Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Removing truths from the BOM or Bible.


Recommended Posts

The BOM claims that many plain and precious truths have been removed from the Bible. My question is not whether this is true or not but, would it be possible to take anything away out of the BOM or the Bible today and if so how could one do it?

Link to comment

Removed could mean more than one thing. Strictly speaking, removed could mean physically taking out parts. But removing could also mean the correct interpretation has been altered and removed over the years. So in that sense, yes, a new interpretation of a passage could be a type of removal.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, snowflake said:

The BOM claims that many plain and precious truths have been removed from the Bible.

Way back in the day, the pre-Gutenberg Press day, yes.  

From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

The Bible is of inestimable worth; nevertheless, it testifies to its own incompleteness. It mentions sacred works that are no longer available (Josh. 10:13; 1 Kgs. 11:41; 1 Chr. 29:29; Eph. 3:3; Col. 4:16; Jude 1:14-15), and it refers to Old Testament prophecies presently missing (see Matt. 2:23; John 8:56).

Likewise, the Book of Mormon identifies several prophetic writings absent from the Bible, such as words of Zenos, Zenock, Neum, Ezias, and Joseph of Egypt (see also HC 2:236), which were found on the brass plates. Their prophecies dealt with the future of Israel and the coming of Jesus Christ. Nephi's brother Jacob stated that all the prophets had testified of Jesus Christ (Jacob 4:4-6;7:9-11; cf. John 5:39), a fact not readily apparent in the Old Testament as it now exists. The Prophet Joseph Smith wrote in 1832, "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (HC 1:245; cf. 1 Ne. 13:26-42).

...

The Doctrine and Covenants speaks of lost writings of John (D&C 7:1-8;93:5-18) and refers to a law of dealing with enemies given by God to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, but not found in the Bible (D&C 98:28-37); the Pearl of Great Price restores a portion of the writings of Abraham, Moses, Enoch, and Adam, especially about the Creation and early history of God's dealings with man. Enoch mentioned an ancient book of remembrance and a genealogy of Adam (Moses 6:5-8, 46), along with now missing blessings and prophecies uttered by Adam and his descendants at the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman before Adam's death (D&C 107:53-57).

Many Book of Mormon source materials are not now accessible. The gold plates given to Joseph Smith in 1827 mention a record of Lehi (1 Ne. 1:16-17) and other writings of Nephi 1 (1 Ne. 9:1-6). Jacob, Mormon, and Moroni 2 note that they could scarcely include "the hundredth part" of what could have been written (Jacob 3:13; 3 Ne. 5:8; Ether 15:33). The Lord often commanded the Nephite record keepers not to write or circulate certain things (see 1 Ne. 14:25-28; 3 Ne. 26:11-12), and Joseph Smith was similarly commanded by the Lord not to translate a large sealed portion of the gold plates (D&C 17:6; see also Ether 4:1-7;5:1-6).

And from the Bible Dictionary:

Quote

The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

So yes, lots and lots of missing content.

21 minutes ago, snowflake said:

My question is not whether this is true or not but, would it be possible to take anything away out of the BOM or the Bible today and if so how could one do it?

Today?  Not hardly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, snowflake said:

The BOM claims that many plain and precious truths have been removed from the Bible. My question is not whether this is true or not but, would it be possible to take anything away out of the BOM or the Bible today and if so how could one do it?

Well, not exactly. What it says is that the great and abominable church removed plain and precious things from the Bible. What is the Bible? The Bible was essentially a creation of Constantine - probably his best act as a very low-grade "Christian" if he was truly Christian at all. Anyway, he commissioned 50 Bibles. Around 364 the Council of Laodicea decided what books to put in future Bibles. I'm not saying they left out any important books, but that there is a difference in Bibles. There are two important codex from this century - Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. There are notable differences from their completed parts, but they do show attempts to follow this new idea of compiling the books of scripture into one single book. From that point Bibles became controlled, and the province of priests. Why did Protestants translate their own Bibles from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? Answer that question, and your mystery will be "solved." Note: The Peshitta is not called "the Bible" for purposes of understanding the BoM imho. In other words compare the Bible of the 14th century to today's NKJV or an Oxford Annotated version, and you will probably see what is being referred to. The tendency of critics is to blow the article of faith that LDS believe the Bible so far as it is translated correctly, way out of proportion. Unfortunately, I think certain leaders such as BY fed into this tendency. Nevertheless, BY clearly affirmed the importance of the Bible. What Bible was he talking about? The KJV Protestant Bible. I have few issues with the Revised Standard or Oxford Bible. The KJV is getting a little too "Old" English for most people to easily understand, and has translation mistakes and omissions. I dislike its translations of the titles and name of God, which I believe serves to hide the nature of God and the Godhead. Those in themselves are important truths which I repeatedly stress on this forum, which I believe the BoM helps to clarify somewhat - for example that Yeshua is the "Holy One" of the Old Testament.

