isaiah actually retain the same meaning... Malachi does not

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. (I'll refer to it as chapter 4:1)

_____________

Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:

"For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

"shall be stubble" vs "shall burn as stubble"

Stubble can be saved in the original version, (it is not God's will that any should perish but that they repent)

In the new one, the possibility of repentances by the wicked is no longer possible.
_____________________

"And the day that cometh shall burn them up"

"for they that come shall burn them"

You can clearly see the difference in meaning here, the day of the Lord is not "someone"

------------------
Now the second change might not be such a big deal, but the first one where all the wicked ARE burned as stubble instead of "are stubble" has implications for the ability of the wicked to repent and turn back to God.

The "evil side" would benefit from discounting repentance.

(How convenient)

Wyrsa

06:44

Fifth verse...

The angel Moroni adds "priesthood" to the verse... which doesn't make sense. The entire chapter has nothing to do with any coming preists. There is the messenger, the warning to not rob God, etc... and the great day of God. No Priests mentioned, in context it doesn't fit even with the altered 6th verse.

_____________
Sixth verse...

"And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse"

"And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming."

hmm
Original points towards Fathers and children having to "turn their hearts" toward each other... obvious symbolism here for God and the Nation but also good family advice.

Note it is Elijah doing the turning in context.

but the first part is entirely changed in meaning.

"the hearts of the fathers to the children" is NOT "he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers"

subject of the sentence changed, meaning of the verse changed.

In the old testament God routinely is expressed as "turning towards" or "turning away from" israel. So this is the same phrasing.

planting promises in the children (forget turning the father toward the children I guess)

Well... It seems sinful to change the part of the verse that would refer to God turning his face toward his children.

This is not simple "I forgot a half a sentence or a phrase but the meaning remained the same" this is full shifting of things away from forgiveness and God.

________
Let's summarize...

The wicked are burned by those who come, instead of are helpless and would burn on the day of the Lord. (note changed version removed God from the meaning replacing it with "they")

We have some kind of prophet and a priesthood... instead of just a prophet.

and the last verse removes the Father's heart turning toward their children, how cruel and dark.

It does not look like a translation error, it looks like what the forces of evil would do

And all the teachings from this source make it more difficult to challenge or defend against daemonic visions, etc.

____________
"We don't consider the Bible infallible, it has translation errors" - So it can be negated.

History "verse" 19: I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

In your answer you refer to the Book of Moses, which is from the source of the book of Moroni right?

The "divine glory" sourced from the Book or mormon isn't really valid "before" the book of mormon is proven to be the Word of God. And even if you say the Bible might have errors it has repeated sections on how to ensure that it is God/God's angels and not Satan or his fallen angels.

What stops me from going out into the wilderness for a few days and claiming to have been visited by the angel Duludori who gave me a sacred scroll containing the errors of the faith and how to fix them?

Wyrsa

08:01

Answer: Well... Jesus specifically mentions false teachers 5 or so times. And there are the warnings of the "false teacher who will come at the consummation of the age" in revelations.

And the "persecution" of Joseph is biblical as well... The Church views are clearly stated by Peter.

So false prophets also came from among the people, just as false teachers will be among you, who will introduce heresies of destruction, even denying the Master who bought them bring upon themselves a swift destruction. And many will follow in their sensualities, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in greed they will exploit you with false words, concerning whom the judgment of long ago is not idle and their destruction does not sleep.

Not to mention the rest of the chapter (2 Peter 2)

I think we all agree false teachers are going to continue to "increase" and will not really "decrease" until the actual end times

Considering the translation "destructive heresies" is actually not strong enough. The genitive modifier (ἀπωλείας) is not a simple adjective but a genitive of object. These heresies lead to destruction. The teaching itself destroys.

And the general manner that these things occur is also clearly stated in the verses. The future tense verb (παρεισάξουσιν) means “to introduce” with the idea of bringing a new idea in addition to what exists.

Usually these things are slow, similar to how governmental abuse of power is a slow process. (you pick away at rights one by one until none are left)

Anyways, what is the church response to heresy? Well... they call you out about it. I believe the protestant churches failed here.

