Catholic Polygamy

[Fatboys]

so why did these ‘interpreters’ use Elizabethan English instead of 19th C. American English for their translation?

As I have said, the language of the sacred scriptures was in the form of old English. Since the translation process worked through Joseph Smiths own personal understanding and knowledge, this was how it was portrayed to him as a sacred text. It makes little difference what form it was translated in. It has been looked at and studied and tried to be torn apart but has withstood the onslaught. As has been explained, if someone has lost their testimony because of the type of language it was translated into, then is missing the point of the whole restoration.

 

[Fatboys]

Jesus taught it.

Matt. 19:

10 The disciples said to him, ‘If that is how things are between husband and wife, it is advisable not to marry.’
11 But he replied, ‘It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted.
12 There are eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’

So did St. Paul.

1 Cor.
7 I should still like everyone to be as I am myself; but everyone has his own gift from God, one this kind and the next something different.
8 To the unmarried and to widows I say: it is good for them to stay as they are, like me.

Is that ‘early’ enough for you?

These early church fathers are a little later:

St. John Chrysostom, A.D. 392: “That virginity is good I do agree. But that it is even better than marriage, this I do confess. And if you wish, I will add that it is as much better than marriage as Heaven is better than Earth, as much better as angels are better than men.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1116)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 350: “While you maintain perfect chastity, do not be puffed up in vain conceit against those who walk a humbler path in matrimony…. Because you have a possession of gold, do not on that account hold the silver in contempt.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 818c)

So are you saying that a person who is married can not be moral as someone who is not married by choice?

 

[RebeccaJ]

So are you saying that a person who is married can not be moral as someone who is not married by choice?

Humility is a virtue, not a vice or a defect. Also, married people are called to be chaste. I know, I know, Mormon teaching conflates chastity with contintence. But they are not the same thing.

 

[twopekinguys]

What a poor reason to disbelieve the BofM. If God chooses to reveal words in 19th century English, Elizabethan ,or some other form, he may do so. In an effort to further this false crticism, some try to claim that the reason Joseph wanted to match the KJV was to make the BofM appear more authentic. That is simply guess work based on personal bias.

See post 240.

Those are excellent reasons to disbelieve the BoM.

Why haven’t you or Fatboys responded to that post? Is it because you can’t?

 

[Fatboys]

In an earlier post, you tried to assert that the Catholic Church’s view, and mainstream protestant view of the Trinity was wrong.

We also talked about the changes to the book of mormon. In all of your studying, did you know that original 1830 version is quite different than todays?

1830 version

1 Nephi 3, p. 25* And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh

Today’s version

1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God.

So, the book of mormon, kind of had a huge doctrinal shift there wouldn’t you say? Going from the traditional view to something totally different.

This is one of my favorites.

1830 version

Alma 15, p. 303 yea, I know that he alloteth unto men , yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills

Current version

Alma 29:4yea, I know that he alloteth unto men, according to their wills.

So, we have gone from not changing God’s decrees, to allowing men to change it according to their own will.

These aren’t typos and punctuation problems.

Underlining mine

I already addressed this. When Oliver Cowdery scribed there was no punctuation. Also much of the changes were grammer. Some of it was corrected by Joseph Smith from the first edition. Some were mistakes by the printers. There was no doctrinal changes, 99% were changes so it can be read and understood better.

 

[pablope]

I already addressed this. When Oliver Cowdery scribed there was no punctuation. Also much of the changes were grammer. Some of it was corrected by Joseph Smith from the first edition. Some were mistakes by the printers. There was no doctrinal changes, 99% were changes so it can be read and understood better.

So…in other words…the revelation, the transmission of the translation, was wrong to begin with?

So what you are also saying…is the revelation was not reliable…and the men of the LDS, the leaders who established the LDS…founded it on false premises, were frauds? Or were duped because what they received initially was not true or correct…and they foisted this fraud unto unsuspecting followers of theirs?

 

[twopekinguys]

I already addressed this. When Oliver Cowdery scribed there was no punctuation. Also much of the changes were grammer. Some of it was corrected by Joseph Smith from the first edition. Some were mistakes by the printers. There was no doctrinal changes, 99% were changes so it can be read and understood better.

You didn’t see any doctrinal changes in the two things I cited?

Really?

Are you pulling my leg?

For one, the definition of who Jesus is. That is HUGE.

The other one clearly shows that the mormon god changes his mind. First he says don’t change anything I say, then he changes and says its ok.

