Obiwan wrote:
I'm well aware of the definitions, I simply don't agree with your judgement of them as to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon came through a man, as a result, there will always be "artifacts" of nuance specific to that man, but there are MUCH MUCH MORE other things which show that the book "wasn't" of that man, but was directly what God wanted said.
If you could provide evidence for a loose translation. I am only aware of evidence showing that Joseph was getting his revelation/translation word for word which is called a tight translation by apologists.
There is no "apologist invention" here, it's simply what the Facts of the book are.
Actually it is invented by the apologists, since the definitions are directly about the Book of Mormon and how it came to us.
There exists BOTH loose and tight aspects to the book, period. And that would be exactly what we would expect from a book that comes from God, but has to go through a man to be given to the world.
Show us the specific evidence for this.
Since I never made such a claim accept by taking my words out of context and completely ignoring my actual point (see above) your words are irrelevant.
I quoted your claim. Perhaps you could provide what the context is if I got it wrong. I still think what I said is correct. If only the faithful can see the evidences then they are weak to non-existent, and this is treu regardless of the religion or non-religious group.
Faith is a principle of "action".... If you don't DO, believing that there will be RESULTS "one way or another", you don't achieve.
Of course it's about belief followed by action.
In other words, if you don't DO the necessary work to learn if the Church is actually true, to find out if there ARE in fact plenty of evidences proving it's validity, then you will continue in ignorance believing the Church is false based on your "current" judgements.
Do all you want, but if a belief is not correct all the faith in the world won't change that. I have spent plenty of time as a believer looking for evidences and thought that many were that were not.
You already think you know it all, so you don't do anything more to prove if you're actually right. For example, you once believed the Church was true, did you ever think that maybe your "current" judgement is false, that you learned just a little more to be dangerous, but not enough to make a true accurate judgement about the Church???
You are accusing me of thinking I know it all, when your language suggests you know it all including knowing me, when you have no idea who I am or what my knowledge is. LOL You really should open your mind a little. How do you know that I am not still open to new evidence, or what I have done in the past including what faith I had. How do you know how much knowledge I have concerning LDS issues since you don't know me at all. You seem to make a lot of judgments based on so little I am having a hard time taking you seriously. I'd think there is more then enough evidence to conclude the Church is not what it claims, but I also understand I don't know everything and could be wrong(something you don't seem to be open to).
Do you know why I ask you this? Because I've been through it. I once left the Church and religion myself, thinking it was just another man-made religion. But, fortunately at one point I decided to put away my judgements and have "faith", that is to keep learning and let God if he existed and the actual truth to come out when I put forth the necessary and balanced/objective effort to find out.
Considering just how judgmental you have been here, I have a hard time believing you really put away your judgments.
Do you REALLY think you have been as "objective" and non-judgemental, and studied enough to really say "for sure" that your current judgements are truly right???
More then some, less then others, but I think I have reserved judgment better then you. My bias was in favor of the church, and i would still love for the church to be true, so if new evidence comes forth, I am more then happy to evaluate as objectively as I can.
Can you really compare yourself, your own learning, experience, wisdom, etc. to the very best of the Church, the most righteous, the most learned??? I doubt it.
I don't try to compare myself with them, nor should I or you. This is an irrational argument to authority. I'm willing to bet lots of people as intelligent and righteous as they have have come to a different conclusion, and that people just as smart and good in other religions also have different conclusions. Trying to find who you think is the smartest is a bad idea. All I can do is make my own conclusions with the information I have and try to remain as unbiased and objective as I can.
What you have done, is you've latched on to a current judgement based on just a little more information, and now think that is the "real" truths about the Church.
You are quite sure of this without even knowing me at all.
When all you've actually done is just discovered the anti-mormom/satans version of the truth about the Church, not the "actual" truths on the issues.
Perhaps you could provide the evidence to back this up since you know me so well. I guess I must have forgotten all the reading studying and praying I did with the scriptures, talks from the leaders, Fair , Farms, etc and just went with those critics sites because that was what i really wanted. Right? I bet that is what you think.
I can say that because I've been there. I've compared the sides when I no longer had a bias toward either side, and anti-mormonism does nothing but use a little truth to tell great lies.
You have, and you were unbiased, but not us.
You all have done it in this very thread toward me the last two pages. Proves my point. You see only the negative you want to see, not the whole and actual truth, which makes most of the seeming negative, not negative or bad at all.
CFR and please provide some specifics, because I must have missed that I did this anywhere.