posted
We really don't know very much about the translation process, in spite of the work of LDS scholars. I think the average member assumes that it was a word for word translation, that is the exact English translation was given to Joseph word by word. I've just finished reading the Herald Publishing edition of the Book of Mormon, i.e. the one in the original format, without the modern chapter divisions and versification, or the grammatical corrections. It's fascinating. There are spelling mistakes, grammatical mistakes such as "the Nephites was ..." etc. My own feeling is that they reflect the standard of Joseph's own English, written and spoken, at the time, and that he was translating as any translator does: reading, understanding the meaning, and then putting that into a style of language he feels is appropriate for its purpose. (Edit: I've just read the Skousen link where he knocks that idea on the head. Interesting.) There are some areas of awkwardness, but there are phrases and whole sections of real power and beauty in the way the language is used. And underlying any language idiosyncrasies is the incredible power of the message.
quote:It's hard for me to swallow that the New Testament is so unreliable,
We don't believe that it's completely unreliable. Only that it was written, translated, and transcribed by human beings, and that we should bear in mind that not every word is placed there specifically by God. That level of uncertainty is pretty reasonable, whouldn't you say?
quote:that God would need to completely re-write scripture
The Book of Mormon isn't a rewrite of scripture, any more than Mark is a rewrite of Luke, or the New Testament is a rewrite of the Old Testament. It's just more stuff that gives us further perspective on the core truth that we are striving to understand.
quote:and that he would go back on his word that the church would prevail throughout time.
He didn't say the church would prevail "throughout time".
Imagine that two people (let's call them Twisp and Catsby) are fencing. Twisp stabs Catsby, inflicting a near-mortal wound. Catsby spends four weeks recovering, and then lies low for ten years, waiting for the perfect moment to get his revenge. Then suddenly, he pops up and stabs Twisp to death. Who prevailed?
Similarly, the church does not have to have a continuous, unbroken line of history to prevail.
(Also, I believe that the phrase "gates of hell" had a very different meaning to ancient Jews than it does to modern Christian readers. I may be wrong about this, but I thought the gates of Sheol were what kept the dead from returning to life, and had little or nothing to do with Satan or his schemes.)
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Added: The Book of Mormon isn't a rewrite of the Bible, though.
I know that.
Is it not true, however, that the Bible is considered to be inaccurate because it has been corrupted? Here's the quote I have in my notes, if it's not correct please point me to sources that refute it.
quote:The Book of Mormon claims that a correct translation of the Bible is impossible since much has been taken away from the Word of God "many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord" (1 Nephi 13:26b, 27)
I have two obvious questions here - who took them away? And to what purpose? I mean, why would it serve the early church to take away important parts of the manuscripts? And why aren't there, among 24,000 ancient copies of parts of the New Testaments, any evidences of stuff that's been omitted?
Edit: changed are to aren't
[ December 15, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's hard for me to swallow that the New Testament is so unreliable, that God would need to completely re-write scripture and that he would go back on his word that the church would prevail throughout time.
Mormons rely quite heavily on both the Old and New Testaments, and the writers of the Book of Mormon were heavily influenced by the writers they had available to them at the time -- i.e. some of the Old Testament prophets (Isaiah, most notably).
It's not that the New Testament is unreliable -- it's that it's only part of the picture. It's an incredibly important part -- esp. because parts of it are as close to the historical moment of Christ's ministry here on earth as we can get.
But it's only part of the picture. The LDS canon is conservative (i.e. not a ton of stuff is part of it), but at least it is open.
----- And just as you don't get the need for a restoration, I don't understand two major things about mainstream Christianity:
1. How they account for the history of God's dealing with the world before the coming of Christ.
2. Why the Church became so splintered after its establishment.
Please note that I understand the arguments that mainstream Christians use in responding to both of these points, but they just don't make sense to me.
For me, one of the appealing aspects of Mormonism is that it accounts for the history of God's dealings with man as one of apostacy and restoration and retrenchment, of the need for dispensations and authority and revelation that speaks to the societal configuration and cocerns of each period of human history.
Mormonism also has answers for the whys and hows of God's relationship with mankind -- how he can be both an interventionist god and a merciful and just god.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I understand the argument that there are translation problems, and certainly all those 24,000 copies of the New Testament don't line up word for word exactly with each other.
But there is a whole bunch of Mormon doctrine that doesn't appear anywhere in the New Testament, not even from the earliest manuscripts.