Both of those are huge doctrinally. I can’t believe you don’t see it that way.

But on the other hand, most mormons I have encountered disregard facts all the time.

Again, neither of these 2 changes (and there are lots more) have nothing to do with punctuation and grammar, so that part of your response is from left field, and totally off topic.

 

[SteveVH]

What a poor reason to disbelieve the BofM. If God chooses to reveal words in 19th century English, Elizabethan ,or some other form, he may do so. In an effort to further this false crticism, some try to claim that the reason Joseph wanted to match the KJV was to make the BofM appear more authentic. That is simply guess work based on personal bias.

No, it may be guess work, but it is based upon the character of Joseph Smith both before and after the BoM was penned and is a very reasonable guess. I’d put my money on it. After having the Book of Abraham proven to be a fraud, why in the world anyone would put any faith in anything Joseph Smith said or wrote is absolutely beyond me.

 

[SteveVH]

Paul was married

Sorry I’m just getting to this. We don’t know Paul’s marital status prior to the time of his ministry but we do know that he was not married (possibly a widower) during it. Are the words “It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.” confusing? Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

 

[Porknpie]

No, it may be guess work, but it is based upon the character of Joseph Smith both before and after the BoM was penned and is a very reasonable guess. I’d put my money on it. After having the Book of Abraham proven to be a fraud, why in the world anyone would put any faith in anything Joseph Smith said or wrote is absolutely beyond me.

Steve -

Remember he was a fraud when he…

• Sold Snake Oil
• Claimed to find buried treasure in the ground using a seer stone (will later use this trickery again)

He then moved on to a religious fraud. Why? IMHO, it was an easier, bigger (more power to him), more financially lucrative & sexually fulfilling fraud (including sex w/underage children, marrying mothers & daughters, committing adultery numerous times and breaking the law with polygamy)

How this can not be understood for what it is …is beyond me. Add to it:

• claim that the Catholic Church went into a “Great Apostasy” which can not be shown (just the extreme opposite…the church grew greatly in numbers, led by the Holy Spirit and the first 20 or so Popes were martyred for their faith)
• American Indians as a tribe from the Middle East and science proves genetically they are from Asia
• no archaeological evidence of any great civilization in the Americas
• no great battle in Cumorah NY that killed millions.
  etc etc

 

[Fatboys]

Steve -

Remember he was a fraud when he…

• Sold Snake Oil
• Claimed to find buried treasure in the ground using a seer stone (will later use this trickery again)

He then moved on to a religious fraud. Why? IMHO, it was an easier, bigger (more power to him), more financially lucrative & sexually fulfilling fraud (including sex w/underage children, marrying mothers & daughters, committing adultery numerous times and breaking the law with polygamy)

How this can not be understood for what it is …is beyond me. Add to it:

• claim that the Catholic Church went into a “Great Apostasy” which can not be shown (just the extreme opposite…the church grew greatly in numbers, led by the Holy Spirit and the first 20 or so Popes were martyred for their faith)
• American Indians as a tribe from the Middle East and science proves genetically they are from Asia
• no archaeological evidence of any great civilization in the Americas
• no great battle in Cumorah NY that killed millions.
  etc etc

The Book of Mormon does not say that a tribe from the middle east makes up what the american indians are today. It does teach of several migrations from the parts of the world. The first is at the time of the tower of Babel and the confounding of the languages. Other migrations that came, left without their records and lost much of their idenity. The verdict is still out on the DNA. And are you saying there were no great civilizations found in archeology in the Americas? Incas, and Mayan? Great pyrimads that rival the egyptian ones, use of cement, great roads that are as straight as a arrow. There were great civilizations here. And the Book of Mormon does not say that there was a great battle in New York.

 

[vsedriver]

What a poor reason to disbelieve the BofM. If God chooses to reveal words in 19th century English, Elizabethan ,or some other form, he may do so. In an effort to further this false crticism, some try to claim that the reason Joseph wanted to match the KJV was to make the BofM appear more authentic. That is simply guess work based on personal bias.

it’s an excellent reason to disbelieve the BofM. It implies that God is not logical.

 

[vsedriver]

As I have said, the language of the sacred scriptures was in the form of old English. Since the translation process worked through Joseph Smiths own personal understanding and knowledge, this was how it was portrayed to him as a sacred text. It makes little difference what form it was translated in. It has been looked at and studied and tried to be torn apart but has withstood the onslaught.

