Why is the Book of Mormon so difficult to read?

[ParkerD]

They why don’t you baptize them just as you do dead people. Seems they are both equally aware of it in this life and have to count on knowledge in the hereafter.

Zaffiro,
You don’t get it. Babies and young children don’t have to be baptized before they are accountable for their personal choices. It is a mockery of Christ’s love for little children to do that. They have no stain on them. They automatically go to heaven. Baptism is for sinners, not innocents. Why would baptism be called a “rebirth” if Christ intended for it to be done right after a baby is born? Use some logic instead of your “sacred tradition”, please.

 

[Jerusha]

Since you don’t believe in original sin, and you believe that it is OK for people to be taught to hate “not us” from infancy, I suppose we are at a dead end in this derailment of this thread, aren’t we?

Now, Why is the BOM so difficult to read?

 

[ParkerD]

Since you don’t believe in original sin, and you believe that it is OK for people to be taught to hate “not us” from infancy, I suppose we are at a dead end in this derailment of this thread, aren’t we?

Now, Why is the BOM so difficult to read?

I wasn’t trying to derail your thread. I already answered your question, and I answered others.

Why is the BOM so difficult to read? Because it is a litmus test of the desires of a person’s heart, and their desire to hear the voice of the Good Shepherd, who calls after all mankind but especially the “lost sheep of the House of Israel.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiro,
You don’t get it. Babies and young children don’t have to be baptized before they are accountable for their personal choices. It is a mockery of Christ’s love for little children to do that. They have no stain on them. They automatically go to heaven. Baptism is for sinners, not innocents. Why would baptism be called a “rebirth” if Christ intended for it to be done right after a baby is born? Use some logic instead of your “sacred tradition”, please.

I think you have a one dimensional concept of baptism that we do not share. From our understanding excluding infants and children is what makes mockery.

 

[Jerusha]

Because it is a litmus test of the desires of a person’s heart, and their desire to hear the voice of the Good Shepherd, who calls after all mankind but especially the “lost sheep of the House of Israel.”

To be that, it needs to be in “plain and simple English”. But if it were in “plain and simple English”, many more would reject it, because of its endless wars, death, bloodshed, and hatred.

 

[Tmaque]

Tmaque,
OK, you win with your “sacred tradition” handed down from the 2nd century. I call that apostasy, you call it “sacred tradition.”

Once again, I’ll post what Christ said about babies before they are adults:

John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Jesus didn’t baptize the man or say he had original sin. He said he had no sin at birth. But you will insist that your “sacred tradition” is more valid than what Jesus Himself said.

Parker,

Jesus did not say the man, “had no sin at birth”. Jesus did say, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents”. There’s a world of difference. Jews at that time believed that physical ailments were divine punishment for sin whether committed by the person, or by the person’s parents. Jesus corrected that erroneous belief. Original sin has nothing to do with Jesus’ comments.

Man has a fallen nature because of Adam’s sin. Man is need of reconciliation with God. Baptism serves this need.

 

[tundramom]

short answer…

“and it came to pass”.

in Christ,
Steph

 

[Tmaque]

Zaffiro,
You don’t get it. Babies and young children don’t have to be baptized before they are accountable for their personal choices. It is a mockery of Christ’s love for little children to do that. They have no stain on them. They automatically go to heaven. Baptism is for sinners, not innocents. Why would baptism be called a “rebirth” if Christ intended for it to be done right after a baby is born? Use some logic instead of your “sacred tradition”, please.

Please tell me where in the Bible it says that 8 year old children suddenly are culpable for sin. I can’t find it anywhere. And yes it would be called a “rebirth”. If you came out of the bathtub dirty and had to immediately be washed again would you call it anything other than a re-wash?

What about an adult with a severe mental handicap? Are they innocent? Do they ever get baptized in the LDS Church? Of course they do! Why? So they can be members of the church and fully participate. Baptism is about more than remission of sins for Mormons and Catholics.