Saying that someone corrupted the Bible for their own nefarious purposes, which that passage from 1 Nephi suggests, is a lot different than saying there can be translation errors. It's a completely different claim.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But there is a whole bunch of Mormon doctrine that doesn't appear anywhere in the New Testament, not even from the earliest manuscripts.
Yes, that's the whole point We believe that mankind's knowledge of God should grow continually throughout time. Moses taught new things that Abraham never had, Christ taught new things that Moses never had, and even the Apostles offered invaluable insight into Christ's teachings that we would not have had if the book had ended with the Gospels.
Similarly, the Book of Mormon and the other writings of Joseph Smith and his successors further expand our knowledge above and beyond what is available in the Bible. It was never meant to be a restate of the same stuff, but rather a whole new set of inspired perspectives and ideas.
Naturally, since you're not Mormon, you think we're wrong about this. That's fine. I'm only correcting your statement because it is based upon an inaccurate understanding of Mormon belief, not because I'm trying to persuade you to believe as I do.
quote:Saying that someone corrupted the Bible for their own nefarious purposes, which that passage from 1 Nephi suggests, is a lot different than saying there can be translation errors. It's a completely different claim.
That's why I very rarely repeat Nephi's claim. Since we have no means of determining WHAT parts might have been altered or removed, how pervasive the problem was, or how we might address it, I just leave it be until we have more solid information.
In the meantime, as I said before, a book written and transcribed by humans is inherently imperfect, and should not be treated as infallible or absolute, in my opinion Although Joseph Smith called the Book of Mormon the "most correct book", he still never praised it in absolutes. Even his greatest work has flaws. It just has fewer important flaws than other works of scripture.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Joseph Smith said that the KJV is the most accurately translated English Bible, which is why we always use the KJV. He also said that one of the German translation is even better.
Crap, really?
Dag, yeah, that's what I was referring to. Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Of course, Joseph Smith didn't have access to the New American Standard Bible.
I don't see anything wrong with referring to other translations. The practice of using the KJV does make it easier to:
1. have consonance with the other works of Mormon scripture that quote from the KJV.
2. have consonance with sermons given by LDS leaders throughout its history
3. relate to other Christians who use the KJV -- that percentage may be decreasing, but I would imagine that it's still rather high and it was even higher at the time the LDS Church began publishing KJV versions. Obviously, when it comes to other languages, Mormons use whatever translation is either standard for the language or that local leaders thinks works best.
And as I mentioned above, if you really want to folow the counsel of Joseph Smith, you should learn German and read the Luther translation -- i.e. that's what you quote is referring to (sorry but a quick scan didn't reveal the person who posted it).
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a Doctrine and Covenants teacher who spoke about the grammar in the Book of Mormon (which is atrocious) and the grammar in the Doctrine in Covenants, which is quite a bit better. It was his belief that there was still a certain amount of "static noise" in the process of the translation of the BoM while the D&C was given as direct revelation with a lower signal-to-noise ratio.
I am amused at the number of times in the BoM a prophet says something and then says, "in other words" and says something a bit different. It reminds me of the spoof someone made called "The Book of Lemuel" when one passage reads, "Hi, I'm Lemuel, and I'm retarded" and then the next passage reads something to the effect of, "That was my brother Laman. Dork. What I wouldn't give for a jewler...." Basically, the idea that you can't erase what was written on metal plates.
Also, in the Doctrine and Covenants when the Lord is talking to Oliver Cowdry about the process of translation, he talks about how it isn't just a matter of looking at it and asking God what it says. You have to work it out in your mind, and if it is right your heart will burn. If it is wrong, you will have a stupor of thought causing you to forget it. That you will feel that it is wrong.
This being the case, it seems to me that the process of translation was not a simple matter of God speaking to Joseph exactly what the words should be. That he had to do a lot of figuring himself, putting it into his own words being only one aspect of the difficulty. (Supposedly the translation became easier for him over time, to the point that he no longer relied on the Urim and Thumim, as he became better able to discern things by the Spirit.)