While I realize that was probably not a direct answer to your question, I believe it is relevant to answering your question of whether we can now take anything out of the Bible or BoM. My answer is sure we can. As an example I would point to the Jehovah's Witnesses who tried to remove any inference that Yeshua is YHWH from their Bible. I believe that is removing a plain and precious truth as to the nature of His oneness with the Father and the nature of the Godhead. The Church has made changes to the BoM - the intent is to make it more readable to the modern English reader, but it is changing the "truth" of its original Hebraic character. We must be very careful when changing scripture to carry its original meaning. This is one of my problems with the KJV translation of the the titles and name of God. I believe the meanings of the names and titles have been hidden or essentially lost in the translation into the KJV English of Lord and "God." I believe the Church could reach new clarity and understanding of the nature of God if this were better addressed in our translations. In other words I am more concerned with putting something back into our scripture which I believe has been taken out. :) 

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, snowflake said:

The BOM claims that many plain and precious truths have been removed from the Bible. My question is not whether this is true or not but, would it be possible to take anything away out of the BOM or the Bible today and if so how could one do it?

While very easy for all of the "new revelations" groups to make the claim that the Bible has somehow copiously been corrupted, not one person has ever presented an original version which we can compare and see that a doctrinal change exists.

NOT ONE!

Conversely, anyone can put the Book of Mormon to it's own test as plainly see that it meets it's own claim by comparing today's version with the original version.

For example, compare the very passage that makes the "plain and precious truths were removed" claim with the original BoM passage and today's version.

Original Version:

5a4fb71d079fa_BOMP321neph13_40.JPG.00640e3ace3d5590553450cd9053fffe.JPG

Today's version:

5a4fb711d8385_BOM1neph13_40.JPG.4c7ec764559f620a58b3520c5bd2abf6.JPG

Anyone can plainly see that plain and precious truths were removed...

Link to comment
2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

While I realize that was probably not a direct answer to your question, I believe it is relevant to answering your question of whether we can now take anything out of the Bible or BoM. My answer is sure we can. As an example I would point to the Jehovah's Witnesses who tried to remove any inference that Yeshua is YHWH from their Bible. I believe that is removing a plain and precious truth as to the nature of His oneness with the Father and the nature of the Godhead. The Church has made changes to the BoM - the intent is to make it more readable to the modern English reader, but it is changing the "truth" of its original Hebraic character. We must be very careful when changing scripture to carry its original meaning. This is one of my problems with the KJV translation of the the titles and name of God. I believe the meanings of the names and titles have been hidden or essentially lost in the translation into the KJV English of Lord and "God." I believe the Church could reach new clarity and understanding of the nature of God if this were better addressed in our translations. In other words I am more concerned with putting something back into our scripture which I believe has been taken out.

I do think that in the attempt to create a current English translation of the ancient manuscripts some "truth" might be changed or altered a bit, but nothing of doctrinal significance. And I would agree with you Rev that the KJV does seem to put most of the OT names of God as "LORD" and "God". Not sure why the translators would try to change those beautiful titles for God.

I'm sure you have seen that Joseph's attempt to "correct" the bible in the JST is much like the JW's perversion of the manuscripts as well, in Both instances, the changes are simply not supported by manuscripts.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:
Quote

The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

So yes, lots and lots of missing content.

Not sure that just because something is mentioned, and not elaborated on, is evidence that the Bible is incomplete, for example: how did Mary die? Where was she buried? What color were her eyes? .......see the bible is incomplete!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, snowflake said:

The BOM claims that many plain and precious truths have been removed from the Bible. My question is not whether this is true or not but, would it be possible to take anything away out of the BOM or the Bible today and if so how could one do it?

