FAIR - Contribuciones del usuario [es]

Usuario discusión:RobertCronk

2007-11-06T19:28:52Z

RobertCronk:

Welcome!! Help us all you can. Que Dios te bendiga! -- [[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]]
----
I guess this is your talk page. Anyway, please, feel free to edit and help. We need all the help we can get!

Prohíbe does have an accent. "i" is a weak vowel. If there were no accent, it would sound like "proybe" and not pro-i-be. Anyway, thanks for your help. Please, please, stick around and continue to contribute. The saints in the spanish speaking world really need this service.--[[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]] 21:47 5 nov 2007 (MST)
----
Thanks! It was Google's toolbar Spanish spell checker that suggested that I remove the í accent from prohibe. I'll have to add it to Google's dictionary with the accent so it won't do that again. Thanks for the info. I'll pick a page that nobody is currently working on. When I get done, I'll let you know so you can proofread it for me. I think having multiple sets of eyes will help me with accuracy. Again, thanks. --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 09:46 6 nov 2007 (MST)
----
I use firefox and downloaded the spanish dictionary. You can turn it on and it does spell check, etc, right in the browser. However, it's not perfect. It doesn't catch everything. I also copy and past the text into Microsoft Word and run a spell check there in Spanish. I catch most of them that way.

Would you like to take over this one: http://es.fairmormon.org/Canon_abierto_vs._canon_cerrado?
I honestly have no problem with two people working on the same translation. The only issue is we have to be careful not to both be working at the exact same time.--[[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]]
----
I'll take [[Canon_abierto_vs._canon_cerrado]]. Once I'm done, I'll have you proof it. Do you want me to leave the english in for easier proofing? --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 09:46 6 nov 2007 (MST)
----
No, don't worry about the English. I can always go over to the english site to see it. Also, feel free to edit/rework things as you see fit. Sometimes a looser translation is better than a word-for-word translation. --[[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]]
----
Thanks - yeah, I'm having to pull out an English thesarus to get alternate words because the English word doesn't translate right. So, I first use [http://babelfish.altavista.com babelfish] to bulk translate the paragraph, then I work through that translation (it's not a very good translation, but it gets the bulk done - and it's funny since "spirit" always comes up as "alcohol" - lol), cleaning it up as I go, using english thesaurus and english to spanish online dictionaries to find words babelfish didn't catch, then once I'm done, I really should have someone else proofread it for me. I expect that I'll get better at this as time goes on so that I can produce better results quicker. What's your process? --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 12:26 6 nov 2007 (MST)

Usuario discusión:RobertCronk

2007-11-06T19:26:55Z

RobertCronk:

Welcome!! Help us all you can. Que Dios te bendiga! -- [[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]]
----
I guess this is your talk page. Anyway, please, feel free to edit and help. We need all the help we can get!

Prohíbe does have an accent. "i" is a weak vowel. If there were no accent, it would sound like "proybe" and not pro-i-be. Anyway, thanks for your help. Please, please, stick around and continue to contribute. The saints in the spanish speaking world really need this service.--[[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]] 21:47 5 nov 2007 (MST)
----
Thanks! It was Google's toolbar Spanish spell checker that suggested that I remove the í accent from prohibe. I'll have to add it to Google's dictionary with the accent so it won't do that again. Thanks for the info. I'll pick a page that nobody is currently working on. When I get done, I'll let you know so you can proofread it for me. I think having multiple sets of eyes will help me with accuracy. Again, thanks. --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 09:46 6 nov 2007 (MST)
----
I use firefox and downloaded the spanish dictionary. You can turn it on and it does spell check, etc, right in the browser. However, it's not perfect. It doesn't catch everything. I also copy and past the text into Microsoft Word and run a spell check there in Spanish. I catch most of them that way.

Would you like to take over this one: http://es.fairmormon.org/Canon_abierto_vs._canon_cerrado?
I honestly have no problem with two people working on the same translation. The only issue is we have to be careful not to both be working at the exact same time.--[[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]]
----
I'll take [[Canon_abierto_vs._canon_cerrado]]. Once I'm done, I'll have you proof it. Do you want me to leave the english in for easier proofing? --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 09:46 6 nov 2007 (MST)
----
No, don't worry about the English. I can always go over to the english site to see it. Also, feel free to edit/rework things as you see fit. Sometimes a looser translation is better than a word-for-word translation. --[[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]]
----
Thanks - yeah, I'm having to pull out an English thesarus to get alternate words because the English word doesn't translate right. So, I first use [http://babelfish.altavista.com babelfish] to bulk translate the paragraph, then I work through that translation (it's not a very good translation, but it gets the bulk done), cleaning it up as I go, using english thesaurus and english to spanish online dictionaries to find words babelfish didn't catch, then once I'm done, I really should have someone else proofread it for me. I expect that I'll get better at this as time goes on so that I can produce better results quicker. What's your process? --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 12:26 6 nov 2007 (MST)

Usuario discusión:RobertCronk

2007-11-06T19:26:17Z

RobertCronk:

Welcome!! Help us all you can. Que Dios te bendiga! -- [[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]]
----
I guess this is your talk page. Anyway, please, feel free to edit and help. We need all the help we can get!