And if he was very familiar with the "scriptural tone" of Old English in the KJV, it makes sense to me that he would try to emulate it--since to him that is what scripture is supposed to sound like. And perhaps because of that, most LDS ever since feel pretty darn strongly that that is what scripture is *supposed* to sound like.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am amused at the number of times in the BoM a prophet says something and then says, "in other words" and says something a bit different. It reminds me of the spoof someone made called "The Book of Lemuel" when one passage reads, "Hi, I'm Lemuel, and I'm retarded" and then the next passage reads something to the effect of, "That was my brother Laman. Dork. What I wouldn't give for a jewler...." Basically, the idea that you can't erase what was written on metal plates.
That's hilarious - I would love to read that. *goes off to Google*
quote:But there is a whole bunch of Mormon doctrine that doesn't appear anywhere in the New Testament, not even from the earliest manuscripts.
But if you're familiar with Mormon doctrine it's not hard to see it referred to in the New Testament. e.g. Exaltation: Romans 8: 16, 17 (joint heirs with Christ of the Father's glory) Apostasy: Acts 20: 29,30; 2 Thess 1: 1-11; Gospel preached to the dead: 1 Peter 3: 18-20; 4:6; 1 Cor 15: 29; John 5:25-29
etc. Obviously, others' interpretations of these scriptures will differ I'm sure, but to me they show that what's considered distinctive Mormon doctrine can be found without difficulty in the New Testament.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every time were are reading as a family and we come across one of those passages (there are a surprising number of them), bev and I look at each other and crack up.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was hilarious, thanks Kat. I loved the bit about maybe untying Nephi after Family Home Evening! Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone know how Joseph translated the book of Mormon? It was my understanding he used a "Seer" stone, but after someone lost a bunch of pages, that was taken away and he then used two stones (urim and thummin) in a hat.
I have been reading a lot on the topic (before I buy the Origins of Mormonism book), and that process seems to be the recurring scenario.
Are there any Mormons who can put that idea to rest? Or validate it?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's some more fodder for the "Why do LDS use the KJV?" issue.
Frankly, because there's no better alternative.
Please note that I'm not saying there are not more accurate translations. I'm a big fan of the NASB and NRSV. I refer to them constantly.
But it is a small part of it, and here's what I'll get into:
a) DOCTRINAL ACCURACY Which translation to choose to be an 'official' translation? While many of the other translations may be a great deal more accurate , sometimes a few select word choices used confuse or water down a point that is made more clear in the KJV translation - not necesarily because of mistranslation, but when a single hebrew/greek phrase can have a few similar renderings, generally translaters tend to go with the one that fits the standard theology better. Hence, most newer translations will say "one and only son" as opposed to "only begotten son". That's kind of a big deal. While there are many mistranslations in the KJV, very very few of them are of doctrinal import. It would be foolish to go to another translation where important specific doctrinal points are made less explicit.
b)A NEW TRANSLATION? To use a previously existing translation, the rights would have to be purchased. Not only is this a potential money issue, but also I bet that there are many Bible publishers who would not ALLOW the LDS to purchase a licence for their translation if they would be putting their footnotes and so-called 'false doctrines' into it. Not only is it financial, it's political. So if a currently existing translation can't be used, why don't we make a new scholarly translation? Because honestly, people would take the LDS church even less seriously if now they used their 'own Bible'. Nobody would trust it, very much like people accuse the Jehovah's Witnesses of needing to use their own New World Translation to prove their doctrines right. It makes discussion with non-LDS Christians that much tougher. The KJV, while a little archaic, is pretty much universally accepted.
c) COMPATIBILITY Since the KJV was the only English version Smith (and the majority of people at the time) used, this was voice of the text used when the works he translated matched up to the T with familiar Biblical texts. when Nephi quotes Isaiah, the KJV version was accurate enough - and familiar enough - that the words used to translate Nephi's reading of the selection were the same as the KJV words. And when Christ gave a sermon very similar to his Palestinian Sermon on the Mount, the same thing applied. There were subtle differences in each, but they mach up for a fascinating contrast-and-compare. They complement each other beautifully. Now to have Nephi quoting a scripture passage that doesn't match up at all to the wording used in some New Modern Translation would, even though the meanings are the same, somehow delude some of the sense of cohesiveness.
d) TRADITION! Old people would have a fit, and Seminary students would complain that "they memorized all that old english stuff for nothing" now that a newfangled version is now the Standard.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Why do missionaries only give out the Book of Mormon? You never see commercials urging people to ask their neighbors for a copy of Pearl of Great Price, or to call this number for their free copy of Doctrines and Covenants. Why?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those contain more deep doctrines, things less crucial to salvation. The Book of Mormon is pretty darn basic, a great starting-place. I have seen people be downright confused at how plain and simple the Book of Mormon is--they are expecting something more "far out".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:but I agree that forbidding someone from worship does seem very harsh, for something like a different view of the church's history.