The part that says, "eat meat sparingly", I edited mine to read "eat meat sparingly copiously", and in the part that says "love your neighbor", mine says "love your neighbor steak".  Does that count?

My wife and I are actually in the process of overhauling our menu to be more vegetarian.  But, ya, the scriptures might as well read that for most.  

Link to comment
4 hours ago, snowflake said:

The BOM claims that many plain and precious truths have been removed from the Bible. My question is not whether this is true or not but, would it be possible to take anything away out of the BOM or the Bible today and if so how could one do it?

It's harder today given the ubiquity of texts, ease of backup, and replication. In the ancient world there were only a few people literate. Paper or similar writing items were expensive or fragile. Often there were, relative to today, few believers. The number of Christians today is in the billions with most of them being literature. The number of Jews in 6th century Israel was maybe a few hundred thousand at tops with most of them being illiterate. 

Now if the world ever goes Mad Max and returns to some dark ages then it's a different story. (The film The Book of Eli staring Denzel Washington imagines such a scenario with the great lengths the protagonist goes to keep the Bible text around when most copies are being destroyed) However realistically even if the world went Mad Max there are so many books and other repositories that it's doubtful you could lose texts the way most ancient texts disappeared. And of course that doesn't address the problem that there always were few texts in the ancient world. 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

While very easy for all of the "new revelations" groups to make the claim that the Bible has somehow copiously been corrupted, not one person has ever presented an original version which we can compare and see that a doctrinal change exists.

NOT ONE!

Conversely, anyone can put the Book of Mormon to it's own test as plainly see that it meets it's own claim by comparing today's version with the original version.

For example, compare the very passage that makes the "plain and precious truths were removed" claim with the original BoM passage and today's version.

Original Version:

5a4fb71d079fa_BOMP321neph13_40.JPG.00640e3ace3d5590553450cd9053fffe.JPG

Today's version:

5a4fb711d8385_BOM1neph13_40.JPG.4c7ec764559f620a58b3520c5bd2abf6.JPG

you might find this interesting https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/"the_Son_of"

Edited by Duncan
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, pogi said:

The part that says, "eat meat sparingly", I edited mine to read "eat meat sparingly copiously", and in the part that says "love your neighbor", mine says "love your neighbor steak".  Does that count?

 

I favor "eat, meet sparingly."  (we move to 9 am sacrament meeting, with 7 am ward council twice a month this year.)

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I do think that in the attempt to create a current English translation of the ancient manuscripts some "truth" might be changed or altered a bit, but nothing of doctrinal significance. And I would agree with you Rev that the KJV does seem to put most of the OT names of God as "LORD" and "God". Not sure why the translators would try to change those beautiful titles for God.

I'm sure you have seen that Joseph's attempt to "correct" the bible in the JST is much like the JW's perversion of the manuscripts as well, in Both instances, the changes are simply not supported by manuscripts.

Again, I think the failure to translate the OT names of God accurately, has led to some confusion about Yeshua in the OT. I think that is obvious by the several sects which try to say Jesus is not "God." Well, I think it apparent from the OT that He is YHWH Elohim with the Father. That is one of the things I think He tried to teach us, but went not fully understood. But, thanks for your agreement Snowflake. I think if you compare a pre-Protestant medieval Bible to a good current Protestant Bible you will see differences in doctrine - changes made specifically for doctrinal reasons starting at Genesis. There is a little bit of a list I am not going to reproduce here. One day soon I will probably have a link. ;) 