Prohíbe does have an accent. "i" is a weak vowel. If there were no accent, it would sound like "proybe" and not pro-i-be. Anyway, thanks for your help. Please, please, stick around and continue to contribute. The saints in the spanish speaking world really need this service.--[[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]] 21:47 5 nov 2007 (MST)
----
Thanks! It was Google's toolbar Spanish spell checker that suggested that I remove the í accent from prohibe. I'll have to add it to Google's dictionary with the accent so it won't do that again. Thanks for the info. I'll pick a page that nobody is currently working on. When I get done, I'll let you know so you can proofread it for me. I think having multiple sets of eyes will help me with accuracy. Again, thanks. --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 09:46 6 nov 2007 (MST)
----
I use firefox and downloaded the spanish dictionary. You can turn it on and it does spell check, etc, right in the browser. However, it's not perfect. It doesn't catch everything. I also copy and past the text into Microsoft Word and run a spell check there in Spanish. I catch most of them that way.

Would you like to take over this one: http://es.fairmormon.org/Canon_abierto_vs._canon_cerrado?
I honestly have no problem with two people working on the same translation. The only issue is we have to be careful not to both be working at the exact same time.--[[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]]
----
I'll take [[Canon_abierto_vs._canon_cerrado]]. Once I'm done, I'll have you proof it. Do you want me to leave the english in for easier proofing? --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 09:46 6 nov 2007 (MST)
----
No, don't worry about the English. I can always go over to the english site to see it. Also, feel free to edit/rework things as you see fit. Sometimes a looser translation is better than a word-for-word translation. --[[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]]
----
Thanks - yeah, I'm having to pull out an English thesarus to get alternate words because the English word doesn't translate right. So, I first use [http://babelfish.altavista.com babelfish] to bulk translate the paragraph, then I work through that translation, cleaning it up as I go, using english thesaurus and english to spanish online dictionaries to find words babelfish didn't catch, then once I'm done, I really should have someone else proofread it for me. I expect that I'll get better at this as time goes on so that I can produce better results quicker. What's your process? --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 12:26 6 nov 2007 (MST)

Pregunta: ¿El Mormonismo está en error porque el cristianismo requiere un "canon cerrado" en lugar del "canon abierto"?

2007-11-06T19:21:20Z

RobertCronk: /* Dios es superior a su palabra escrita */

==La acusación==
Los críticos dicen que la Iglesia está en el error porque el cristianismo requiere un “canon cerrado” (o sea, no hay más revelación autorizado) mientras que la Iglesia de Jesucristo de SUD tiene un “canon abierto” con la posibilidad de recibir más revelaciones.

===La(s) Fuente(s) de la acusación===

*Luke P. Wilson, “Lost Books & Latter-Day Revelation: A Response to Mormon Views of the New Testament Canon,” ''Christian Research Journal'' (Fall 1996): 27–33.

==La respuesta==

===Dios es superior a su palabra escrita ===
La biblia es un registro importante que contiene algunos de los mensajes que Dios dio al mundo en tiempos antiguos. Sin embargo, la Biblia—tanto como todos de los textos escritos—no debe ser el enfoque central de la vida y la fe del cristiano. Hay Uno solo que merece eso: el Dios todopoderoso.

Un autor (no SUD) cristiano comentó:

