You say this but you bring no logic or reasoning into WHY it does. I guess what YOU think it is about is different from what we think, and we and you are entitled to that. That's a wonderful thing about our country! You can believe what baptism about YOUR way, and I'll do it ours. That's my choice, and you won't convince me otherwise. Mainly, because I would never change my beliefs, and secondly, because your arguments are lame. I'll keep that in mind if I ever plan to attack one We are not attacking a religion: at the time, Moroni was seeking counsel because God's church was a bit confused in the land. Some baptized young children while others refused to. This is used as counsel from God, not as a weapon against Catholics or something. Yeah, why don't you try that instead of blindly attacking a religion you CLEARLY DON'T understand? Well, try this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Egyptian - but keep in mind that many anti-Mormons love to edit these types of articles and skew our faith, regardless of what could be proved. To the first question, yes. To the second question, possibly. I'm not qualified in languages - and neither are you - to make assumptions like this. So let's not. Besides, it doesn't matter... Oh -- really?? In which translation? New World? New International Standard? King James Version? Darby's New Translation? Contemporary English Version? American Standard? Rotherhams? Which one contains THE ACCURATE and THE ORIGINAL text? There are disagreements among sects today because their Bibles disagree. There are Bible-bashing tournaments, practically. Obviously, not all can be true? Now, which version of the Book of Mormon contains THE ACCURATE and THE ORIGINAL text: Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ ... um... yeah, that's the only one. Never changed. Last altered: ca. 430 A.D.
You have no idea what I said do you? The KJV translated the Bible consistently into Old English because that's how people spoke when it was written. The NKJV updated the language to modernize it consistently. If Bibles were purely literally translated from the source language they would be unreadable. The Book of Mormon is not consistently anything. Old English was not being spoken at the time it was translated. That's why "and it came to pass" is used excessivly and "cross" is used as a verb. By the time Joseph Smith came around it was proper english to "cross a river." It should have been translated into the proper English of the time consistently. We don't have the gold plates of the Book of Mormon so it's a matter of faith whether it was accurately translated or not. The arguments presented in the Book of Mormon against infant baptism have nothing to do with infant baptism. That's the point. It looks like he was attempting to attack the Catholic Church's reasons for infant baptism but fumbled it. Just like Mohammed didn't understand the phrase "children of God" and made a rediculous argument against it, Jospeh Smith didn't understand infant baptism and made nonsensical arguments against it.
yeah....thats a problem....at least copies of the books in the hebrew library have been found...they are not the original, but I trust texts that are over 2000 years old as opposed to what some guy said while hiding behind a sheet...how many wives did he and brigham young have again?
Including the ones they shared? After Joseph Smith was gunned down, Brigham Young took some of his wives for himself. Joseph Smith also had a habit of taking other men's wives. JD is Journal of Discourses which is available from the LDS church. I have it in electronic form. You can also view it here: http://journalofdiscourses.org/
Considering the Catholic church wasn't around on that side of the world... This has to do with the conversation HOW?? THAT is not official church documentation. By the looks of it, it's made by another anti-Mormon group. No true LDS member would misspell the name of our Church or sell documents like this for $10. And Look, I'm sick of putting up with this anti-Mormon crud you guys are throwing out here! You have NO GROUNDS to be saying many of the things you ARE saying, half of which isn't relevant to the debate! All I did was correct your wording that the Book of Mormon was actually "TRANSLATED" (not written) by Joseph Smith. Honestly - none of you have the credentials or grounds, as I've said, for you to accuse and assert most of the things you've said. All of your hearts seem to be set in ways to ATTACK our religion, not just LET US BE. ...
Where is the official church history written down? The JoD was written by Mormons. So there's little reason to believe they'd make stuff up. And yet he only argues against some of the reasons for infant baptism that the Catholic church uses. Other churches have other Biblical reasons for baptizing babies that he doesn't make any mention of. But regardless of why he chose the arguments he did, it doesn't change the fact that his arguments have little to do with anything. That's the point. If you're going to argue against the beliefs of others you need to make sure you actually understand those beliefs. JS should have just focused on what is required to be baptized and let people figure out that infants can't meet those requirements.
Look, he WASN'T ATTACKING THE CATHOLICS. He has NO MOTIVE. They didn't EXIST on that side of EARTH. - and God isn't bashing general "Catholics". I don't see why you seem to push that point. You have no reason or logic or basis to back up your accusations.
Moroni is NOT ATTACKING the CATHOLICS here. Did you even read my post?? Look, A: He had NO MOTIVE. B: Catholics didn't exist on that side of the EARTH. and C, C: There's no point or gain for Moroni to prove or get by writing that other than to counsel his own people. From this point, the debate is moot... I don't feel comfortable trying to debate something sacred to me to ignorant people with cold, hard hearts. EDIT: Okay, that was weird... I got an error saying the first post didn't go through successfully. Oh well. Sorry for the double post.
Then I'm not sure what the point of his arguments are since they have nothing to do with anything. Which was my point all along. I just find it interesting that all his "points" line up with the reasons given on a Wikipedia page for why Catholics baptize babies. I'm not nearly Catholic enough to know if the Book of Mormon accurately represents the reasons for baptizing babies before trying to bash them. We're only allowed to give the FLDS a hard time about polygamy.