Q for Mormons

[rmcmullan]

Good morning, Geocacher. As a former pentecostal, I’m curious about the Mormon view of tongues. Do Mormons speak in tongues? What are the Mormon interpretations of NT Scripture that deal with tongues?

Allweather: I know this question wasn’t for me, but I wanted to ask, “Have you ever been to a Mormon Fast and Testimony meeting?” It’s the regular sacrament meeting held on the first of every month.

The reason why I ask is that (coming from a Catholic background) I was really surprised when I first attended one. People just popped out of their seats and spoke whenever they felt moved to. There’s no roving microphone in my current ward so people just go up to the front and queue up for their turn. It think that’s about as pentacostal as Mormons get. Pretty darned conservative by Pentacostal standards but pretty darned pentacostal by Catholic standards. No speaking in tongues though.

It’s not too far of a stretch for Mormons (to bear their testimony) though because everybody eventually has a turn to give a church talk. The bishop presides but he rarely speaks. Whenever you have an everybody-can-participate event, you get quite a variety of responses but mostly I would say they go very well. A young mother who spoke about her child who’s been in and out of hospitals since he was born (he’s still under one) gave a specially moving testimony. It’s things like that that really try you.

 

[obadiah]

here are two addresses I found, which give some of the changes in the Book of Mormon
www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/bomchanges.htm
www.carm.org/lds/bom_changes.htm

 

[zerinus]

here are two addresses I found, which give some of the changes in the Book of Mormon
www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/bomchanges.htm
www.carm.org/lds/bom_changes.htm

Okay, two questions: First, how many thousands are these? Second, if you study them carefully, you will find that most of them are not doctrinally significant. They are either corrections of typographical or printer’s errors that were made in the earlier editions, or spelling modernizations, and such like. Those that have any theological significance at all are are only a handful, and even these are not terribly significant, as I have discussed elsewhere.

zerinus

 

[obadiah]

I admit that these only give a couple dozen. There are pleanty more where those came from. Do a google search. Also look up Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s web pages, also scan the pages on Saints Alive. There a few million web pages out there about the true history of the LDS church.
Read the book No Man Knows My History.

 

[Allweather]

I thought I already answered that question for you in this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2097075&postcount=102

What was there in that explanation that you didn’t understand?

zerinus

If you look a few posts down from that one, you will see my response, to which you did not further respond, as I recall. You seem to like Wikipedia, but it is easy to see from reading the Wikipedia entry you linked to that it is not a very good source of info. What I am looking for is LDS info. That is what I asked for. You linked to a Wikipedia entry, which is wholly inadequate, and further, you made a cryptic statement of your own in that same post that provided no information whatever. If you can’t provide the info, don’t feel bad about not knowing the answer. Just say you don’t know, and leave it at that. Don’t say you did something, when you didn’t really do it.

 

[Allweather]

Allweather: I know this question wasn’t for me, but I wanted to ask, “Have you ever been to a Mormon Fast and Testimony meeting?” It’s the regular sacrament meeting held on the first of every month…

A young mother who spoke about her child who’s been in and out of hospitals since he was born (he’s still under one) gave a specially moving testimony. It’s things like that that really try you.

Yes, I have been to two of these, and thank you for asking. You are correct, what I witnessed, which is exactly as you described it, is nothing remotely like a pentecostal church meeting, such as would be held on a Wednesday evening, or Sunday evening. During my years in pentecostal church, I witnessed things that literally made the hair stand up on my neck, prophetic messages delivered in beautiful but unknown language with an English interpretation delivered a few moments later. People singing in tongues, dancing with near abandon, sometimes with saliva flying, holy-rolling on the floor, even. The Mormon testimony meet is very sedate by comparison.

I agree that personal testimony can be extremely moving. I have been moved to tears in Mormon church. I understand why Mormons like this kind of thing. I like it, too. It is entertaining, and can even bring one into a place where real worship can happen. Sometimes when I hear a testimony, I am suddenly thrust into a period of worship that is so wonderful, and very pleasing, and I’m sure pleasing to God, too. We bless God with our worship of him, no matter what inspires that worship. I wish I could experience this every hour of every day, but, alas, most of the time I struggle to get into the proper frame of mind for good worship. The Mass often takes me there, but not always.