:Es posible, sin embargo, dar énfasis a la biblia tanto y darle un lagar tan central que la conciencia cristiana sensible debe rebelar. Podemos ilustrar tal sobrecarga en la biblia por (y quizás empleado mal) la cita de uso frecuente de Chillingworth: "la biblia solamente es la religión de protestantismo." O podemos recordar cómo se ha dicho a menudo que la biblia es la autoridad final para el cristiano. Si no se parece demasiado graciosa, quisiera poner en una buena palabra para Dios. Es Dios y no la biblia que es el hecho central para el cristiano. Cuando hablamos "de la palabra del Dios" utilizamos una frase que, usada correctamente, pueda aplicarse a la biblia, pero tiene un significado primario más profundo. Es Dios que habla al hombre. Pero él no hace solamente por medio de la biblia. Él habla a través de profetas y de apóstoles. Él habla con acontecimientos específicos. Y mientras que su mensaje único a la iglesia encuentra su expediente central y expresión escrita en la biblia, esta misma referencia a la biblia nos recuerda que Cristo es la Palabra de Dios de una manera viva, personal que se sobrepase lo que tenemos incluso en este libro único. Incluso la biblia demuestra ser la Palabra de Dios solamente cuando el Espíritu Santo que trabaja dentro de nosotros atestigua la verdad y la autoridad divina de lo que dice la escritura. La fe no debe dar a las ayudas que Dios proporciona la reverencia y la atención que pertenecen solamente a Dios nuestro Padre y el señor Jesucristo. Nuestra esperanza está en dios; nuestra vida está en Cristo; nuestra poder está en el Espíritu. La biblia nos habla del centro divino de toda la vida y ayuda y poder, pero no es el centro. La enseñanza cristiana sobre el canon no debe deificar la escritura.{{ref|floyd1}}

:''It is possible, however, to stress the Bible so much and give it so central a place that the sensitive Christian conscience must rebel. We may illustrate such overstress on the Bible by the often-used (and perhaps misused) quotation from Chillingworth: “The Bible alone is the religion of Protestantism.” Or we may recall how often it has been said that the Bible is the final authority for the Christian. If it will not seem too facetious, I would like to put in a good word for God. It is God and not the Bible who is the central fact for the Christian. When we speak of “the Word of God” we use a phrase which, properly used, may apply to the Bible, but it has a deeper primary meaning. It is God who speaks to man. But he does not do so only through the Bible. He speaks through prophets and apostles. He speaks through specific events. And while his unique message to the Church finds its central record and written expression in the Bible, this very reference to the Bible reminds us that Christ is the Word of God in a living, personal way which surpasses what we have even in this unique book. Even the Bible proves to be the Word of God only when the Holy Spirit working within us attests the truth and divine authority of what the Scripture says. Faith must not give to the aids that God provides the reverence and attention that Belong only to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Our hope is in God; our life is in Christ; our power is in the Spirit. The Bible speaks to us of the divine center of all life and help and power, but it is not the center. The Christian teaching about the canon must not deify the Scripture.''

To argue that the canon is closed effectively seeks to place God's written word (the Bible) above God Himself. Some have even called this practice "bibolatry" or "bibliolatry." Critics are effectively ordering God not to reveal anything further, or refusing to even consider that He might choose to speak again.

===El canon cerrado no es una doctrina bíblica===

The idea of a closed canon is not a Biblical doctrine. The Bible bears record that God called prophets in the past. Why could He not—indeed, why ''would'' He not—continue to do so?

Ironically, it would seem that the only way to know that there can be no extra-Biblical revelation is via revelation: otherwise, decisions about God's Word are being made by human intellect alone. Yet, since the Bible does not claim that it is the sole source of revealed truth, the only potential source of a revelation to close the canon would be extra-Biblical. Thus, those who insist on a closed canon are in the uncomfortable position of requiring extra-Biblical revelation to rule out extra-Biblical revelation!{{ref|tpjs1}}

Throughout Biblical history, the canon was clearly ''not'' closed. New prophets were called, and new authoritative writing was made. It would seem strange for this to cease without revelatory notice being given that God's practices were about to change.

===La interpretación de las escrituras se requiere la revelación===

Even if one were to grant that the Bible contains all ''necessary'' teachings, it is clear from Christian history that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways by sincere readers. What else but additional, on-going revelation can settle legitimate questions of interpretation and application of God's word? Are we to rely on human reason alone to do so? Does this not in essence turn to an extra-Biblical source for information about divine matters?

==La conclusión==

Las doctrinas que no hay mas revelacion y que el canon de escrituras esta cerrado no se encuentran en la Biblia. To insist upon this doctrine is to place a non-Biblical doctrine in a place of pre-eminence, and insist that God must be bound by it. Such a doctrine would require the very revelation it denies to be authoritative. Even the proper interpretation of Biblical teachings requires authoritative revelation, which are necessarily extra-Biblical.

Critics are free to hold these beliefs if they wish, but they ought not to criticize the LDS for believing extra-Biblical doctrines when they themselves insist upon the non-Biblical closed canon.