Paul tells us that baptism is the new circumcision. Just like circumcision, baptism is said to be a sign and seal of our faith. When was circumcision performed? At 8 days old.

We were told to baptize everyone. That’s what Catholics do. Where does it say not to baptize babies in the Bible? God will take care of those children that die before baptism. We shouldn’t disobey God just because we don’t understand everything about where babies go when they die. I think it’s a mockery of Christ’s love to not trust him.

 

[Tmaque]

short answer…

“and it came to pass”.

in Christ,
Steph

Those dang Reformed Egyptians

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

Jesus did not say the man, “had no sin at birth”. Jesus did say, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents”. There’s a world of difference. Jews at that time believed that physical ailments were divine punishment for sin whether committed by the person, or by the person’s parents. Jesus corrected that erroneous belief. Original sin has nothing to do with Jesus’ comments.

Man has a fallen nature because of Adam’s sin. Man is need of reconciliation with God. Baptism serves this need.

Tmaque,
Jesus was talking about a blind man who had been blind since birth. The disciples wanted to understand if that blindness was due to something the man had done to “deserve” the “punishment” of blindness. Jesus corrected them very succinctly, but I think pretty clearly. The man was once a baby. As a baby, the baby had no sin.

“Original sin” has everything to do with Jesus’ comment, but you won’t see it because of your “sacred tradition.”

 

[tundramom]

Those dang Reformed Egyptians

I know… some have theorized that that it was a sort of short hand as well… don’t know how that could be with all the “and it came to pass” es.

in Christ
Steph

 

[Tmaque]

Tmaque,
Jesus was talking about a blind man who had been blind since birth. The disciples wanted to understand if that blindness was due to something the man had done to “deserve” the “punishment” of blindness. Jesus corrected them very succinctly, but I think pretty clearly. The man was once a baby. As a baby, the baby had no sin.

“Original sin” has everything to do with Jesus’ comment, but you won’t see it because of your “sacred tradition.”

“Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him”

It’s clear what Jesus said. Please stop changing Jesus’ words. Jesus said the man did not sin to deserve blindness. He absolutely did not say the man had no sin when he was born. Our fallen human nature(original sin) had nothing to do with this passage. Again, he was talking about the fact that personal sin does not produce ailments and that this man was born blind to allow the glory of God to work through him. You’re reading your theology into the text and putting word’s in Jesus’ mouth.

Who is it that “won’t see”? How ironic that you use those words with this passage of scripture.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Tmaque,
Jesus was talking about a blind man who had been blind since birth. The disciples wanted to understand if that blindness was due to something the man had done to “deserve” the “punishment” of blindness. Jesus corrected them very succinctly, but I think pretty clearly. The man was once a baby. As a baby, the baby had no sin.

“Original sin” has everything to do with Jesus’ comment, but you won’t see it because of your “sacred tradition.”

No it just says his blindness wasn’t due to sin, it wasn’t a punishment he was just born that way.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I started reading the BoM out of a desire to understand the Mormons better (just as I’ve read parts of the Qu’ran to understand Muslims better): to me, it reads a little like fanfiction inspired by the King James Bible, and there’s times I’ve put it down shaking my head over how awkward the phrasing is.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No one has ever said that. Many parts are borrowed from the Bible.

27,000 words, IIRC - the BoM contains an improbably large amount of Isaiah verbatim. ​

It was written in very bad King James English. Subject-verb disagreements are common, which you won’t find in real KJE. And you probably ran it on the King James translation. Try it on more modern translations.

The AV does however commit a solecism in translating its Greek as “Whom do men say that I am ?” - the use of the accusative in that way is a Greek construction, not an English one. Beginning sentences with “And” is an Hebrew construction, of which the AV OT is full.​

Chiasmus was known in the 1830’s, and some of it could easily be accidental.

Perhaps it is written so badly to obscure the meaning, such as a perception of a punitive and murderous God. And that is not the NT God.