It is more than a different view about its History. It goes much deeper than that and touches on the very meaning of its existance! People have left and formed their own religions over less disagreements. In fact, religions have killed for less differences of view than this person in even the mainstream strains of religions.
His views are tentamount to calling Jesus a good philosopher and, at worst, a nutcase liar. As was said similarly by someone else after the above quote; It would be like saying that whole "Christ" thing for Jesus was falsified by his supporters. Sure, you might make the case that you don't need the Christianizing of Jesus' message to be a good Christian. But, what kind would you be? If you go by the argument that what this person said about Mormonism created out of a lie (but one that has done good), than Mormons should just as easily be called Catholics and Protestants. Don't tell me Mormons aren't excluded from those institutions if they speak openly and with some kind of authoritative voice. My guess from experience is there would be more than shunning and refusal of worship happening.
quote:Is there anyone versed enough in LDS history enough to say this book is spreading false ideas?
Considering the years of reading his kind of LDS History as he is far from the first, I would say he is spreading false ideas (if you mean what LDS Theology would consider such). Luther, for instance, might have been a Catholic at first. But, as soon as he stuck those notes on the door he was no longer worthy of that association. His ideas and the Catholic institutions' ideas of what consituted true faith were no longer reconcilable. However, I would actually say in this instant that it is more like Calvinism vs. Catholicism. The differences between his beliefs and the LDS beliefs at this point are too far apart.
quote:Is it possible that the book is honest and truthful?
Again, from a believer's point of view it can't be. At least, if it is than there is no reason to even have The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution, because it denies its Divine Sanction of Real Authority (The bedrock of its organization).
quote:Look what Copernicus and Gallileo did to Catholic Doctrine, and what the Church did to THEM. I don't know that the situation is analogous
Those two challenged particular viewpoints (although stronly held) that turned out to be side-issue. They never challenged the Divine Authority of the Catholic Church as much as perceptions. The Catholic Church changed, but it didn't go away or shrink or dilute its message of Holy Order of God. What Palmer is doing is basically challenging the very premise of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints having any real authority outside of some feel-good ideas about faith in Christ. He is more liberal Protestant than he is "Mormon."
quote:What does he say in it that is considered apostasy?
As I have said over and over in the above, he has said that Joseph Smith was inspired by God to lie. He had no vision of God and Jesus Christ, he didn't have the Plates of Gold that became the Book of Mormon, he didn't recieve Priesthood Authority from Angels, and the list goes on. All he had, according to this author, was a good message about Jesus that should be the primary focus of the Church. Basically, he religated Joseph Smith's religious mission to that of a story-teller for the good of humanity.
posted
Long post ahoy. I'm swamped with exams, and have a lot to catch up on.
quote:You keep using the word "advanced Jewish civilization" -- would you mind defining what you mean by that and how you arrived at the term? I'm not sure how to unpack it.
I should be saying Isrealite, I guess. The Nephites were Isrealites that created cities, had metallurgy and used wheeled vehicles. That makes them fairly advanced in certain fields, relative to contact-period Mesoamericans. right?
quote:Shouldn't the translation be inerrant, then? No one claims that Biblical translations are inerrant. If the English version of the BOM was an act of inspiration, how can you say that "horse" doesn't mean "horse" or that "sword" doesn't mean "sword"?
I don't know about other Mormons, but I've never claime that it's inerrant -- innerrant and inspired aren't the same thing in my book.
I also don't think that the source material is inerrant -- it's clearly filtered through both the authors and the overall editor/compiler.
Well, the BOM does describe an act of metellurgy in Esther 7:9:
quote:...he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel...
Can you really chalk that up to a quirk of translation?
quote: How much is enough to discount or prove the historicity?
Well, it depends on the consequences of the statement.
For example, if I told you that I was wearing a white shirt at the moment, you'd probably believe me. It's a trivial statement that has no consequence or application. So with only my word to go on, you'll probably believe me when I say I'm wearing a white shirt. Which I am.
Now, if I say that I'm currently sitting on the moon as I type this statement, then you probably won't take my word for it.