==Notas de pie==
#{{note|floyd1}} Floyd V. Filson, ''Which Books Belong in the Bible?'' (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), 20–21.
#{{note|tpjs1}} Joseph Smith made this observation in {{TPJS1|start=61}}

Usuario discusión:RobertCronk

2007-11-06T16:48:21Z

RobertCronk:

Usuario:RobertCronk

2007-11-06T16:47:26Z

RobertCronk:

Soy gringo. Fui a Santiago, Chile (Oeste) para la misión. Mi español no es perfecto pero trato de ayudar donde puedo.

Usuario discusión:RobertCronk

2007-11-06T16:46:54Z

RobertCronk:

I guess this is your talk page. Anyway, please, feel free to edit and help. We need all the help we can get!

Prohíbe does have an accent. "i" is a weak vowel. If there were no accent, it would sound like "proybe" and not pro-i-be. Anyway, thanks for your help. Please, please, stick around and continue to contribute. The saints in the spanish speaking world really need this service.--[[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]] 21:47 5 nov 2007 (MST)

----
Thanks! It was Google's toolbar Spanish spell checker that suggested that I remove the í accent from prohibe. I'll have to add it to Google's dictionary with the accent so it won't do that again. Thanks for the info. I'll pick a page that nobody is currently working on. When I get done, I'll let you know so you can proofread it for me. I think having multiple sets of eyes will help me with accuracy. Again, thanks. --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 09:46 6 nov 2007 (MST)
----
I use firefox and downloaded the spanish dictionary. You can turn it on and it does spell check, etc, right in the browser. However, it's not perfect. It doesn't catch everything. I also copy and past the text into Microsoft Word and run a spell check there in Spanish. I catch most of them that way.

Would you like to take over this one: http://es.fairmormon.org/Canon_abierto_vs._canon_cerrado? You could take over this: http://es.fairmormon.org/El_templo_de_Independence_se_edificar%C3%A1_%22en_esta_generaci%C3%B3n%22

I honestly have no problem with two people working on the same translation. The only issue is we have to be careful not to both be working at the exact same time.--[[Usuario:AndrewMiller|AndrewMiller]]
----
I'll take [[Canon_abierto_vs._canon_cerrado]]. Once I'm done, I'll have you proof it. Do you want me to leave the english in for easier proofing? --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 09:46 6 nov 2007 (MST)

Usuario discusión:RobertCronk

2007-11-06T04:47:40Z

RobertCronk:

El templo de Independence «se edificará en esta generación»

2007-11-06T00:04:31Z

RobertCronk: /* La acusación */

==La acusación==

Los críticos señalan a la profecía de José Smith que el templo de Independence, Missouri "será alzada en esta generación" como ejemplo de una profecía fallada que haga José Smith un profeta falso.



Critics point to Joseph Smith's prophecy that the Independence, Missouri
temple "shall be reared in this generation" as an example of a failed prophecy
that makes Joseph Smith a false prophet.



==Response==

===Historical background===
On 20 July 1831 Joseph Smith recorded a revelation identifying Independence, Missouri, as "the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/57/3#3 D&C 57:3]). Joseph and Sidney Rigdon dedicated a site for the temple on 3 August 1831. The following year, Joseph received another revelation concerning the gathering to Zion:

:2 [T]he word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. 3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, ''which temple shall be reared in this generation.'' 5 For verily ''this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built'' unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. —[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/84/2-5#2 D&C 84:2–5], emphasis added

The Saints were expelled from Jackson County in late 1834, before they could make any progress on the temple. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to return to reclaim their lands. After they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph recorded another revelation rescinding the earlier commandment to build the Independence temple:

:49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.... 51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God. —[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/124/49,51#49 D&C 124:49, 51]

===Meaning of "shall"===
It is unclear from the wording of the 1832 revelation whether Joseph Smith meant it to be a prophecy or a commandment. When he declared the "temple ''shall'' be reared in this generation," it's possible that he meant this as a directive. If this is the case, D&C 84 is not actually a prophecy.

===Meaning of "generation"===
If the revelation is meant as a prophecy, the timeline for its fulfillment depends on what Joseph meant by "generation." Typically we consider this to mean the lifespan of those living at the time of the revelation. However, in scriptural language "generation" can indicate a longer period of time.

During his ministry in Jerusalem, Jesus revealed the signs of his second coming, and prophesied that "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/24/34#34 Matthew 24:34]). All those who heard his prophecy died nearly 2,000 years ago, so evidently Jesus meant "generation" to mean "age" or some other long period of time. It's possible that Joseph meant the same thing in his revelation about the Independence temple, and therefore the time period for its fulfillment is still open.

