Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
[b], but I am glad you made the admission they make errors and mistakes.

I've been saying their fallible from day one, one of the first posts I made was the below, course how would you know this, you don't read posts, but just concentrate on smary comments, and making comments with no proof.

Your latest two was your claim that Jeff Lindsay uses misinformation you couldn't prove, and that the church changed the orginal D&C as far as Moroni being the person Joseph spoke with. Typical angry inch.

Well here Dubbs I found it in the 1851 ed. of Pearl of Great Price...!!!




First off, the 1835 edition is the one that we need to see to show idjits like yourself what was orginally said. Not the 1851 edition.

and the Pearl of Great Price has the Books of Moses and Abraham, it doesn't even mention Joseph's vision.

Not sure where you got this, but it's about as accurate as a Bigdaddy legal document.


"LOL" what no "Big Whoop" or you got that from an anti site "LOL"


I know this is a complex issue for the mentally slow, so let me slow it down for you.


The 1835 edition of the D&C (not the Pearl of Great price) said that "moroni" was the one who visited Joseph.


This is what I was looking for to show Wren that the Millinium start mistake was precluded by the LDS scripture clarifying.

So.... for you to post a article from the 1850 edition of the Pearl of Great price, is not even a scripture that mentions Joseph's story of the visitation from Moroni, so not sure what this supposed post is even referencing.

I know that flew right over your head, but hey, I try to help the slow of mind.

To be honest Dubbs, I have been try to find out where the 1835 edition of the D&C got into this discussion,

because what I said was that the Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, a word-for-word account of the original 1838 account dictated by Joseph Smith and transcribed by James Mulholland.
it notes how "Nephi" rather than "Moroni" was the original word written and that Nephi was the original name published in the 1851 edition of the Pearl of Great Price and "in the original publication of the history in the Times and Seasons at Nauvoo...and the Millennial Star"

and I'm not sure how the D&C got twisted in there...

But it did not start by a newspaper like you said Dubbs this is how it started:

on May 2, 1838, a few months before Smith's statement in Elders' Journal, Smith began dictating a church history that included a detailed account of his visits from the angel (Smith 1838a, p. 7).

Smith identified the angel as "Nephi", which is the name of the Book of Mormon's first narrator (Smith 1838a, p. 5).

Smith's 1838 identification as "Nephi" was repeated when the 1838 history was published in 1842 in Times and Seasons, which Smith edited himself (Smith 1842, p. 753),

and in Millennial Star (Pratt 1842, p. 53).

In the latter, an editorial referred to the 1823 vision and praised "the glorious ministry and message of the angel Nephi" (1842, p. 71).

After Smith's death, the identification as "Nephi" was repeated when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints published its first edition of the Pearl of Great Price (Richards 1851, p. 41).

It was also repeated in 1853 when Smith's mother Lucy Mack Smith published a history of her son (Smith 1853, p. 79).

As a further complication, Mary Whitmer, mother to one of the Three Witnesses and four of the Eight Witnesses, said she had a vision of the golden plates, shown to her by an angel, whom she always called "Brother Nephi" (Whitmer 1888, p. 621).

There was confusion, and Joseph wrote two versions of the journal, one with Nephi and one with Moroni, the Millinium star picked up the one with Nephi, and that was printed in England also, so it caused confusion for some time. But the D&C 1830 edition through 1835 ediction already said MORONI. So the confusion should have been clarified, but it wasn't, if they would have looked at the scriptures, they would have saw the mistake, it wasn't caught for some time.

The D&C 1830- 1835 edition clarifies is that it was written before the 1842 Millinium star article, and it shows clearly Joseph said "Moroni" as does many other references, of which I posted many in my post a few days ago.

Some historical clarity is needed, Dubbs, because you are confused.

One, there never was a D&C 1830 edition. It was first published in 1835 with many of the revelations re-edited, at times altering the basic meanings. The contemporary documents do not support your contention that the correct name was inserted at the time you said it was. Nothing confirms. Thus, as usual, it goes to your faith, Dubbs, for proof, not to the documents' accuracy.

Dubbs wrote:by that silly logic, if you make a mistake as it relates to anything in your life, you are sinning. // Mistakes are not sin."

I did not say that a mistake was a fraud, you did. So you are condemning yourself. Prophets make mistakes, they also sin. Not always the same thing.

Dubbs wrote:
[b]"Read this. Verify the lies by reading their book then checking their references, they are the worst of the worst, if you followed them, you are as lost as they are.
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=2&num=2&id=38"

Sorry for you, Dubbs: FARMS is not recognized by reputable LDS and non-LDS historians as offering much of anything. Look up what Richard Bushman had to say about them.

Dubbs wrote:"It's comical to watch, what do you think Blogan, does Wren have the right to tell you to "trust in the Lord" as if you don't? What an ass he is."

Of course I have that right. It is clearly scripture, and, now, Dubbs, I counsel you to "trust in the Lord".

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
[b]Gerald Tanner was a sour man, .

As are all those who are fighting against Gods church.

But Sirs isn't the Apostate Collective fighting against "God's Church", When they post as utocoman?

Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
More on the Hoffman and the Tanners dishonesty. ..

In their discussion of the Hofmann affair, the Tanners repeat what they have long asserted - that the LDS Church is "suppressing" documents it does not want made public by placing them in the First Presidency's vault (p. 24). But placing an historical document in a safe place hardly implies suppression. Burning the document would be a safer way of getting rid of negative evidence. Placing it in a vault only preserves it for future use. We have the example of the Joseph Smith papyri, which lay for decades in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, only to be brought to the Church's attention by a professor doing research there. Yet no one has accused the Metropolitan of "suppressing" these documents! They were their guardian, just as the Church is the guardian of many documents. Recent history has shown us how people like the Tanners misuse such documents -- sometimes literally publishing what does not belong to them -- to promote their own ends. Consequently, one is not surprised when the Tanners, unable to obtain documents they want, accuse the Church of suppression. . . .
Strangely, the minutes the Tanners quote from a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve (p. 31), rather than suggesting a cover-up, indicate that the Church was going to publicly announce the acquisition; clearly, this does not support Tanner's story [of a Church cover up].

Scum bags


Fact is Gordon B. Hinckley never came out and endorsed those documents as authentic. That is something simply assumed due to the fact that he purchased them. That assumption is not justified.
Every statement he made about them was a qualified statement that falls short of endorsing them as correct. He said things like "experts say they are authentic." He didn't say that he agrees with their evaluation and, in fact, regarding the JSIII document, he did say that being a fraud was not ruled out, but that there is no evidence of that so far (this is all going by memory).

By purchasing those documents, GBH kept control of them within the Church. If they became the property of enemies of the Church, then they would NEVER have been tested well enough to show them as fakes and the church would have a false charge hanging over its head with no way to bring the truth to light to the world. . . .

The proof is in the pudding: the actions of GBH and the Church lead to the exposure of a fraud and murderer and kept the Church from falling into the trap laid for it.


Hmmm Dubbs I didn't know Gordon B. Hinckley was President during the Hofmann affair


"LOL" OH now you admit that the Joseph Smith papyri, which lay for decades in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City are real "LOL"

Yes the Apostate Collective does get confused from time to time. They just have so many lies to keep track of.