T
Tmaque
Guest
That’s an excellent question. Perhaps it’s simply an oversight.
- Status
A
arieh0310
Guest
I’m sure you can find some quotes, but whether it is a product of the times or not the notion needs to be repudiated not explained away as good advise based on statistical analysis. However, if the pope (I believe Kimball was a church president so I hope the comparison works) issued a similar statement and that teaching ended up in catechetical materials still in use today I would be deeply troubled.
T
Tmaque
Guest
So, you are deeply troubled about Paul’s comments regarding women? I think this is much ado about nothing.
E
ex-mormon
Guest
mormon fool:
I would not consider it Impressive, History and Anthropology were my degree fields from days ago and now are my hobbies. Running an Engineering firm is just a job that I enjoy, teaching religion class is a passion, KoC teaches me many things, Catholic Answers is for fun, and my Wife and kids are my true love. Now my wife on the other-hand Runs the House, Takes care of our 4 kid’s under eight, sews, embroiders, and does all the shopping, and puts up with me…NOW THATS IMPRESSIVE!
I will address the rest of your post later this evening when I have time, as with you, Tom, and Bdawg I need more time to type a deserving response.
ex-mo
MF,
I would not consider it Impressive, History and Anthropology were my degree fields from days ago and now are my hobbies. Running an Engineering firm is just a job that I enjoy, teaching religion class is a passion, KoC teaches me many things, Catholic Answers is for fun, and my Wife and kids are my true love. Now my wife on the other-hand Runs the House, Takes care of our 4 kid’s under eight, sews, embroiders, and does all the shopping, and puts up with me…NOW THATS IMPRESSIVE!
I will address the rest of your post later this evening when I have time, as with you, Tom, and Bdawg I need more time to type a deserving response.
ex-mo
E
ex-mormon
Guest
mormon fool:
Thank you for identifying my underlying assumption of ancient authorship of the Book of Mormon. I was only trying to interpret it in light of what the book itself claims to be. Interpreting with assumptions of its falsity and then turning around and then using those interpretations to portray the mormon church in a bad light is weak methodology in comparison. Hopefully no one is trying to do this.
MF,
I don’t think the intent is to portray the LDS church in a bad light; I of all people can speak highly of its members and their good will towards their fellow man. I make the argument as to the validity of the BoM being an ancient document by pointing out its plagiaristic quality with comparison to the poorly translated KJV of the bible, you take the opposite view as I pointed out in my earlier post. I don’t believe this is a weak methodology when I am speaking of apples and you of oranges, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
It wasn’t until the very end that I (or rather Richard Bushman) mounted an argument that the treatment of racism in it stands apart from 19th century thought. Since he is an expert in that time period he can reconstruct how the first mormons would have read the Book of Mormon and how different the BoM concepts would sound to them compared to contemporary ideas. The implication would be that naturalistic treatments of Joseph Smith have another puzzle to solve. But it will fit right in with Mormon thought that the Book of Mormon is indeed ancient.
I have not had the pleasure to read any of Bushman’s work, however from the content of your statement one could also surmise that the treatment of racism in the 19th century is the product of a 19th century author interjecting his or her own personal views into the writing of book in that time period. This does not give credence to an ancient origin. As I stated above I have not read his work on this subject so will hold any further comment with regards to your above quote.
Because the intermediate product of the divinely aided translation left an identifiable Hebraicism. This makes for a nice piece of evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient work. Of course some one can launch a counter argument that an observant reader could pick up the same metaphor is used in the Bible like I linked to earlier.
The referred to hebraicism, along with chiasmus can be argued to be results of plagiarism of content and style of the KJV. I would not call it a nice piece of evidence, but a suspect coincidence. Of coarse that is the opposing opinion.
more…
Thank you for identifying my underlying assumption of ancient authorship of the Book of Mormon. I was only trying to interpret it in light of what the book itself claims to be. Interpreting with assumptions of its falsity and then turning around and then using those interpretations to portray the mormon church in a bad light is weak methodology in comparison. Hopefully no one is trying to do this.