The language of the sacred scriptures was Hebrew, and Greek. But Joseph Smith only knew the KJV of the Bible. That is not sacred language, that is only a translation in Elizabethan English. The English does not make it ‘sacred language’.

Revelation has always been given to the prophet in his own language. John did not write Revelations in ancient Hebrew.

If the BofM had been true revelation it would have been sacred in 19th century English and not needed to be written like KJV English to ‘sound’ sacred.

As has been explained, if someone has lost their testimony because of the type of language it was translated into, then is missing the point of the whole restoration.

First you’d have to prove there was a need for restoration.

 

[vsedriver]

So are you saying that a person who is married can not be moral as someone who is not married by choice?

no, that is not what I am saying.

 

[Fatboys]

So…in other words…the revelation, the transmission of the translation, was wrong to begin with?

So what you are also saying…is the revelation was not reliable…and the men of the LDS, the leaders who established the LDS…founded it on false premises, were frauds? Or were duped because what they received initially was not true or correct…and they foisted this fraud unto unsuspecting followers of theirs?

I am trying to change your minds, but to correct misunderstandings. It is a fact that the torah and the writtings of the New Testiment were copied many many times. It has also been translated and handled by many many men. Even if the men that handled it had the most sincere intentions on keeping the writtings perfect, they did not. They made mistakes, and at times it was handled by men who had agendas. Some were good and others were evil. The Book of Mormon was not handled by many men. It was abridged by one of the last prophets that lived during its history. It was translated through the gift and power of God. And still it was not perfect, but the most correct book we have. I have never said that it was not reliable. I have never said that the Bible is not reliable. What we have is a miracle. The truths that are contained in both these books is a miracle. But because man is not perfect, they can interpret it the way they want to.

 

[Fatboys]

The language of the sacred scriptures was Hebrew, and Greek. But Joseph Smith only knew the KJV of the Bible. That is not sacred language, that is only a translation in Elizabethan English. The English does not make it ‘sacred language’.

Revelation has always been given to the prophet in his own language. John did not write Revelations in ancient Hebrew.

If the BofM had been true revelation it would have been sacred in 19th century English and not needed to be written like KJV English to ‘sound’ sacred.

First you’d have to prove there was a need for restoration.

To Joseph Smith the language was what he knew scriptures to be in the form of. He believed the bible to be sacred and the writtings in the Bible to be sacred. Now do you understand?

 

[twopekinguys]

Misunderstood, mistranslated, misquoted, etc.

Typical circular reasoning.

 

[twopekinguys]

I already addressed this. When Oliver Cowdery scribed there was no punctuation. Also much of the changes were grammer. Some of it was corrected by Joseph Smith from the first edition. Some were mistakes by the printers. There was no doctrinal changes, 99% were changes so it can be read and understood better.

Ok, I provided proof that there were doctrinal changes.

Can you provide proof for your 99% statement? I mean credible proof, not just opinion.

Do you have a list of all of the changes?

 

[mikelionheart]

When I was searching for a faith and investigating Mormonism I burst out laughing whilst reading the first couple of sentences of the Book of Mormon because its KJV pastiche is just so utterly, utterly banal and ludicrous.

 

[Janderich]

See post 240.

Those are excellent reasons to disbelieve the BoM.

Why haven’t you or Fatboys responded to that post? Is it because you can’t?

Twopekinguys, Of course we can respond. However, negativity and the constant need you have to attack really discourages me and probably Fatboys from the “discussion”.

At one time I read through a version of the BofM that listed the changes. I had hoped to see something that was significant so that I might better understand this valuable book. However, I was throughly disappointed, almost all the changes were very minor. So the real question revolves around how many significant changes have been made. By this I mean changes that may affect doctrine. Well, there are over 268,000 words in the Book of Mormon, of all these FAIR notes five changes that may be significant:

“the Son of” added to 1 Nephi 11:18; 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40.
“or out of the waters of baptism” added to 1 Nephi 20:1.
“white” changed to “pure” in 2 Nephi 30:6.
“Benjamin” changed to “Mosiah” in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1.
“Words missing in Alma 32:30”[3] Alma 32:30-31

FAIR explains all these changes in more detail here. They have occurred for various reasons, but I am not worried in the least about these supposed discrepancies. Instead I find it interesting that some cling so tight to the Bible, which has gone through many changes over the centuries, and yet chose to reject the Book of Mormon based on such flimsy arguments. To all such, Mormon himself on the title page of the Book of Mormon says, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”