In order to believe that I'm currently sitting on the moon, you'd have to concurrently accept an incredible array of consequences. You'd have to accept that someone has decided to live on the moon and as procurred the means to do so, etc, ad nauseum.
In other words, you woudln't take my word for it. It doesn't matter who I am; if I'm making a claim that requires a series of highly unusual and strong concurrent beliefs, then you are going to insist on a great deal of evidence to back up this claim.
A different example. There are those that claim the Holocaust claimed only a few hundred thousand lives. If we believe them, then we must simutaneously accept that both pre-war and Nazi records of Jewish people were fabricated. We must accept that the Nazi records of buying adequate fule for burning were intentionally forged, etc.
We demand a high standard of evidence from holocaust deniers, because their claims require us to believe a whole host of related claims, and each of theses claims requires its own body of evidence.
Uh, I'm using holocaust deniers as an example because they figured heavily in a historigraphy course I took last year, not to imply that LDSers have something in common with them.
So to sum up, simple claims require simple evidence, while complex and sweeping claims require complex and sweeping evidence.
So turn to the BOM. Does it make complex and sweeping claims, and is there complex and sweeping evidence to support these claims?
Historical statements in the BOM:
1. Multiple urban centres across multple nations.
Concurrent claims: that multiple cultures built multiple urban centres simultaneously, and then left no records or traces behind.
For example, a BYU study suggests a location for the city of Zarahemia.
Zarahemia is described in the BOM has a walled city that is large enough to largely equip and maintain an army tens of thousands strong. This army used metal weapons as well as bows and arrows.
So the claim: that a battle waged near a city large enough to support thousands of warriors equipped with metal weapons existed over in Guatamala over 2000 years ago, and left behind no traces.
That's a pretty sweeping claim. In order to believe it, you must accept that tens of thousands of metal weapons as well as a walled city all disappeared without a trace.
How much evidence is required to substantiate these claims? Well, finding one single 2000 year old sword would in itself shatter the currently existing mainstream timeline.
Btw, I'm not a Christian. I hold the Bible to the same standard (global flood that didn't affect ice cores at all? hrrm...).
quote:But I would like to ask: What do you think about the Book of Mormon in terms of meta-narration? All those places where it seems rather postmodern (to use a term incredibly loosely and faciley) in its awareness of the text as text (and even as scriptural text).
This, I guess, is a matter of perspective. It honestly seems very fishy to me, as it Smith was trying to be more authentic than an authentic ancient text.
About OSC's article. I've read it before and the sentence that naws at me is the same one that Sara quoted.
quote: 1820s America should leap out of every page, exactly the way 1950s America leaps out of every minute of every episode of _I Love Lucy_.
Except 1820s American does leap out of every page. Why on earth are ancient Isrealites talking exactly like post-enlightenment middle class political theorists?
Alma 21:21:
quote:And he did also declare unto them that they were... a free people, that they were free from the oppressions of the King....
and 21:22,
quote:And he also declared until them that they might have the liberty of worshipping the Lord their God according to their desires...
46:35,
quote:...enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government...
There are dozens more examples. It's as if John Locke himself wrote the BOM.
There are similar examples with racial issues; the villainous Lamenites are described in identical terms to those used of African-Americans in 19th century America.
I can't say that the BOM doesn't contain multiple voices, but even if it does, that means very little. There could have been multiple authors, or Smith may have had an imagination that at least equals or surpasses OSC's.
quote:And, fake or genuine, the Prophet's attempt at old-fashioned formal English should reveal his lack of education -- which it does, with numerous grammatical errors and misuses of archaic forms, many of which survive even in current editions of the Book of Mormon.
This is an issue I have with inspired scripture in general. If someone isn't educated enough or careful enough to write properly, why on earth would I believe everything they say with 100% certainty? I'm not saying it's reason to discard someone's writing - I can see the grammar nazis reading my post over while I say this - but it's reason to second guess their interpretation and recollection of events, isn't it?
posted
I wanted to comment on the Paradox of the importance of taking the Book of Mormon as history, but not considering archeology as part of the proof of that history.
For a Latter-day Saint, the only real test of the Book of Mormon's validity is through the Spirit. The only importance of the Book of Mormon is its religious and Spiritual message.
However, within that message is its basis in a real and concrete reality. As such, any negative "proof" from an archeological standpoint is arguably important. This is because it could very well put to question the Spiritual witness one might have gotten. That is why you have apologists arguing one way or the other.