==Conclusion==
Joseph Smith's revelation in D&C 84 may appear on the surface to be a failed prophecy, but a more nuanced exegesis reveals that it may not have been a prophecy, and if it is, its fulfillment is still in the future.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{ProphecyWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{ProphecyFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{1min | article=Did Joseph Smith Falsely Prophesy Of a Temple In Independence? | url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/independence-temple.htm}}
*Christian R. Jurado, "The Use of 'Generation' in D&C 84:1–5," ''mormonfortress.com''. {{link|url=http://www.mormonfortress.com/gen1.html}}
{{ProphecyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{ProphecyPrint}}

Usuario:RobertCronk

2007-11-06T00:03:26Z

RobertCronk:

Soy gringo. Fui a Santiago, Chile (Oeste) por mi misión. Mi español no es perfecto pero trato a ayudar donde puedo.

Usuario discusión:AndrewMiller

2007-11-05T23:57:31Z

RobertCronk:

= Hey =
Andrew - This is Robert. I'm just starting to help with the translation here at the wiki and I noticed that you were translating the same page I messed with today and I hope I'm not stepping on any toes. My Spanish is a bit rusty but I'm trying to help where I can. Let me know on my talk page if you want me to work in a different area or whatever. FAIR has been very helpful to me over the past year as I have refuted anti-Mormon junk and I want so much for my friends in Chile (and everywhere else that speaks Spanish) to have the same great resource. Oh, and it will help my Spanish a bit too, I hope. Take care. --[[Usuario:RobertCronk|RobertCronk]] 16:57 5 nov 2007 (MST)

Usuario:RobertCronk

2007-11-05T23:52:57Z

RobertCronk:

Soy gringo. Fue a Santiago Chile en mi misión. Mi español no es perfecto pero trato a ayudar cuando puedo.

El templo de Independence «se edificará en esta generación»

2007-11-05T23:49:55Z

RobertCronk: /* La acusación */

==La acusación==

Los críticos señalan a la profecía de José Smith que el templo de Independence, Missouri "será alzada en esta generación" como ejemplo de una profecía fallada que haga José Smith un profeta falso.



Critics point to Joseph Smith's prophecy that the Independence, Missouri
temple "shall be reared in this generation" as an example of a failed prophecy
that makes Joseph Smith a false prophet.



==Response==

===Historical background===
On 20 July 1831 Joseph Smith recorded a revelation identifying Independence, Missouri, as "the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/57/3#3 D&C 57:3]). Joseph and Sidney Rigdon dedicated a site for the temple on 3 August 1831. The following year, Joseph received another revelation concerning the gathering to Zion:

:2 [T]he word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. 3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, ''which temple shall be reared in this generation.'' 5 For verily ''this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built'' unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. —[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/84/2-5#2 D&C 84:2–5], emphasis added

The Saints were expelled from Jackson County in late 1834, before they could make any progress on the temple. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to return to reclaim their lands. After they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph recorded another revelation rescinding the earlier commandment to build the Independence temple:

:49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.... 51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God. —[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/124/49,51#49 D&C 124:49, 51]

===Meaning of "shall"===
It is unclear from the wording of the 1832 revelation whether Joseph Smith meant it to be a prophecy or a commandment. When he declared the "temple ''shall'' be reared in this generation," it's possible that he meant this as a directive. If this is the case, D&C 84 is not actually a prophecy.

===Meaning of "generation"===
If the revelation is meant as a prophecy, the timeline for its fulfillment depends on what Joseph meant by "generation." Typically we consider this to mean the lifespan of those living at the time of the revelation. However, in scriptural language "generation" can indicate a longer period of time.

During his ministry in Jerusalem, Jesus revealed the signs of his second coming, and prophesied that "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/24/34#34 Matthew 24:34]). All those who heard his prophecy died nearly 2,000 years ago, so evidently Jesus meant "generation" to mean "age" or some other long period of time. It's possible that Joseph meant the same thing in his revelation about the Independence temple, and therefore the time period for its fulfillment is still open.

==Conclusion==
Joseph Smith's revelation in D&C 84 may appear on the surface to be a failed prophecy, but a more nuanced exegesis reveals that it may not have been a prophecy, and if it is, its fulfillment is still in the future.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{ProphecyWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{ProphecyFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{1min | article=Did Joseph Smith Falsely Prophesy Of a Temple In Independence? | url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/independence-temple.htm}}
*Christian R. Jurado, "The Use of 'Generation' in D&C 84:1–5," ''mormonfortress.com''. {{link|url=http://www.mormonfortress.com/gen1.html}}
{{ProphecyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{ProphecyPrint}}

El templo de Independence «se edificará en esta generación»

2007-11-05T23:45:05Z

RobertCronk: /* La acusación */

==La acusación==

Los críticos señalan a la profecía de José Smith que el templo de Independence, Missouri "será alzada en esta generación" como ejemplo de una profecía fallada que haga José Smith un profeta falso.



