Is the Mormon Church dishonest...?

[_harmony]

The Church has an independent auditing agency check it's books, and the results of said checks are reported on in Conference. You wanting more than that is frankly none of your business.

My tithes are there. I'd like an honest accounting, instead of the whitewash we're subjected to twice a year.

What are done with the funds of the Church are well open and documented. The Church thus has no interest in giving anti-Mormons like you even MORE fodder that you can mock and ridicule.

You now speak for the church? Wow!

Open the books. If the books aren't open, the stigma of misappropriation of funds just stinks up the whole church.

[_Quasimodo]

by the way..... Your alls "conspiracy theorys" on apologists somehow always "justifying" themselves for some of us not having infallible grammar is nothing more than the fantasies of your own minds. Sure, there might be a "particular" thing certain individuals like to do, such as when I defended my usage of "quotes", but you have nothing else to give you cause of such a claim about us. Sorry, but I moved around a lot when I was young, and so I didn't "master" all the "grammar rules". Everyone has different talents and interests, so get over yourselves. And obviously, a second language speaker would tend to be more "exposed" to said rules when they have to learn the new language. So again, get over yourselves. EVERYONE has bad grammar, and EVERYONE has their own reasons for it, some making excuses and most not. There is no "difference" between us in this. That is your elitism and bigotry speaking, not reality.

Sorry, Obiwan, but your grammar really is atrocious. The above paragraph is an excellent example. It makes it very hard to take you seriously when it's so difficult to understand what you are trying to say.

You don't need to have "perfect grammar", but you really should try to read through your posts and make them as intelligible as possible. Just a thought.

[_Obiwan]

Obi wan,

1. Please can you reference your sources for the two methods of translation that you added (translating with nothing at all, and translating with the plates in front of him producing words 'in vision'.

Why do I need to reference historical fact?
You even having to ask this question makes clear that you don't even know the actual history, never actually studied it, but have instead simply regurgitated bearing false witness anti-mormon claims.

Anyway, this page (the Topics below) will give you much of the historical details on the issue.
http://fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation

2. You seem to accept that Josephs journal is in error and the D&C is correct. Can you show me where the Church explains the discrepancy?
Are you willing to accept the possibility that the D&C may be in error, and if not, why not?

I gave you a couple of reasonable plausibilities of why there might be an "honest mistake" of writing in a Journal. No, I can't off hand show you any apologist or church authority who has made an issue of this non-issue.

Of course I'm not going to accept the D&C as in error, because of the simple fact of the full historical record of teachings on this subject. Adam was always Michael in Mormonism. The Church correcting what clearly appears to be a simple writing error, is nothing sinister nor abnormal. Any LDS scholar that knows or has Joseph's teachings and writing on this subject BEFORE and AFTER knows very well that it was a simple writing mistake.

Again, you ask a question that if you actually KNEW the history of the Church beyond anti-mormonism, you would know is a complete non-issue. It was clearly a simple writing mistake.

[_Obiwan]

My tithes are there. I'd like an honest accounting, instead of the whitewash we're subjected to twice a year.

Do you have "evidence" of any "whitewash" or problem with the funds?
Or is this more liberal/anti-mormon "fantasy's" that substitute for reality that we must endure?

You now speak for the church? Wow!

Open the books. If the books aren't open, the stigma of misappropriation of funds just stinks up the whole church.

I speak for myself.... I'm quite happy with what the Church does, and find it completely appropriate and reasonable. I don't have your conspiracy fantasy mind, so I don't have any problems. I can clearly see what the Church does with the money, and if there are problems they report it.

The stigma only exists in minds like yours, not reasonable and common sense minds of people who actually know the Church, are in it day to day, and SEE IT ALL. It is YOU who "stinks".

[_Obiwan]

by the way..... Your alls "conspiracy theorys" on apologists somehow always "justifying" themselves for some of us not having infallible grammar is nothing more than the fantasies of your own minds. Sure, there might be a "particular" thing certain individuals like to do, such as when I defended my usage of "quotes", but you have nothing else to give you cause of such a claim about us. Sorry, but I moved around a lot when I was young, and so I didn't "master" all the "grammar rules". Everyone has different talents and interests, so get over yourselves. And obviously, a second language speaker would tend to be more "exposed" to said rules when they have to learn the new language. So again, get over yourselves. EVERYONE has bad grammar, and EVERYONE has their own reasons for it, some making excuses and most not. There is no "difference" between us in this. That is your elitism and bigotry speaking, not reality.

Sorry, Obiwan, but your grammar really is atrocious. The above paragraph is an excellent example. It makes it very hard to take you seriously when it's so difficult to understand what you are trying to say.