 

[Allweather]

Okay, two questions: First, how many thousands are these? Second, if you study them carefully, you will find that most of them are not doctrinally significant. They are either corrections of typographical or printer’s errors that were made in the earlier editions, or spelling modernizations, and such like. Those that have any theological significance at all are are only a handful, and even these are not terribly significant, as I have discussed elsewhere.

zerinus

I’m pretty sure Zerinus has NOT discussed this elsewhere, except in the same ill-focused terminology he uses in the quote above. When he says “not very doctrinally significant” he is stating an opinion, and is not providing anything concrete to back up what little he is saying.

I notice that whenever any detailed information regarding BoM problems is presented here, it is non-Mormons, or ex-Mormons who provide it. Zerinus, who stands among us as a Mormon expert, almost never provides anything worthwhile, beyond the occasional Wikipedia entry. Sometimes he makes shocking statements, such as when he said he had no idea what the Burning in the Bosom is. Sometimes he links us over to websites containing articles that are so lame, so out of bounds, such as when he used articles written by a member of the now-disfunctional Worldwide Church of God to use as support for some theological position he was promoting. Or when he linked to a free-love website to support his particular brand of polygamy.

I’m almost tempted to use the word “bluster” to describe an awful lot of what Zerinus does here (though not all of it, of course. There are many times when he gets it quite right).

Why doesn’t Zerinus get down and deal with recent questions. First, how can he prove that the BoM is less subject to handling errors than what he assuses the Holy Bible to be. Second, show us a list, from LDS sources, of the exact and precise changes that have been made to the BoM since its first edition that, according to Zerinus, was typeset using a copy of a copy.

 

[dbacks5439]

I’m pretty sure Zerinus has NOT discussed this elsewhere, except in the same ill-focused terminology he uses in the quote above. When he says “not very doctrinally significant” he is stating an opinion, and is not providing anything concrete to back up what little he is saying.

I notice that whenever any detailed information regarding BoM problems is presented here, it is non-Mormons, or ex-Mormons who provide it. Zerinus, who stands among us as a Mormon expert, almost never provides anything worthwhile, beyond the occasional Wikipedia entry. Sometimes he makes shocking statements, such as when he said he had no idea what the Burning in the Bosom is. Sometimes he links us over to websites containing articles that are so lame, so out of bounds, such as when he used articles written by a member of the now-disfunctional Worldwide Church of God to use as support for some theological position he was promoting. Or when he linked to a free-love website to support his particular brand of polygamy.

I’m almost tempted to use the word “bluster” to describe an awful lot of what Zerinus does here (though not all of it, of course. There are many times when he gets it quite right).

Why doesn’t Zerinus get down and deal with recent questions. First, how can he prove that the BoM is less subject to handling errors than what he assuses the Holy Bible to be. Second, show us a list, from LDS sources, of the exact and precise changes that have been made to the BoM since its first edition that, according to Zerinus, was typeset using a copy of a copy.

:bowdown: :tiphat: :clapping: :yup: :dancing: :extrahappy: :bounce: uch:

Ok, maybe I went a little overboard

 

[majick275]

Yes, I have been to two of these, and thank you for asking. You are correct, what I witnessed, which is exactly as you described it, is nothing remotely like a pentecostal church meeting, such as would be held on a Wednesday evening, or Sunday evening. During my years in pentecostal church, I witnessed things that literally made the hair stand up on my neck, prophetic messages delivered in beautiful but unknown language with an English interpretation delivered a few moments later. People singing in tongues, dancing with near abandon, sometimes with saliva flying, holy-rolling on the floor, even. The Mormon testimony meet is very sedate by comparison.

