For LDS - can you become Gods?

[nrajeff]

Is 76 pages the number of pages the BoM would be without all the "and it came to pass" and "and behold" incidents?

If you had ever READ IT, then maybe you'd know the answer to your question.

[nrajeff]

...The paper does a nice job of emphasizing that the writings of the Early Church Fathers accurately represent the beliefs of early Christianity. I agree!

Okay, so far, so good, except that I think it's a little simplistic to use blanket terms like "early Christianity" if early Christianity was in fact not universally monolithic for its duration. If, for example, Patripassianism was a part of early Christianity, then it's a misnomer to say that early Christianity (as an implied corpus) believed in what later became orthodox Trinitarianism.

If, as the article also asserts, the LDS belief in attaining godhood is identical to the Orthodox doctrine of theosis, why haven't you (along with the author) converted to Orthodoxy?

I don't necessarily agree that the beliefs are identical.

The ECF spend quite a bit more energy writing on the Trinity than deification. Why don't you align your beliefs with all those of the ECF, rather than just one?

Because I am not obligated to agree with them in areas where I disagree with them.
Just like even though some Evangelical beliefs on a number of doctrines are very close to LDS ones, the fact that THOSE similarities exist doesn't obligate me to accept the REST of them--the ones that are not similar.

[Cow Poke]

If you had ever READ IT, then maybe you'd know the answer to your question.

I have read it THREE times, Jeff. You've been told that.

[Bill the Cat]

Okay, so far, so good, except that I think it's a little simplistic to use blanket terms like "early Christianity" if early Christianity was in fact not universally monolithic for its duration.

When divergent views appeared that challenged a major doctrine, they were dealt with. Only in that explanation can Christianity be viewed as not monolithic.

If, for example, Patripassianism was a part of early Christianity, then it's a misnomer to say that early Christianity (as an implied corpus) believed in what later became orthodox Trinitarianism.

It wasn't. It was an invention of Sabellius

I don't necessarily agree that the beliefs are identical.

I don't agree that they are even similar

Because I am not obligated to agree with them in areas where I disagree with them.
Just like even though some Evangelical beliefs on a number of doctrines are very close to LDS ones, the fact that THOSE similarities exist doesn't obligate me to accept the REST of them--the ones that are not similar.

And despite the "evangelical" doctrines predating Mormon doctrines in many cases, you choose the later ones.

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, so far, so good, except that I think it's a little simplistic to use blanket terms like "early Christianity" if early Christianity was in fact not universally monolithic for its duration. If, for example, Patripassianism was a part of early Christianity, then it's a misnomer to say that early Christianity (as an implied corpus) believed in what later became orthodox Trinitarianism.

As far as I know, every deviation from orthodoxy in early Christianity can be traced to a beginning point post-Pentecost by at least a generation (centuries in nearly all instances). The writings of the ECF, however, stand in unity against them; that unity is orthodoxy.

I don't necessarily agree that the beliefs are identical.

Then why do you use one to argue for the other?

Because I am not obligated to agree with them in areas where I disagree with them.
Just like even though some Evangelical beliefs on a number of doctrines are very close to LDS ones, the fact that THOSE similarities exist doesn't obligate me to accept the REST of them--the ones that are not similar.

Fine, but when you argue for a point because it is present in the ECF, rejecting other doctrines that are warp and woof of the ECF rather vitiates the force of your argument.

[nrajeff]

I have read it THREE times, Jeff. You've been told that.

Then what's the answer for question? Or, perhaps more relevant: Why'd you ASK it?

[Cow Poke]

Then what's the answer for question?

The BoM is a work of fiction which borrows heavily from the King James Version, even though it SUPPOSEDLY predates it, with lots of "and it came to pass" and "and behold" thrown in, apparently to make it sound "biblical".

[nrajeff]

So answer your own question:

Is 76 pages the number of pages the BoM would be without all the "and it came to pass" and "and behold" incidents?

[Bill the Cat]

So answer your own question:

Is 76 pages the number of pages the BoM would be without all the "and it came to pass" and "and behold" incidents?

I'm sure that would depend on the font used, the size of the paper, distance between lines, size of the margins, etc.

http://smallestbookofmormon.blogspot.com/

It's funny, if you copy the text and shrink it down to size 4 font the entire Book of Mormon will fit on about 12 pages front and back.

[Sparko]

OK Jeff, enough trolling. just get out of my thread if you don't want to discuss things seriously.

[nrajeff]

I'm sure that would depend on the font used, the size of the paper, distance between lines, size of the margins, etc.

http://smallestbookofmormon.blogspot.com/

It's funny, if you copy the text and shrink it down to size 4 font the entire Book of Mormon will fit on about 12 pages front and back.

Interesting, but CP failed to qualify his question with such parameters, so your attempt to answer might be a case of "answering the question CP SHOULD have asked."

By the way, Sparko sez: "just get out of my thread if you don't want to discuss things seriously" so I guess CP's question, asked in all seriousness no doubt for fear of incurring Sparko's wrath, will not be dignified with a definitive answer for the time being.

[Cow Poke]

So answer your own question:

Is 76 pages the number of pages the BoM would be without all the "and it came to pass" and "and behold" incidents?

I don't know, Jeff. It was a flippant response to your stupid remark that....

He's not even willing to read 76 pages of the Book of Mormon--the book he criticizes. Give me a break.

Are you really interested in the number of pages that the BoM would be WITHOUT all the "and it came to pass" and "and behold" references? Or is this just more picking of nit.

My "question" was a reference to Mark Twain's comments about the BoM, to wit: (bolding mine)

Mark Twain, Roughing it

The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel--half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern--which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as "exceeding sore," "and it came to pass," etc., and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to pass" was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.

© source where applicable

[Hamster]

Mark Twain says what I haven't been able to articulate clearly

[Sparko]

Mark Twain says what I haven't been able to articulate clearly

My favorite Twain quotes are "a door is something a dog is always on the wrong side of."

and "never trust wikipedia"