Well the church holds that the sin of heresy is more severe then murder. (Fear not those who can kill the body... fear... who can destroy the soul)

The pastors responded the worst way possible. They seem to have denied the vision occurred. As I stated before, the visions clearly did occur. But by denying them outright, the pastors firmly slammed the door in Josephs face.

Now... idk if you were a young boy or if you were a girl. But I was a young boy and what do you think the reaction of most young boys who want to tell something very very important to someone else important, but then that person dismisses and denies them?

(shut up little boy, let the adults handle things, etc)

This action definitively slammed the door on any possibility of correcting any possible issues. (in either direction, if Joseph was correct or not)

depperm

12:37

@Wyrsa and Doctrine and Covenants (additional revelation), other/future prophets, and the Pearl of Great Price

Wyrsa

interesting, but all of those would have been affected by the original source right?

You had said you were going to expand your answer, I'm still looking forward to that

depperm

@Wyrsa in regards to demons, I feel like we have different understandings of them and how they manifest

Wyrsa

I hope you don't mistake my disagreement with the answer, as dissatisfaction with the quality of the answer

depperm

@Wyrsa where did I say I was going to expand my answer?

you are free to disagree with my answer

I disagree with answers all the time, even when well answered

Wyrsa

Yeah that is what I'm saying, the answer is from the LDS viewpoint, and I disagree with it. But it is the answer they give.

I believe you had in an original version said something about going out to lunch and it was just a quick version of the answer

but maybe that was somewhere else, though i referenced it in my comment. Weird

ah well

:)

depperm

12:42

Luke and Isaiah. They are the same meaning, nothing was changed is not exactly true, otherwise it would be same words. why add/change words if its the same?

Wyrsa

Right but you have to admit that Malachi 4:6 was changed entirely in meaning with the first part shifting radically.

Even if a line was omitted between luke and isaiah... the intent is the same, can you tell me how the two different in meaning?

Like how I pointed out the differences between malachi original vs Moroni?

I'm interested because you used it as an example, and it doesn't seem to be changed in meaning.

"I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me"

"Jesus is the only way, He is truth, and he is life, none reach the Father except through him"

There I twisted the passage... oh, wait. no it still means the same.

depperm

christianity.stackexchange.com/a/103116/22319 may be right, this could be an entire new revelation/prophesy separate from the one in Malachi

I dont' think the meaning drastically changed, from my reading he is clarifying who is being burned. Not a drastic change, it is a change, but not as big as you seem to make it, IMO

Wyrsa

If the KJV, original text, and JST versions are the same...
Sourcing the book of mormon... when we are testing the angel Moroni is not valid.
And then the quote from Moroni.

anyways,

I think changing the text does have bigger implications.

Perhaps the one about the stubble is very minor

But at the end, changing the subject of verse 6 to be "children" centered on both sides is not what the original text or JST show?

depperm

what verse 6, I'm not seeing that in OP

or any reference to children

Wyrsa

Joseph's account and quote of the Angel:
History 39
He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

Malachi 4:6 : And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

he shall plant in the hearts of the children ... made to the fathers.

Is not

the heart of the fathers to the children.

if you take the old testament "Father Child" symbolism. Father is God, Children are Israel.

Make the version Israel, Israel instead of God, Israel... well

depperm

12:54

it says fathers

Wyrsa

sure

okay

depperm

i don't think the symbolism you imply applies here

it does sometimes

but not here

Wyrsa

Okay, angel still changed the subject of the verse

original never mentioned any promise.

doesn't even fit in context with "The glorious day of the Lord"

if we trust the translators title of the chapter

depperm

I disagree

Wyrsa

okay.

depperm

12:55

I feel like we have different interpretation of scriptures

Wyrsa

This is of course both of our positions

depperm

to you its a major shift

to me its not

I've seen verses 'supporting' trinity, that to me don't

Wyrsa

To me adding words and changing the subject of a line of scripture is a big deal

depperm

no JST or anything

to me its adding detail

like i mentioned in my answer

Wyrsa

do not add or remove.