MF,
I don’t think the intent is to portray the LDS church in a bad light; I of all people can speak highly of its members and their good will towards their fellow man. I make the argument as to the validity of the BoM being an ancient document by pointing out its plagiaristic quality with comparison to the poorly translated KJV of the bible, you take the opposite view as I pointed out in my earlier post. I don’t believe this is a weak methodology when I am speaking of apples and you of oranges, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
It wasn’t until the very end that I (or rather Richard Bushman) mounted an argument that the treatment of racism in it stands apart from 19th century thought. Since he is an expert in that time period he can reconstruct how the first mormons would have read the Book of Mormon and how different the BoM concepts would sound to them compared to contemporary ideas. The implication would be that naturalistic treatments of Joseph Smith have another puzzle to solve. But it will fit right in with Mormon thought that the Book of Mormon is indeed ancient.
I have not had the pleasure to read any of Bushman’s work, however from the content of your statement one could also surmise that the treatment of racism in the 19th century is the product of a 19th century author interjecting his or her own personal views into the writing of book in that time period. This does not give credence to an ancient origin. As I stated above I have not read his work on this subject so will hold any further comment with regards to your above quote.
Because the intermediate product of the divinely aided translation left an identifiable Hebraicism. This makes for a nice piece of evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient work. Of course some one can launch a counter argument that an observant reader could pick up the same metaphor is used in the Bible like I linked to earlier.
The referred to hebraicism, along with chiasmus can be argued to be results of plagiarism of content and style of the KJV. I would not call it a nice piece of evidence, but a suspect coincidence. Of coarse that is the opposing opinion.
more…
E
ex-mormon
Guest
…continued
Why the change? As I said earlier, to prevent overly literalistic readings of lay people not up on ancient metaphors. Having both versions allows us to have both remember the BoM is an ancient work and correctly understand the original author’s intent where there might be ambiguity.
Having both versions still does not prove the validity of the BoM being an ancient document. Archeological, Anthropological, and Geological evidence would go a lot further than literary proof. Remember Mark Hoffman could show literary proof but none of the other three. The Bible, however happens to contain proof from all four areas.
later,
fool
It would go against human nature not to get upset when History is questioned or taken out of context. I’ve been reading Robert Millet’s book “The Mormon Faith a new look at Christianity” and I get upset when he uses the writings of Origen of Alexander to justify LDS belief about the pre-existence. The author takes most of Origen’s writings out of context and ignores the rest that go against the very grain of LDS belief. Millet’s biblical quotes to support the faith are single verses taken out of context (how very protestant) I would agree that attacks on history can be very frustrating when one has the evidence to show the contrary. But I digress. With regards to the changes made by Modern Prophets in the BoM through revelation, one can become very frustrated without the use of footnotes to explain why, when and by whom.
God Bless,
ex-mo
Why the change? As I said earlier, to prevent overly literalistic readings of lay people not up on ancient metaphors. Having both versions allows us to have both remember the BoM is an ancient work and correctly understand the original author’s intent where there might be ambiguity.
Having both versions still does not prove the validity of the BoM being an ancient document. Archeological, Anthropological, and Geological evidence would go a lot further than literary proof. Remember Mark Hoffman could show literary proof but none of the other three. The Bible, however happens to contain proof from all four areas.
Next you list a bunch of changes in the Book of Mormon. I have no problem with them. It is the prophet’s prerogative to try to fix errors in transmission and clarify readings. Only a handful of changes can be said to have much significance.
later,
fool
It would go against human nature not to get upset when History is questioned or taken out of context. I’ve been reading Robert Millet’s book “The Mormon Faith a new look at Christianity” and I get upset when he uses the writings of Origen of Alexander to justify LDS belief about the pre-existence. The author takes most of Origen’s writings out of context and ignores the rest that go against the very grain of LDS belief. Millet’s biblical quotes to support the faith are single verses taken out of context (how very protestant) I would agree that attacks on history can be very frustrating when one has the evidence to show the contrary. But I digress. With regards to the changes made by Modern Prophets in the BoM through revelation, one can become very frustrated without the use of footnotes to explain why, when and by whom.