Yet, the need for positive archeological study to a Latter-day Saint is irrelavant. The Book of Mormon doesn't have that as a criteria for recognition of its truth claims. Prayer and a Witness of the Spirit is all it demands. The book's narrative takes its existance in time and space as a given.
To sum up, archeology doesn't matter at all for believing in and understanding the Book of Mormon. As such, it is not a basis of study for ITS truth claims. It does matter, however, for upholding or defending that belief. As such, it is a basis for argumentation. Archeology is irrelavant for faith. It is relavent for apologetics.
In many ways what is happening with the Book of Mormon is going on with Jesus studies. There is the Jesus of Faith and the Jesus of History (as some scholars would say). Yet, those who believe in the Jesus of Faith believe that the Jesus of History is innacurate and heretical. Yet, those same people don't believe that studying the Time of Jesus is relavant to understanding the truth of the New Testament; although they will fight to show how "Christ" of Jesus is historical. Those who study the History of Jesus reject the Jesus of Faith, although still accepting the Moralizing within the text. They have (like Palmer with Mormonism) rejected the premise of Christianity to replace it with a meaningful lie (what they would call propaganda for idealogy).
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foust, I don't know much about it because I have not studied it. But here is a link I found that addresses some of your questions: linky
I imagine it is true that if we are to understand that those swords and cimitars mentioned in the BoM were metal, it shouldn't be too hard to find the remains of such metal weapons. So *if* the BoM is true, either there is a reason they have not been found, or the weapons weren't made of metal (as the link addresses.)
Do I wonder about these things? Yes. I am an intelligent, rational human being. But I am also aware of the evidences *for* the BoM. I choose to believe it is scripture. I do not fault people who do not choose to believe this.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except 1820s American does leap out of every page. Why on earth are ancient Isrealites talking exactly like post-enlightenment middle class political theorists?
Except that it pops up in combinations that are expressly NOT 1820s. The above examples are superficial quotes and out of context. Closer looks at the political and social structures show that the language for expressing ideas might come from Joseph Smith's time, but the overall details do not.
For instance, all that talk of freedoms is shown to be far from what enlightenment would allow. The Nephite and Lamanite civilizations are expressly Theocratic. If a civil leader isn't the religious leader, he does go to the religious leader for the word of God on matters of State. The balance of government is nearly non-existant, with the leadership based on ogligarchy<sic> and blood relations. The "Presidents" (actually more like High Judges) are only placed into office by vote once. All subsiquent High Judges are assigned the possition by the original High Judge. Not only that, but the idea expressed about Kings is totally against what was held in 1820 by Americans. It basically says that the best governments are when you have Kings. The only reason that Kings shouldn't be the authority of the land is the possibility of bad Kings.
quote:There are similar examples with racial issues; the villainous Lamenites are described in identical terms to those used of African-Americans in 19th century America.
Interesting enough that the Lamanites don't become slaves or are ever seen as slaves. Rather, they actually take the "White" Nephites as slaves. And, in many parts of the Book of Mormon they are as civilized if not at times even more civilized than the Nephites. In fact, race quickly gives way to politics rather than blood and skin. You are recognized for the social sphere you live with, rather than what you look like. It is true, to be fair, that the Nephites and Lamanites never get past their hostility. But, its more like the relationship of the Jews and Arabs than blacks and whites. Not only that but those "Villinous" Lamanites are never seen as evil as the Nephites can become. Sometimes the "Villinous" Lamanites actually become the heroes and are guber-righteous.
Thus, you have 1820s (and 1600s for that matter) language and ideas stuffed into decidely alien contexts and situations.
quote:I mean, why would it serve the early church to take away important parts of the manuscripts? And why aren't there, among 24,000 ancient copies of parts of the New Testaments, any evidences of stuff that's been omitted?
The way I understand this is that it's not so much the actual words of the Scriptures that have been changed, it's the interpretations thereof. The words are still there, but the meaning that a certain church/churches ascribes to them has been so changed in places that they might as well have been removed.
I'm not making myself clear. Let me give an example, using a fictitious Scripture verse.
The Book of Yozhik, chapter 3, verse 2:
"Proclaim the truth, for ye shall not allow a wrongdoer to continue living among you."
When the original author wrote this, she meant "If somebody is committing sin, don't let them simply continue in their wrong doing, but make every effort to convince them of the error of their ways. (The person may continue to live among you, but he/she will change and not be a wrongdoer anymore.)"