I agree that personal testimony can be extremely moving. I have been moved to tears in Mormon church. I understand why Mormons like this kind of thing. I like it, too. It is entertaining, and can even bring one into a place where real worship can happen. Sometimes when I hear a testimony, I am suddenly thrust into a period of worship that is so wonderful, and very pleasing, and I’m sure pleasing to God, too. We bless God with our worship of him, no matter what inspires that worship. I wish I could experience this every hour of every day, but, alas, most of the time I struggle to get into the proper frame of mind for good worship. The Mass often takes me there, but not always.

i was never a big fan of the testimony meetings. too amwayish for me and they appear to be the typical vehicle for creating groupthink. I saw a lot of thankimonies though and strange interpretations sometimes leading to “congregational doctrine”. now there are some testimonies that are true spiritual experiences and worthy of sharing with others too for the glory of God and the edification of the listeners. I have heard some of those in LDS churches. Those people then get “diluted” by the mechanical line of folks holding up preschool children and having them tell us that they KNOW that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. There are good peopl who love the Lord and seek to serve him in the LDs church. I believe it a tragedy that those folks with so much desire and ability to do godly things in the world are so misled and get diverted into “hidden” works for the dead in LDS temples or promoting the false doctrines of crafty men instead.

 

[zerinus]

I admit that these only give a couple dozen. There are pleanty more where those came from. Do a google search. Also look up Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s web pages, also scan the pages on Saints Alive. There a few million web pages out there about the true history of the LDS church.
Read the book No Man Knows My History.

Actually, there are not. They are all the same kind of stuff. If you think that there are, the burden of proof is on you to produce them, not on me to go and find them.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

If you look a few posts down from that one, you will see my response, to which you did not further respond, as I recall.

Your response to my post was absurd and nonsensical, that is why I did not reply to it.

You seem to like Wikipedia, but it is easy to see from reading the Wikipedia entry you linked to that it is not a very good source of info.

First of all, I hadn’t linked to anything. Secondly, the article itself was irrelevant, which is why I hadn’t linked to it. I had given you an extract from the article that answered your question.

What I am looking for is LDS info. That is what I asked for.

What I had given you was LDS info. All I can say is that you must be incapable of understanding plain English.

You linked to a Wikipedia entry, which is wholly inadequate,

I had linked to nothing. You are talking a load of rubbish as usual.

and further, you made a cryptic statement of your own in that same post that provided no information whatever.

Which cryptic statement? More nonsense and more trash!

If you can’t provide the info, don’t feel bad about not knowing the answer. Just say you don’t know, and leave it at that. Don’t say you did something, when you didn’t really do it.

Still more nonsense and more trash! Your question was adequately and completely answered in the extract from the Wikipedia article, and my subsequent comment.

zerinus.

 

[zerinus]

I’m pretty sure Zerinus has NOT discussed this elsewhere, . . .

I had discussed them in these posts, all of them from the same thread and quite recent:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2093627&postcount=69
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2094880&postcount=80
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2096587&postcount=92

These are the relevant quotes from the above posts:

No big deal there either. Jesus is called in scripture both God as well as the Son of God; so Mary could be equally called the mother of God, or the mother of the Son of God. That change was made in the second edition of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith himself. He was the original translator after all; and he was perfectly entitled to amend and improve his own translation—as indeed every other translator is entitled to do.

Absolutely. The corrections that have been made in the Book of Mormon since its first publication have all been made to fix minor typographical errors, or correct or modernize spelling mistakes, or improve its punctuation and so forth. None of them alter the fundamental doctrines of the book in any way.

I told you before; they are not that many, and they are not theologically very significant, and they are not necessarily “errors” either. Joseph Smith, like any translator, was entitled to improve upon his own translation.

There was plenty of room for scribal errors. After the original manuscript was written, it was then copied by hand by Oliver Cowdery for submission to the printer. The first manuscript was considered to be too valuable to be given to the printer in case of loss. That was one possible source of scribal errors. Then the pages were manually typeset by the printer, which opens the way for more typographical errors. Everybody knows that when printers typeset books in the old fashioned way, they often made mistakes. The Book of Mormon contained many such errors that were later corrected.

You have an unenviable gift for talking trash!

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

First of all, I hadn’t linked to anything. Secondly, the article itself was irrelevant, which is why I hadn’t linked to it. I had given you an extract from the article that answered your question.