Critics point to Joseph Smith's prophecy that the Independence, Missouri
temple "shall be reared in this generation" as an example of a failed prophecy
that makes Joseph Smith a false prophet.

===Las fuente(s) de la acusación===

==Response==

===Historical background===
On 20 July 1831 Joseph Smith recorded a revelation identifying Independence, Missouri, as "the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/57/3#3 D&C 57:3]). Joseph and Sidney Rigdon dedicated a site for the temple on 3 August 1831. The following year, Joseph received another revelation concerning the gathering to Zion:

:2 [T]he word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. 3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, ''which temple shall be reared in this generation.'' 5 For verily ''this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built'' unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. —[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/84/2-5#2 D&C 84:2–5], emphasis added

The Saints were expelled from Jackson County in late 1834, before they could make any progress on the temple. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to return to reclaim their lands. After they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph recorded another revelation rescinding the earlier commandment to build the Independence temple:

:49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.... 51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God. —[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/124/49,51#49 D&C 124:49, 51]

===Meaning of "shall"===
It is unclear from the wording of the 1832 revelation whether Joseph Smith meant it to be a prophecy or a commandment. When he declared the "temple ''shall'' be reared in this generation," it's possible that he meant this as a directive. If this is the case, D&C 84 is not actually a prophecy.

===Meaning of "generation"===
If the revelation is meant as a prophecy, the timeline for its fulfillment depends on what Joseph meant by "generation." Typically we consider this to mean the lifespan of those living at the time of the revelation. However, in scriptural language "generation" can indicate a longer period of time.

During his ministry in Jerusalem, Jesus revealed the signs of his second coming, and prophesied that "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/24/34#34 Matthew 24:34]). All those who heard his prophecy died nearly 2,000 years ago, so evidently Jesus meant "generation" to mean "age" or some other long period of time. It's possible that Joseph meant the same thing in his revelation about the Independence temple, and therefore the time period for its fulfillment is still open.

==Conclusion==
Joseph Smith's revelation in D&C 84 may appear on the surface to be a failed prophecy, but a more nuanced exegesis reveals that it may not have been a prophecy, and if it is, its fulfillment is still in the future.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{ProphecyWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{ProphecyFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{1min | article=Did Joseph Smith Falsely Prophesy Of a Temple In Independence? | url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/independence-temple.htm}}
*Christian R. Jurado, "The Use of 'Generation' in D&C 84:1–5," ''mormonfortress.com''. {{link|url=http://www.mormonfortress.com/gen1.html}}
{{ProphecyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{ProphecyPrint}}

El templo de Independence «se edificará en esta generación»

2007-11-05T23:44:24Z

RobertCronk: /* La acusación */

==La acusación==

Los críticos señalan a la profecía de José Smith que el templo de Independence, Missouri "será alzada en esta generación" como ejemplo de una profecía fallada que haga José Smith un profeta falso.



Critics point to Joseph Smith's prophecy that the Independence, Missouri
temple "shall be reared in this generation" as an example of a failed prophecy
that makes Joseph Smith a false prophet.



==Response==

===Historical background===
On 20 July 1831 Joseph Smith recorded a revelation identifying Independence, Missouri, as "the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/57/3#3 D&C 57:3]). Joseph and Sidney Rigdon dedicated a site for the temple on 3 August 1831. The following year, Joseph received another revelation concerning the gathering to Zion:

:2 [T]he word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. 3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, ''which temple shall be reared in this generation.'' 5 For verily ''this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built'' unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. —[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/84/2-5#2 D&C 84:2–5], emphasis added

The Saints were expelled from Jackson County in late 1834, before they could make any progress on the temple. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to return to reclaim their lands. After they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph recorded another revelation rescinding the earlier commandment to build the Independence temple:

:49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.... 51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God. —[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/124/49,51#49 D&C 124:49, 51]

===Meaning of "shall"===
It is unclear from the wording of the 1832 revelation whether Joseph Smith meant it to be a prophecy or a commandment. When he declared the "temple ''shall'' be reared in this generation," it's possible that he meant this as a directive. If this is the case, D&C 84 is not actually a prophecy.