I don't agree with you about Joseph's changes to the Bible. His main change to Matthew at Chap 25 I believe really serves to incorporate Luke. If you look at the two together, I think you will see that is obvious. To completely understand what Yeshua was prophesying, I think you need to look at both Matthew and Luke together. and JS simply did that for us. It took me awhile to see that, but I offer it as an important insight. It is apparent that scribes of the state Church did make changes to the scriptures over time. For instance the Johannine Comma at 1 John 5:7-8, which the Catholic Church now admits was an addition apparently from a margin note which a later scribe apparently inadvertently simply added. I don't see most of Joseph's changes really making much of an impact. They seem to offer more guidance than really "correction." For instance he provides a reading in Revelation 12 which changes days to years. I believe that is prophetically supported, but not textually as you say. In other words it reads days, but prophetically means years like in Daniel 9. I think what the Jehovah's Witnesses did was dangerous and heretical. What Joseph did seems to find support and be correct. Being that I see so many other supports to JS's prophethood, I much more readily accept Joseph's reading of the Bible than that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Joseph Smith did not try to hide the nature of God but to reveal it. In this regard I owe him a great debt. Of course I believe Christ could have done that all on His own for me, but He started through Joseph Smith, and I learned precept upon precept. Joseph thankfully provided the first precepts. I learned based on those, and additional guidance from the Lord. That is the way the Lord seems to do things, which leaves me in not only His debt, but the debt of all my former prophets.

Maybe if you have specific areas where you think JS botched the job which had some horrible impact on doctrine, we could have a discussion on it. I just don't see it.

Your friend Rev

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I favor "eat, meet sparingly."  (we move to 9 am sacrament meeting, with 7 am ward council twice a month this year.)

Ugh, I have to be at church at 6 am on Sundays this year. I expect a platinum level celestial mansion for this complete with no alarms or wake up calls ever!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

While very easy for all of the "new revelations" groups to make the claim that the Bible has somehow copiously been corrupted, not one person has ever presented an original version which we can compare and see that a doctrinal change exists.

NOT ONE!

Conversely, anyone can put the Book of Mormon to it's own test as plainly see that it meets it's own claim by comparing today's version with the original version.

For example, compare the very passage that makes the "plain and precious truths were removed" claim with the original BoM passage and today's version.

Original Version:

5a4fb71d079fa_BOMP321neph13_40.JPG.00640e3ace3d5590553450cd9053fffe.JPG

Today's version:

5a4fb711d8385_BOM1neph13_40.JPG.4c7ec764559f620a58b3520c5bd2abf6.JPG

Anyone can plainly see that plain and precious truths were removed...

Why do you think the Church didn’t change the many other verses in the Book of Mormon that say precisely the same thing? Here’s just one of those many examples:

15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen. (Mosiah 16)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

While very easy for all of the "new revelations" groups to make the claim that the Bible has somehow copiously been corrupted, not one person has ever presented an original version which we can compare and see that a doctrinal change exists.

NOT ONE!

I don't know what you mean by "an original version" and it is not the claim of the Book of Mormon that an original version has been changed. If you take the Codex Sinaiticus, however, and compare it to the typical medieval Latin Bible, you will see that the Bible received numerous changes which later Protestants felt were corruptions. That's why the Protestants went back to the Greek texts. Know your history! 

Quote

Conversely, anyone can put the Book of Mormon to it's own test as plainly see that it meets it's own claim by comparing today's version with the original version.

For example, compare the very passage that makes the "plain and precious truths were removed" claim with the original BoM passage and today's version.

Original Version:

5a4fb71d079fa_BOMP321neph13_40.JPG.00640e3ace3d5590553450cd9053fffe.JPG

Today's version:

5a4fb711d8385_BOM1neph13_40.JPG.4c7ec764559f620a58b3520c5bd2abf6.JPG

Anyone can plainly see that plain and precious truths were removed...

That is a complete exaggeration. You are ignoring the other parts of the original BoM which clearly showed Jesus as the Son of the Father such as His appearance in 3 Nephi. The BoM still plainly refers to the Son as the Father in some of His aspects, and I believe the Son will be our Eternal Father - that is His inheritance. So the BoM is merely teaching that. The change you are showing is not a change in doctrine nor some kind of horrible heresy.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

While very easy for all of the "new revelations" groups to make the claim that the Bible has somehow copiously been corrupted, not one person has ever presented an original version which we can compare and see that a doctrinal change exists.

Given the lack of early Biblical texts, does that really tell us anything?  That is, how on earth would one confirm or falsify this given currently extant evidence?

I'd argue that book in 1 Nephi 13 is, like church, a kind of symbolic archetype and not a literal historic item  Further the plain and precious things are emphasized as being there when they come from the mouth, thereby emphasizing an oral and not written tradition. Scholars this century have fairly uniformly come to say that the original Biblical "texts" (Q and Mark) were oral traditions. So in that case there is no original written text to compare to. An interesting convergence to the Book of Mormon.