That is true, you didn’t provide a link, but rather this ridiculous “extract:”

"“Since 1989, BYU has published a critical text edition in four volumes. Volumes 1 and 2, published 2001, contains transcriptions of all the text variants of the English editions of the Book of Mormon, from the original manuscript up to the newest editions. Volume 4, in four parts (3 already published since 2005) contains a critical analysis of all the text variants. Meanwhile, volume 3, not yet published, is to describe the history of all the English-language texts from Joseph Smith to today.”"

In other words, Zerinus doesn’t know the answer, but is unwilling to come right out and say so. Earlier, I commented on the weirdness of the statement “Since 1989, BYU has published… Volumes 1 and 2, published 2001…” I guess this makes perfect sense to Zerinus, and he considers this a perfectly good answer to a legitimate question. I wondered what was going on over at BYU between 1989 and 2001. I mean, this question of changes to the BoM isn’t new, it has been around for 150 years at least. The Mormons are just now getting around to collecting the data? In 1989? And nothing is published until 2001? And it still isn’t finished in 2007? And Zerinus can’t link us to an article? Velly Intelestink.

What I had given you was LDS info. All I can say is that you must be incapable of understanding plain English.

Plain English is one thing. Zerinus English is something else entirely! Zerinus still hasn’t produced a shred of data on changes to the BoM, in English, or any other language.

I had linked to nothing. You are talking a load of rubbish as usual.

And why is that? Why don’t you provide precise information about your BoM? Is it because you’re ignorant? Or because you’re afraid to make too easily available the real poop on the changes to the BoM that have been done by Joseph Smith and his successors?

Which cryptic statement? More nonsense and more trash!

This one: ““The two original manuscripts previously mentioned have also been published, if I remember correctly with detailed comparison of the differences, but I can’t recall the title and author of the books.””

Zerinus can recall that the two manuscripts have been published, and that they contain “detailed comparison of the differences” but he “can’t recall the title and author of the books.” He isn’t interested in helping us to understand the differences by examination of them, but rather wants us to accept his opinionated statements that they are “insignificant.” That is cryptic.

And typical.

 

[Allweather]

You have an unenviable gift for talking trash!

zerinus

One man’s trash is another’s treasure. The point is that Zerinus has not addressed the mentioned issues in any acceptable manner. He offers only fuzzy opinions and roundabout ramblings. Then, when he is called on these, he resorts to trash talk, like that quoted above.

Changes to the Book of Mormon, some done by Joseph Smith himself. What gave Joseph Smith, or anyone else, the right to alter the book that, he claims, was done by God via the peep stone? It wasn’t Joseph Smith’s translation. It was God’s.

What were the exact changes made, who made them, when were they made, and why?

 

[Allweather]

Okay, two questions: First, how many thousands are these? Second, if you study them carefully, you will find that most of them are not doctrinally significant. They are either corrections of typographical or printer’s errors that were made in the earlier editions, or spelling modernizations, and such like. Those that have any theological significance at all are are only a handful, and even these are not terribly significant, as I have discussed elsewhere.

zerinus

They look pretty darned significant to me. Maybe Zerinus can offer an explanation for this one, taken from the first of the two links offered by our friend obadiah:

Jacob 7:27: “and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu.” What is a French word doing in a document supposedly written by a Hebrew in America around 421 BC?

Gosh. That’s a good question. I’ll bet Zerinus has a good answer.

 

[zerinus]

That is true, you didn’t provide a link, but rather this ridiculous “extract:”

"“Since 1989, BYU has published a critical text edition in four volumes. Volumes 1 and 2, published 2001, contains transcriptions of all the text variants of the English editions of the Book of Mormon, from the original manuscript up to the newest editions. Volume 4, in four parts (3 already published since 2005) contains a critical analysis of all the text variants. Meanwhile, volume 3, not yet published, is to describe the history of all the English-language texts from Joseph Smith to today.”"

That is not a ridiculous extract. It is a complete answer to your question. Your original question had been this:

Does the LDS maintain an exact listing of all the changes, including seemingly inconsequential punctuation marks, that have been accomplished on the BoM . . . since the first editions? If so, where do we find these?