God Bless,
ex-mo
B
ben_dy
Guest
ex-mormon said:
Ex,
Isn’t it precisely those areas of study that Joseph Fielding Smith warned against pursuing (as one area, by reason, leads to another and, taken together, perhaps the worst field of all - geography) and areas of study which Gordon B. Hinckley in which Hinckley defended Smith’s position as reported in Deseret News:
From what I’ve been able to surmise from reading FARMS reviews, those who choose to attempt to unearth “the things that the Lord has hidden” through the study of archeology, anthropology, geology, and - again and particularly - geography.
It seems that whenever a LDS scholar strays into these hidden areas he is suddenly ‘cut off’ from mainstream LDS scholastics as those are not accepted faith building areas of scholarship.
There is no purpose, I think, in supposing that BoM studies will ever find the same types of scholarship enjoyed by both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The former has continually been found to be non-faith-building while the latter has served primarily the opposite conclusions. Although I believe that this speaks volumes, in itself, as to the validity of the BoM as an ancient document, I willingly concede than men are free to believe what they may.
T
tonnnie2008
Guest
Read Revelations22:18-20. You are involved in a false religion. I do not want to offend you, but as a christian i must tell you the truth. Holy Bible!
T
tonnnie2008
Guest
I would say he was lying and made the whole thing up. Cause i would say he is or was what the bible describes as a false phrophet. Sorry i just believe what the bible says and God says not some guy named joseph smith…
T
tonnnie2008
Guest
I don’t think shes a fool, just fooled. She needs prayer and love from those who call themselves christian… An example of Christ not to be judged. Besides we’ve all been fools at one time or another no…Todd,
None of your possibilities make much sense for a believing mormon, so perhaps you could try to be a little more imaginative?Let’s assume that you are right that Joseph Smith didn’t choose the words but they were given to him. Then the translation aid could have mapped a Nephite word or name to vocabulary Joseph Smith would understand. Therefore “Bible” is not necessarily Nephite terminology for the modern Bible.
Nice thoughts on the rest of your post about doing the “hard work” and accompanying faith with reason. Sounds a lot like the only canonized description of the Book of Mormon translation process.
Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-8a
7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
Scriptures
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right. . .
later,
fool
X
xmormon
Guest
Here is one you can check for yourself… Joseph Smith claimed the book of Mormon was the most correct of any book. But later Joseph Smith hung himself with this statement because he retranslated the Bible ( The Joseph Smith translation or inspired version as it is called) In it he corrected verses of scripture that supposedly had been corrupted for example. Matthew 6:38 says “but seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you” In the BOM 3 Nephi 13:33 says “but seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you” Word for word of Matt.6:38 However in the Joseph Smith correction of the Bible he corrected it to read “Wherefore seek not the things of this world but seek first to build up the kingdom of God, and to establish his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you” Point is Joseph Smith blows it bad here because he put the old corrupted version in his BOM and forgot to change it when he retranslated the Bible. He did this many times proving there was no need for the book of mormon "to bring back “the plain and precious things”(1 Nephi 13:35) as he claimed because he blew it and put the old corrupted verses in the BOM time after time. As for a con-artist testimony. ask yourself honestly the following question. If you went into a Spielberg movie and the usher told you that during the movie you would get a strong feeling and then you would know Spielberg was god’s prophet and the movie was gods’ word would you believe it. I am not saying Joseph Smith didn’t write some emotional things obviously the book of mormon has exact quotes from the bible all over in it even entire chapters so little wonder some mistake it for scripture. What I am saying is con artists use the same trick. They get people all hyped up on emotion and hope they will ignore the facts. Joseph Smith demonstrated this ability many times even though he was caught many times in his obvious lies etc…
- Status