depperm

12:57

if I say I'm going to lunch it has detail

if I say I'm going to lunch at McDs

that is more detailed, even when not mentioned initially

if I say I'm going to lunch at McDs because I have a gift card

Wyrsa

If the Bible says "hearts of the fathers turn toward children" how is "promises made to the fathers planted into children" somehow "more detail" ?

depperm

more detail, still vaguely same message

Wyrsa

one is both fathers and children turning toward each other

the other is something else

to you use your allegory

"I'm going out to lunch" is not "Lunch was promised to me by someone else"

even if the word lunch is in both sentences.

depperm

the end part is the same

the first part to me is the reason

Wyrsa

really? In version one "I'm going" the second one is "Lunch is promised"

depperm

13:00

from JSH
>And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

Wyrsa

And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

depperm

Malachi 4:
>And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Wyrsa

The Moroni version, could be interpreted as "children remember the promises given to your fathers, and turn toward your fathers, or you will be cursed with familial unrest and strife"

depperm

the promises is reference to Gal 3:5,8,18,29

Galatians*

Wyrsa

So just inserting NT into OT?

hmm

depperm

13:03

no

not inserting

explaining the promise

my wording wasn't the best

Wyrsa

My point is... What promise? Malachi 4 doesn't refer to a promise at all originally.

It foretells the glorious day of the LORD.

depperm

from Galatians the explanation:
> In thee shall all nations be blessed.
>
>18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
>
>29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Wyrsa

I'm struggling to see the connection with Malachi

I see a connection from galatians to promises given to Abraham sure.

depperm

I'm trying to explain the Moroni differences

from LDS perspective

Wyrsa

i know

i'm trying to see it from your side

it's hard to see things from other sides

depperm

13:07

I don't have extensive time to cross compare at the moment

Wyrsa

And I have to get going as well

depperm

I'll try to find time to get a better explanation

Wyrsa

perhaps we can chitchat about it more next week?

Matthew

18:38

...so what you're saying is Jesus was really a space alien with advanced technology? That's really the only way you can weasel out. (Also, Jesus was severely injured, and was definitely dead for *days*; not at all like modern "resurrections" from "clinical death". Nor did He have modern medical technology.)

There still needs to be *some* way of identifying what is a "valid" message versus what is not, or one could use your argument to claim that we ought to be Muslims, or Buddhists, or anything whatsoever. And there are: God promises two ways of verifying the *true* message; fulfilled prop…

Mason Wheeler

20:21

"...so what you're saying is Jesus was really a space alien with advanced technology?"

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that many of the miracles associated with Jesus can be easily counterfeited today with modern medical knowledge, therefore it's a mistake to use them as a foundation for your faith and claim that they can't be counterfeited.

"God promises two ways of verifying the *true* message; fulfilled prophesies (which AFAIK LDS lacks)"

You should study this more. There's no lack of fulfilled prophecies among the modern-day prophets.

Matthew

20:50

@MasonWheeler ...to which I'll repeat that a) Jesus Resurrection is still far beyond current technology, and b) miracles are properly evaluated in context, not in terms of modern technology. If you neglect the second, you are making the argument that Jesus was a charlatan with Sufficiently Advanced Technology (n.b. Clarke). (For that matter, even in the case of the ear example, modern technology isn't at the point you can just pick it up and stick it back on.)

Re: prophesies... citation needed. Also, failed prophesies are a sign of a false prophet. Here are a few: carm.org/mormonism/joseph-smiths-false-prophecies.

Re: Matthew 6, I've had this conversation in the Creationism chat room also. It's problematic, because if that's the only criteria, then not only are many non-LDS who denounce LDS as heresy true prophets, so was e.g. Buddha.

Mason Wheeler

21:13

You are still completely missing the point about the miracles. I've explained it clearly twice now, and you keep circling back around to refocus everything on the part that it is a mistake to focus on.

Matthew

22:41

@MasonWheeler No, I'm disagreeing with you. Besides, if miracles aren't useful, why should I believe Joseph Smith?

Transcript for

Discussion between depperm and Matthew