Why the obsession with chiasmus ? (Is that too strong a word ?) Any student of Classical literature is well able (or, there was a time, not long ago, when such a student would have been able: UK universities have been reduced to remedying the mess made by the public education system, thanks to TB & his works ) to point out that it is a well-known feature of Greek & Latin texts. Don’t people read them these days ? FWIW, Matthew is fond of chiasmus.​

Those authors used anaphora, occultatio,*** hendiadys***, & many other rhetorical & linguistic figures as a matter of course; there is nothing wonderful, divine or inspired about any of them - they seem amazing only because people are unfamiliar with the Classics. Ignorance of the Classics is a very great handicap, & it goes far to explain the abysmal state of English today. Hendiadys occurs in the NT, as does captatio benevolentiae: it does not follow they are miraculous things (BTW, the liturgical term anaphora is not the same thing as the rhetorical figure.) Every farmer who speaks of “a hundred head of cattle” is using a rhetorical figure.

Rant over.

 

[ParkerD]

“Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him”

It’s clear what Jesus said. Please stop changing Jesus’ words. Jesus said the man did not sin to deserve blindness. He absolutely did not say the man had no sin when he was born. Our fallen human nature(original sin) had nothing to do with this passage. Again, he was talking about the fact that personal sin does not produce ailments and that this man was born blind to allow the glory of God to work through him. You’re reading your theology into the text and putting word’s in Jesus’ mouth.

Who is it that “won’t see”? How ironic that you use those words with this passage of scripture.

Tmaque,
OK, we’ll use the translation you’re using. The disciples asked which man had sinned. Jesus said “Neither sinned.” It’s as simple as that. Neither sinned. A baby was born blind, but neither sinned. The baby had no sin. Otherwise, Jesus would have followed the simliar approach that He used when He blessed the lepers and they were healed. He told them to go show themselves to the priest (which was the Mosaic law). With this blind man who was healed, he didn’t say, “Now go be baptized unto repentance.”

If Jesus wanted you to believe babies have original sin, He had the perfect opportunity with His disciples question to establish that teaching. He didn’t. It took the 2nd century “theologians” to do it. And yes, they confused the law of circumcision with the new covenant of baptism. It was very convenient to do so.

I don’t find verses that tie circumcision to baptism as the latter replacing the former. If you care to cite the reference, I’ll look it up.

 

[PaulDupre]

ParkerD:

I don’t find verses that tie circumcision to baptism as the latter replacing the former. If you care to cite the reference, I’ll look it up.

St. Paul taught that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12).

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by **the circumcision of Christ:
**
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

• Col 2:11-12

In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

-From the Catholic Answers Library “Infant Baptism”

 

[Jerusha]

So, Gottle, I found this. Really an interesting subject–

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_rhetorical_terms

Could you go a little deeper into it, or take it to e-mail? :coffeeread:

 

[zaffiroborant]

Tmaque,
OK, we’ll use the translation you’re using. The disciples asked which man had sinned. Jesus said “Neither sinned.” It’s as simple as that. Neither sinned. A baby was born blind, but neither sinned. The baby had no sin. Otherwise, Jesus would have followed the simliar approach that He used when He blessed the lepers and they were healed. He told them to go show themselves to the priest (which was the Mosaic law). With this blind man who was healed, he didn’t say, “Now go be baptized unto repentance.”

If Jesus wanted you to believe babies have original sin, He had the perfect opportunity with His disciples question to establish that teaching. He didn’t. It took the 2nd century “theologians” to do it. And yes, they confused the law of circumcision with the new covenant of baptism. It was very convenient to do so.

I don’t find verses that tie circumcision to baptism as the latter replacing the former. If you care to cite the reference, I’ll look it up.

Well then if “niether sinned” means the baby had no sin then it also means the parents had no sin.

 

[Eucharisted]

Has anyone “translated” the Book of Mormon into plain old English?