You don't need to have "perfect grammar", but you really should try to read through your posts and make them as intelligible as possible. Just a thought.

My writing is perfectly fine, having done it for years. It may not be perfect, but I only hear anything negative from people like you. Normal people understand my writing perfectly well, and my writing is perfectly "intelligible". You having some "pet peeve", or finding another "excuse" to bash Mormons is not really my problem. I improve my writing as I can when respectfully shown. For example, I used to have a bad habit of using "your" improperly. I would use "your" instead of "you're" as I should have sometimes, I have since corrected that.

Anyway, I'm not interested in faultfinders. I know my writing is very clear despite whatever grammar imperfections. Thus, why don't you find something else more useful to bash me on with your bigotry and elitism?

[_Quasimodo]

My writing is perfectly fine, having done it for years. It may not be perfect, but I only hear anything negative from people like you. Normal people understand my writing perfectly well, and my writing is perfectly "intelligible". You having some "pet peeve", or finding another "excuse" to bash Mormons is not really my problem. I improve my writing as I can when respectfully shown. For example, I used to have a bad habit of using "your" improperly. I would use "your" instead of "you're" as I should have sometimes, I have since corrected that.

Anyway, I'm not interested in faultfinders. I know my writing is very clear despite whatever grammar imperfections. Thus, why don't you find something else more useful to bash me on with your bigotry and elitism?

I don't believe I was being "elitist" or "bigoted". You can (and do) write any way you wish. You brought up the subject. I was just responding.

I was just trying to point out that your message is often lost in incoherent language.

The only way we (the readers on this board) have to judge the validity of what anyone is saying here is by the written posts that they make. If the post is hard to understand or if the grammar is very poor, the post will not be taken too seriously.

[_harmony]

Of course I'm not going to accept the D&C as in error, because of the simple fact of the full historical record of teachings on this subject. Adam was always Michael in Mormonism. The Church correcting what clearly appears to be a simple writing error, is nothing sinister nor abnormal. Any LDS scholar that knows or has Joseph's teachings and writing on this subject BEFORE and AFTER knows very well that it was a simple writing mistake.

Which is it? Either it's a mistake or it's not. Either it's an error or it's not.

So which version was in error... the pre-Sec 132 version or the post-Sec 132 version?

[_jon]

Obi wan, I read the Fair article you linked and it only concludes that there were two methods - U&T and Stone in Hat.

Elder Nelson in the Ensign in 1993 acknowledged the same two, and only the same two methods - U&T and Stone in Hat.

Whilst I can accept the explanation for Adam/Michael as a writing error, the picture used to depict the translation method used in Church materials is deliberately untruthful.

[_harmony]

My tithes are there. I'd like an honest accounting, instead of the whitewash we're subjected to twice a year.

Do you have "evidence" of any "whitewash" or problem with the funds?
Or is this more liberal/anti-mormon "fantasy's" that substitute for reality that we must endure?

That which is hidden lives in darkness. Yes, I have a problem with darkness in any capacity.

Open the books.

I speak for myself....

That's good. For a second there, I thought you were trying to make your opinion official.

I'm quite happy with what the Church does, and find it completely appropriate and reasonable.

Good for you. You make it easy for men to misappropriate and mishandle church funds. The church has many like you.

I don't have your conspiracy fantasy mind, so I don't have any problems.

That is not my problem; it's yours.

I can clearly see what the Church does with the money, and if there are problems they report it.

No, you can't. The books are closed. No one can see what is done with the money.

The stigma only exists in minds like yours, not reasonable and common sense minds of people who actually know the Church, are in it day to day, and SEE IT ALL. It is YOU who "stinks".

I sit in the temple with you, Obiwan. Bear testimony in the chapel with you. Teach lessons with you. I don't see it all, because it isn't open to be seen. It sounds to me like you're in the darkness with those who choose to accept blindness. I don't consider that a virtue.

[_Hades]

I speak for myself.... I'm quite happy with what the Church does, and find it completely appropriate and reasonable. I don't have your conspiracy fantasy mind, so I don't have any problems. I can clearly see what the Church does with the money, and if there are problems they report it.

The stigma only exists in minds like yours, not reasonable and common sense minds of people who actually know the Church, are in it day to day, and SEE IT ALL. It is YOU who "stinks".

Reasonable and common sense minds want to know where their money goes. Would you give money to my charity if I refused to tell you where I spent the money? What if I told you God tells me where to spend the money, but I can't tell you what God tells me to do with it? Would you take my word for it?