===Meaning of "generation"===
If the revelation is meant as a prophecy, the timeline for its fulfillment depends on what Joseph meant by "generation." Typically we consider this to mean the lifespan of those living at the time of the revelation. However, in scriptural language "generation" can indicate a longer period of time.

During his ministry in Jerusalem, Jesus revealed the signs of his second coming, and prophesied that "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/24/34#34 Matthew 24:34]). All those who heard his prophecy died nearly 2,000 years ago, so evidently Jesus meant "generation" to mean "age" or some other long period of time. It's possible that Joseph meant the same thing in his revelation about the Independence temple, and therefore the time period for its fulfillment is still open.

==Conclusion==
Joseph Smith's revelation in D&C 84 may appear on the surface to be a failed prophecy, but a more nuanced exegesis reveals that it may not have been a prophecy, and if it is, its fulfillment is still in the future.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{ProphecyWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{ProphecyFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{1min | article=Did Joseph Smith Falsely Prophesy Of a Temple In Independence? | url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/independence-temple.htm}}
*Christian R. Jurado, "The Use of 'Generation' in D&C 84:1–5," ''mormonfortress.com''. {{link|url=http://www.mormonfortress.com/gen1.html}}
{{ProphecyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{ProphecyPrint}}

Pregunta: ¿El hecho de que la Biblia declare que nada debe ser "agregado a" o "quitado" del libro significa que el Libro de Mormón es falso?

2007-11-05T23:32:18Z

RobertCronk: /* La respuesta */

Artículo traducido y redactado con permiso de FAIRLDS por: '''Alberto Barrios''' y '''[mailto:elderaim@Hotmail.com Andrew Miller]'''

==La acusación==

La acusación afirma que el Libro de Mormón no puede ser verdadero porque nada debería ser "agregado a" o "quitado de" la Santa Biblia.

===Las fuente(s) de la acusación===

"[José] Smith aparentemente no estaba enterado de la expresa advertencia acerca de agregar o quitar de la palabra de Dios, o con gusto desobedeció a ella (véase Apoc. 22:18,19)." - el "Dr." Walter Martin, Mormonismo (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1984), 29. [''La traducción es nuestra.'']

==La respuesta==

El pasaje citado con frecuencia (por el "Dr." Martin, arriba) es Apocalipsis 22:18-19.

:''Yo testifico a todo aquel que oye las palabras de la profecía de este libro: Si alguno añadiere a estas cosas, Dios traerá sobre él las plagas que están escritas en este libro. Y si alguno quitare de las palabras del libro de esta profecía, Dios quitará su parte del libro de la vida, y de la Santa ciudad y de las cosas que están escritas en este libro.''

Sin embargo, el crítico ignora que:

* El libro de Apocalipsis fue escrito antes de varios otros textos bíblicos, sin olvidar que fue unido a una colección de textos. No obstante, estos versículos pueden ser aplicados solamente al libro de Apocalipsis, y no a la Biblia completa (algunos de los cuales fueron escritos de nuevo y ninguno aun había sido recopilado como "La Biblia"). Mientras la fecha tradicional del libro de Apocalipsis es de 95 o 96 años después de Cristo (primeramente basado en unas afirmaciones de Irenaeus), la mayoría de eruditos fechan el libro entre 68 o 69 años después de Cristo. El evangelio de Juan es generalmente fechado entre 95 - 100 años después de Cristo (para mas información sobre las fechas del Apocalipsis, véase el artículo bíblico (en inglés) por Thomas B. Slater's [http://www.bsw.org/?l=71841&a=Ani04.html Bíblica article]).

* El nuevo testamento está compuesto en primer lugar de los cuatro evangelios y luego de las epístolas apostólicas. Puesto que el libro de Apocalipsis no es un libro evangélico ni una epístola apostólica, los que compilaron el nuevo testamento lo agregaron al final del nuevo testamento. Juan no tenía la intención de escribir las últimas líneas como advertencia y aplicarlas a toda la Biblia, ya que él no se encontraba escribiendo el capítulo final de la Biblia completa y puesto que la Biblia no estaría canonizada y completada por unos siglos después.

* Otras escrituras (tales como Deuteronomio 4:2, Deuteronomio 12:32, y Proverbios 30:6) de manera similar también prohiben agregarle a las escrituras, así que los argumentos de los críticos no parecen tan consistentes, porque tendrían que descartar todo lo escrito en el nuevo testamento y mucho del antiguo testamento, siendo que estos versículos anteceden a "las otras escrituras" agregadas por el mismo Dios por medio de antiguos profetas.