That extract answers your question. The answer is yes, BYU has published a “critical text edition” of the Book of Mormon in four volumes. The first two volumes, volumes 1 and 2, ALREADY PUBLISHESED, contain “transcriptions of all the text variants of the English editions of the Book of Mormon, from the original manuscript up to the newest editions”. THAT IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. Volume 3, which has not yet been published, IS NOT RELEVANT TO YOUR QUESTION. It will, when published, describe the “history of all the English-language texts from Joseph Smith to today,” which is not relevant to your question. Volume 4 is not directly relevant to your question either. It comes in four parts, THREE OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED. It contains a “critical ANALYSIS of all the text variants”. In other words, it discusses the changes that were made (as listed in volumes 1 and 2), and explains the possible reasons why they were made. But the question that you had asked is completely answered by volumes 1 and 2 of the series that have already been published.

Good grief, this is getting to be really embarrassing.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

They look pretty darned significant to me. Maybe Zerinus can offer an explanation for this one, taken from the first of the two links offered by our friend obadiah:

Jacob 7:27: “and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu.” What is a French word doing in a document supposedly written by a Hebrew in America around 421 BC?

Gosh. That’s a good question. I’ll bet Zerinus has a good answer.

Joseph Smith used a French word which was commonly used in English to translate a term that the supposed Nephite prophet had written in whatever the Nephite language was. There would obviously not have been a French word in the original language Joseph would have been translating from. This argument against the Book of Mormon makes no sense. All adieu means is goodbye so whatever the term for goodbye is would have been used in the plates. There weren’t any English words in the supposed plates either.

I don’t believe in the Book of Mormon, but this argument against the Book of Mormon simply doesn’t hold water.

 

[zerinus]

They look pretty darned significant to me. Maybe Zerinus can offer an explanation for this one, taken from the first of the two links offered by our friend obadiah:

Jacob 7:27: “and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu.” What is a French word doing in a document supposedly written by a Hebrew in America around 421 BC?

Gosh. That’s a good question. I’ll bet Zerinus has a good answer.

Of all the questions that you could have asked, you had to choose the dumbest! “Adieu” may once have been French word, but is now an English word. It is an Anglicized word. It is in the Oxford English Dictionary. Half the English words have Greek and Latin origins, mostly through French. During the Norman Conquest the French occupied and ruled Britain for 100 years, and imposed their language and culture on the country. Many of the words that you speak have French origin. You just don’t know it. “Norman French became the language of the court and upper classes, and of literature, and had great effect on the development of the English language.” (Source: Norman Conquest, at infoplease.com)

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

That is not a ridiculous extract. It is a complete answer to your question. Your original question had been this:

No, it isn’t complete, because I also asked where I can find the material. But that is a small thing. I’ll look for it. I’d have thought a Mormon expert such as yourself would be able to direct me to the exact location where these materials can be bought or viewed. I was wrong.

That extract answers your question. The answer is yes, BYU has published a “critical text edition”

 

[Allweather]

Of all the questions that you could have asked, you had to choose the dumbest! “Adieu” may once have been French word, but is now an English word. It is an Anglicized word. It is in the Oxford English Dictionary. Half the English words have Greek and Latin origins, mostly through French. During the Norman Conquest the French occupied and ruled Britain for 100 years, and imposed their language and culture on the country. Many of the words that you speak have French origin. You just don’t know it. “Norman French became the language of the court and upper classes, and of literature, and had great effect on the development of the English language.” (Source: Norman Conquest, at infoplease.com)

zerinus

Thanks, and I see that that makes sense. It wasn’t MY objection, I quoted it from the anti-Mormon site linked by obadiah, and please note that I said I was SURE Zerinus had a good explanation, which he does. This is primarily why when I asked Zerinus for material delineating the changes to the BoM I specifically asked for LDS sourced material, as I’ve grown to distrust the anti-Mormon sites.

Does the word “adieu” appear anywhere in the KJV of the Holy Bible that you are aware of? The reason I ask is this: Joseph Smith used so many words in the BoM that were already archaic by 1830, but were common in 1611 English. I can see now why he would possibly use a French word, but why did he use all that obsolete English? Maybe this is a separate issue, but they seem linked somehow to me.