However even sticking to the New Testament, there clearly are different traditions fairly early on. Second even texts like Mark have disputed sections. (Say Morton Smith's somewhat controversial point about the secret Gospel of Mark.) Which tradition is the correct version? Well there's no way objectively to settle that. Again the paucity of texts means we know little about 1st century Christianity. We have Paul's texts but they tell us relatively little about the churches outside of those Paul wrote to. We know little about the leadership structure at Jerusalem nor what happened after the destruction at 70AD. We don't know if, as Mormons claim, there were inner teachings somewhat analogous to what happened in Nauvoo with Joseph Smith. (We know lots of people were claiming there were such things - but again how can we know?) Now there are some texts that never made it into the Bible yet seem reasonably authentic about 1st century Christianity such as the Didiche. That has some obvious missing items. But for missing doctrines any text we point to someone can always just argue was a heretical sect mixing in Jewish merkabah, Platonism, and pagan ideas. So unless we have some way to demonstrate a text is authentic to the historic figure one can always dispute it. (And to be clear, this applies to all the texts of the Bible equally as much as it does to any other text from the 1st or early 2cd century )

Now when you move to the Old Testament the problem is even worse. First we have numerous books mentioned in the Old Testament that are lost. Likely some of them were the sources used to create the texts we have in our Bible. Second, nearly all scholars unanimously see huge theological changes from the pre-exilic period to the post-exilic period and then further evolution during the Hellenistic period. The mere fact of such massive theological change pretty well confirms what Nephi is claiming. (Lots of missing books, changes in belief with loss of beliefs) Now some of the beliefs Nephi seems to hold do seem pre-exilic although again given the paucity of texts (most OT books are seen as largely post-exilic compositions including pre-exilic books like Isaiah) it's hard to prove that. Instead we can point to reconstructions of some pre-exilic beliefs that seem to match Book of Mormon or more generally Mormon claims. e.g. the idea of a pantheon rather than a single monotheistic god, rejection of creation ex nihilo in preference to an ongoing recreatation out of pre-existing materials, etc.

A final point, when criticizing what the Book of Mormon does or doesn't contain one should note we have most likely less than half of the text. The 116 pages are lost and we don't know what's on them. (Although Don Bradley suggests temple related items were there) The sealed portion of the book has yet to be translated.

 

 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ugh, I have to be at church at 6 am on Sundays this year. I expect a platinum level celestial mansion for this complete with no alarms or wake up calls ever!

There is a scriptural injunction against being up at that hour:

"It is vain for you to rise up early" (Psalm 127:2)

"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning" (Isaiah 5:11)

 

Edited by ksfisher
Link to comment
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Not sure that just because something is mentioned, and not elaborated on, is evidence that the Bible is incomplete, for example: how did Mary die? Where was she buried? What color were her eyes? .......see the bible is incomplete!

Entire books of missing scripture is not equivalent to Mary's eye color not being mentioned.  Who knows, these additional books might have prevented much of the fracture that we see in Christianity today, as far as doctrinal disagreements (baptismal age, etc), requirements/ordinances for salvation, exaltation (deification)), nature of the Godhead, priesthood authority , etc. etc. etc.  For being complete, there is so much more that could have been said. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

A final point, when criticizing what the Book of Mormon does or doesn't contain one should note we have most likely less than half of the text. The 116 pages are lost and we don't know what's on them. (Although Don Bradley suggests temple related items were there) The sealed portion of the book has yet to be translated.

My guess is it has to do with what the people did during the 250 years they lived happily, peacefully and prospered. How does one do that? What, if anything, did Jesus teach them which allowed them to change so dramatically? What miracles did they do? What additional revelations, if any, did they receive? I would find this much more interesting than the myriad wars.... jmho. This revelation will probably come in the days of the New Jerusalem.... Interesting how we seem to have so little about the early Church in both the Old World and the New World.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

My guess is it has to do with what the people did during the 250 years they lived happily, peacefully and prospered. How does one do that? What, if anything, did Jesus teach them which allowed them to change so dramatically? What miracles did they do? What additional revelations, if any, did they receive? I would find this much more interesting than the myriad wars.... jmho. This revelation will probably come in the days of the New Jerusalem.... Interesting how we seem to have so little about the early Church in both the Old World and the New World.