* Hay más evidencia que el Apocalipsis 22:19 no se refiere a la Biblia completa cuando dice “las palabras del libro de esta profecía” al comparar el pasaje con Apocalipsis 1:3 y 1:10-11 (“Bienaventurado el que lee, y los que oyen '''las palabras de esta profecía'''”. "Yo estaba en el Espíritu en el día del Señor, y oí detrás de mí una gran voz como de trompeta, Que decía: Yo soy el Alpha y Omega, el primero y el último. '''Escribe en un libro lo que ves''', y envíalo a las siete iglesias que están en Asia; a Efeso, y a Smirna, y a Pérgamo, y a Tiatira, y a Sardis, y a Filadelfia, y a Laodicea."). Está claro que el libro a que se refiere en el principio de Apocalipsis es el mismo libro al que refiere en fin de Apocalipsis. Todo lo que vio y oyó Juan entre estos dos puntos es el libro a que se refiere.

* La Biblia le prohibe al hombre agregarle a o quitarse de la palabra de Dios; pero no dice que Dios no pueda hacerlo, por medio de un profeta, agregarle a la palabra de Dios. Si esto no fuera posible, entonces la Biblia nunca habría existido.

El erudito Bart Ehrman escribió en cuanto al pasaje en Apocalipsis:

:Eso no es amenaza que el lector tiene que aceptar o creer todo lo escrito en este libro de profecía, como a veces se interpreta; mas bien, es una amenaza típica a los escribientes del libro, que ellos no debían añadir ni quitar las palabras de él. Imprecaciones similares se encuentran en muchos lugares en los escritos de los cristianos antiguos.{{ref|ehrman}}

O sea, Juan estaba preocupado con el texto que él escribió, sabiendo que hubo personas que tratarían de cambiar el texto mismo. El profeta Nefi del Libro de Mormón menciona que una “grande y abominable iglesia” iba a quitar “muchas cosas claras y preciosas del libro [la Biblia], el cual es el libro del Cordero de Dios” ([http://scriptures.lds.org/es/1_ne/13 1 Nefi 13:28]). Entonces, el Apocalipsis 22:18-19, irónicamente, apoya fuertemente a las creencias mormonas.

==La conclusión==
Los criticones, como “los indoctos e inconstantes,” tuercen las palabras de Apocalipsis “como también las otras Escrituras” (2 Pedro 3:16). No entienden la manera en que fue canonizada la Biblia e ignoran a las escrituras anteriores y el contexto del pasaje para mantener su idea falsa. Al considerar el contexto del pasaje, hemos visto que en realidad apoya las creencias mormonas que hubo ciertas cosas que fueron quitadas de la Biblia y que fueron restauradas por medio de las otras escrituras sagradas que Dios ha revelado en nuestro día. Los criticones ignoran la verdad de eso porque quieren mantener que el Libro de Mormón ni ''puede'' ser de origen divino. Jesucristo, de otro modo, nos dijo que debemos pedirle ''a Dios'' para saber la verdad y que no debemos confiar en el brazo de ''los hombres''.

El profeta Nefi vio nuestro día y sabía cómo responderían los críticos del Libro de Mormón. Por el don de profecía escribió así:

:''Sí, ¡ay de aquel que escucha los preceptos de los hombres, y niega el poder de Dios y el don del Espíritu Santo! Sí, ¡ay de aquel que dice: Hemos recibido, y no necesitamos más! Y por fin, ¡ay de todos aquellos que tiemblan, y están enojados a causa de la verdad de Dios! Pues he aquí, aquel que está edificado sobre la roca, la recibe con gozo; y el que está fundado sobre un cimiento arenoso, tiembla por miedo de caer.¡Ay del que diga: Hemos recibido la palabra de Dios, y no necesitamos más de la palabra de Dios, porque ya tenemos suficiente! Pues he aquí, así dice el Señor Dios: Daré a los hijos de los hombres línea por línea, precepto por precepto, un poco aquí y un poco allí; y benditos son aquellos que escuchan mis preceptos y prestan atención a mis consejos, porque aprenderán sabiduría; pues a quien reciba, le daré más; y a los que digan: Tenemos bastante, les será quitado aun lo que tuvieren. ¡Maldito es aquel que pone su confianza en el hombre, o hace de la carne su brazo, o escucha los preceptos de los hombres, salvo cuando sus preceptos sean dados por el poder del Espíritu Santo!'' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/es/2_ne/28 2 Nefi 28:26-31])

==Notas de pie==
#{{note|ehrman}}Bart D. Ehrman, ''Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why'' (HarperSanFrancisco, 2007), 54–55. [''La traducción es nuestra.'']