However, over the last few millennia, the church of Yozhik has gradually changed its doctrine. The verse is now commonly understood to mean "Drive sinners out of your community; proclaim the high standards of your community to everyone by getting rid of the immoral people."
The words are still there: the "plain and precious" truth of the author's inspired meaning is gone.
Why the doctrinal change? There are many possibilities. Maybe the church of Yozhik becomes less tolerant, perhaps as a backlash against a permissive period. Or maybe it's just easier and more fun to drive sinners out than to convert them.
[ December 15, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zal, why do you disagree? When I say salvation, I am not referring to exaltation. The gospel requirements for salvation are faith, repentance, baptism by correct authority, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the same, and enduring in the faith to the end. The BoM covers that quite well. The D&C and PoGP address things concerning exaltation, which goes beyond salvation.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMHO we give investigators the Book of Mormon because if we gave them the Doctrine and Covenants, they would be too bored after the first five pages to investigate further. Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least they've got First Nephi (an exciting story) behind them by then.
"Must...keep...reading...we WILL get back to the Nephites and Lamanites at some point, won't we?..."
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, as that's pretty much exactly the sort of thing I'd think a person from the 1820s who saw a lot of the same overarching problems but rather liked some of the parts about kings in the bible, its hardly convincing.
Particularly as you seem convinced everyone in the 1820s had exactly the same sort of ideas, which must be based on everyone nowadays having exactly the same sort of ideas.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is true, to be fair, that the Nephites and Lamanites never get past their hostility
Wait a minute! The Lamanites (at least some populations of them) and the Nephites are joined together in one peaceful nation after the visit of Christ to the New World. (Can't recall the exact scripture, but it goes like "there were no more manner of -ites among them...")
Later there is a split into Nephites and Lamanites again, but the split takes place along religious and political divisions, not racial or familial ones. And by then, both sides are so wicked and corrupt that it doesn't much matter which side wins.
-----------------
Complicating the discussion of Nephites/Lamanites is the fact that early on, "Lamanite" becomes a general designator for anybody who's not a Nephite or allied with the Nephites. This includes members of population groups that are NOT descended from the Israelite settlers. (These groups are never mentioned by name, but their presence can be inferred from various clues in the text. Most obvious is that while the Nephites and Lamanites start out as roughly equal population groups, the Lamanites quickly grow to outnumber them and continue to *massively* outnumber them throughout the BoM narrative. Therefore, either the Nephites are practicing birth control, or the Lamanites are getting an influx of guys from outside their original group.)
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not clear to me why this is a big deal. Could you explain?
For LDS it's a big deal because we believe that we are ALL spirit children of God. (One of the titles we give to Christ is "Elder Brother.") To say that Christ is the "one and only son" denies that God has any other, spirit sons and daughters, and this means that therefore we don't have any kinship with God at all, even a slight one: we're His toys or playthings, rather than His (very, very, very young and immature) children.
For us, it's more accurate to say "only begotten" in reference to Christ, as He is the only begotten Son of Heavenly Father. (The rest of us were born into mortality of earthly parents.)
[ December 16, 2004, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
I just don't think the distinctions you make really apply to the texts.
Both the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants have a lot of valuable, even crucial things to say about
quote: faith, repentance, baptism by correct authority, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the same, and enduring in the faith to the end.
Part of it may also be my bias against the term "deep doctrines."
----- On a related note: Although I fully agree with the emphasis placed on the Book of Mormon -- because I do believe that it has a certain power for converts. It hasn't always played such a central role in LDS missionary efforts. I'm not saying that it wasn't part of it, but there's no doubt that it took on a greater emphasis in the latter part of the 20th century.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I'm attempting to be honestly objective about what you are saying here. I personally find OSC's argument/explaination more logically convincing than yours. I don't expect you or anyone else to be convinced by it. And of course you will believe that I am unable to be objective about this. (I personally believe it is impossible for anyone to be truly objective about anything.) I understand that it is tied to something you cannot believe for other reasons, Ackham's Razor and all that, and I come from a standpoint of believing the BoM to be what it claims to be, but there it is.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: IMHO we give investigators the Book of Mormon because if we gave them the Doctrine and Covenants, they would be too bored after the first five pages to investigate further.