Much of it is supposed to be Mormon's summation of the Jaredite records or possibly even extensive copies of them. (See Ether 3:27; 4:4-5) Although the connection between the records and the 100 years of peace is made by the brother of Jared and Moroni (Ether 4:1-2)

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Much of it is supposed to be Mormon's summation of the Jaredite records or possibly even extensive copies of them. (See Ether 3:27; 4:4-5) Although the connection between the records and the 100 years of peace is made by the brother of Jared and Moroni (Ether 4:1-2)

Ether 3 "he should seal up the two stones which he had received"

This sounds like the interpreters given to JS with the plates doesn't it?

Ether 4:1 And the Lord commanded the brother of Jared to go down out of the mount from the presence of the Lord, and write the things which he had seen; and they were forbidden to come unto the children of men until after that he should be lifted up upon the cross; and for this cause did king Mosiah keep them, that they should not come unto the world until after Christ should show himself unto his people.

2 And after Christ truly had showed himself unto his people he commanded that they should be made manifest.

3 And now, after that, they have all dwindled in unbelief; and there is none save it be the Lamanites, and they have rejected the gospel of Christ; therefore I am commanded that I should hide them up again in the earth.

4 Behold, I have written upon these plates the very things which the brother of Jared saw; and there never were greater things made manifest than those which were made manifest unto the brother of Jared.

5 Wherefore the Lord hath commanded me to write them; and I have written them. And he commanded me that I should seal them up; and he also hath commanded that I should seal up the interpretation thereof; wherefore I have sealed up the interpreters, according to the commandment of the Lord.

6 For the Lord said unto me: They shall not go forth unto the Gentiles until the day that they shall repent of their iniquity, and become clean before the Lord.

Sounds to me like these things were already unsealed to Moroni, and written to the people after Christ appeared to them. That falls right in vein with what I said about the sealed portion pertaining to the 250 year time period, because they again got sealed up to be presented to the Gentiles. I don't think the Gentiles will be clean from their iniquity until the days of the New Jerusalem... again echoing what I said about when the sealed portion shall be revealed. I guess you were agreeing with me at least in part, but my feeling is the sealed portion of the Jaredite writings are minor compared to the period of Nephite-Lamanite peace. My gut feelings on these things normally pan out right.  In other words we might get the equivalent of another Jaredite book, but several more books from the Nephite time of the people living this revelation. I don't really see the need for Moroni to translate all the Jaredite records. Whoever can interpret the additional books in the Nephite record could also translate the Jaredite records.

Link to comment

Questions from outside the stone box:

1. Is there a ' hall of records ' somewhere in the world that contains all the sources that Mormon and Moroni used to compile their condensed version , or did the Lamanites destroy all such?

2. Did Joseph Smith ever relate what he learned from the 116 pages?

3. Do you think other copies of the Brass Plates made so that the people could all have access to it?

4. What is the point of a record that is made and sealed up so that no one can read it ?

Link to comment

4...to stand as a record in the final judgment perhaps.  If the books of judgment are figurative, it may be used as one of them.

Or it may be used during the Millennium. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Questions from outside the stone box:

1. Is there a ' hall of records ' somewhere in the world that contains all the sources that Mormon and Moroni used to compile their condensed version , or did the Lamanites destroy all such?

2. Did Joseph Smith ever relate what he learned from the 116 pages?

3. Do you think other copies of the Brass Plates made so that the people could all have access to it?

4. What is the point of a record that is made and sealed up so that no one can read it ?

1. Yes, it was seen in vision.

2. I believe we have some tidbits from Joseph Smith like the Sons of Ishmael being married to Lehi’s daughters. Most likely it contained more of Lehi’s visions, a more complete account of the exodus from Jerusalem, maybe what Lehi preached in Jerusalem, that kind of thing.

3. Yes, but probably not on the same material. At least not a lot more metal copies.

4. There is no point. The sealed portions of the Book of Mormon are destined to be revealed and read at some future date.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...