I think that there's some merit to this idea, actually. There's a lot to be said for the narrative aspect of the Book of Mormon -- something the Doctrine of Covenants lacks. And the Pearl of Great Price is great, but short.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It hasn't always played such a central role in LDS missionary efforts. I'm not saying that it wasn't part of it, but there's no doubt that it took on a greater emphasis in the latter part of the 20th century.
Though in the D&C the missionaries of that time were chastized for not relying on it. There is quite a bit in the D&C that makes the importance of emphasis on the BoM clear. President Benson was just reiterating that--reminding us of something we should already have known.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Occasional, as that's pretty much exactly the sort of thing I'd think a person from the 1820s who saw a lot of the same overarching problems but rather liked some of the parts about kings in the bible, its hardly convincing.
Particularly as you seem convinced everyone in the 1820s had exactly the same sort of ideas, which must be based on everyone nowadays having exactly the same sort of ideas.
This is a bit of an aside, and I'm not saying it's a valid way of looking at things, but I find it kind of hilarious.
Just as apologists seem to find a way to explain everything. Skeptics who approach Joseph Smith seem to want to have it both ways -- he's both ignorant and a genius (actually Mormons do this too), or even funier -- he's just reflecting his times except the parts where he isn't -- that's where his inventiveness comes in or where he magically has access to sources that seem unlikely considering his background.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me they only believe it because it is easier than believing all this came from divine intervention. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: archeology doesn't matter at all for believing in and understanding the Book of Mormon. As such, it is not a basis of study for ITS truth claims. It does matter, however, for upholding or defending that belief. As such, it is a basis for argumentation. Archeology is irrelavant for faith. It is relavent for apologetics.
I think that it doesn't matter once you believe. I was discussing the idea of the Book of Mormon with a Methodist seminary student a few weeks ago and he said that for him, the lack of archeological evidence for the BOM countered reason because it seemed logical to him that there would be at least some archeologicial evidence of an advanced civilization. For him, this was irrefutable evidence that it was false. So while perhaps the archeological evidence isn't necessary for belief, I think it is definately a barrier for many of us to even consider trying to develop faith in it. Dismissing the lack of evidence as being "irrelevant for faith" is not very convincing to someone who will not even try to develop faith in something that seems unreasonable to them.
quote: It seems to me they only believe it because it is easier than believing all this came from divine intervention.
I find this statement rather offensive. Surely you've heard someone say something along the lines of "it's easier for them to believe it was divinely inspired than to look at the contradicting evidence and see that it's false" or something equally offensive. I think that blanket statements for both sides are extremely false. There is no one generic "easier" thing to believe. It depends entirely on the person and their situation.
posted
"I personally find OSC's argument/explaination more logically convincing than yours."
*giggle* I addressed this once in another thread.
What you are saying when you say this is that it is EASIER for you to believe that Joseph Smith was SO exceptional that he was chosen to receive multiple messages from God and/or all kinds of interesting revelations, but not quite exceptional enough to write a really, really good book.
It's a point of view that is, I think, to be expected of someone who takes writing seriously: "Smith was a podunk farmboy, and couldn't've been intelligent or educated enough to have written this book -- but he COULD have been visited by angels and been given some giant metal plates which were unfortunately removed later."
I think it takes a very special worldview to conclude that the latter is the more likely explanation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What you are saying when you say this is that it is EASIER for you to believe that Joseph Smith was SO exceptional that he was chosen to receive multiple messages from God and/or all kinds of interesting revelations, but not quite exceptional enough to write a really, really good book.
Actually, I wonder why you think that the qualities that would make one a good prophet are the same as the qualities that would make one a good author/translator.
posted
Moses is considered (by many believers) as one of the greatest prophets this earth has ever seen. And yet he was severely lacking in some areas, public speaking being one of them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Actually, I wonder why you think that the qualities that would make one a good prophet are the same as the qualities that would make one a good author/translator."
Oh, I don't. But if we're basing our entire argument on the LIKELIHOOD of an event, I think we can agree that it is empirically more likely, just from a statistical viewpoint, that someone would write a surprisingly good book than it is that someone would be chosen by God to bring His testimony back to Earth.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We believe that mankind's knowledge of God should grow continually throughout time. Moses taught new things that Abraham never had, Christ taught new things that Moses never had, and even the Apostles offered invaluable insight into Christ's teachings that we would not have had if the book had ended with the Gospels.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
