Was BOM wrong?

[LDS Guy 1986]

I agree that the Jews have been a persecuted minority for much of their history during the past 2000; but it would not be correct to blame Jewish antagonism towards Jesus on their persecutors. They did not force the Jews to hate Jesus.

I think this is an interesting topic but it isn't germane to the discussion at hand. Someone needs to start a new thread about this.

[volgadon]

They did not force the Jews to hate Jesus.

Perhaps not, but they certainly tried their hardest.

[zerinus]

I think this is an interesting topic but it isn't germane to the discussion at hand. Someone needs to start a new thread about this.

It may not be germane to the topic, but it was germane to the subject of my original response (post #13).

[LDS Guy 1986]

It may not be germane to the topic, but it was germane to the subject of my original response (post #13).

I agree, I am just weary of topics going off topic because the moderators will shut them down if they spin out of control.

[zerinus]

Perhaps not, but they certainly tried their hardest.

I suppose you could argue that their persecutions didn't help them to repent any! Neither am I advocating that they deserved their fate. But it may very well be that if they had repented of their antagonism towards Christ sooner, their redemption might have taken place sooner as well. There is no logical reason why they had to wait until 1948 for it to happen.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I agree, I am just weary of topics going off topic because the moderators will shut them down if they spin out of control.

For anyone interested I have started a new topic that exclusively discusses the rejection of Christ

[volgadon]

I suppose you could argue that their persecutions didn't help them to repent any! Neither am I advocating that they deserved their fate. But it may very well be that if they had repented of their antagonism towards Christ sooner, their redemption might have taken place sooner as well. There is no logical reason why they had to wait until 1948 for it to happen.

What reason would they have had to repent of their antagonism towards Christ when they were being mocked, ridiculed, humiliated, denigrated, beaten, threatened, robbed, raped, killed, fined, expelled from their homes, had their property taken and their books burned, were forced to live apart and wear certain clothing forced upon them, did not have the same regress in a court case against Christians, were told at every opportunity that they were vile and inferior and worthy of nothing but contempt and hatred for being deicides, blood libels pinned upon them, and so on and so forth, all in the name of Christ.

[LDS Guy 1986]

What reason would they have had to repent of their antagonism towards Christ when they were being mocked, ridiculed, humiliated, denigrated, beaten, threatened, robbed, raped, killed, fined, expelled from their homes, had their property taken and their books burned, were forced to live apart and wear certain clothing forced upon them, did not have the same regress in a court case against Christians, were told at every opportunity that they were vile and inferior and worthy of nothing but contempt and hatred for being deicides, blood libels pinned upon them, and so on and so forth, all in the name of Christ.

You know that Hitler killed hundreds of thousands of Christians also, right?

He wasn't simply anti-semetic, the world forgets that another 5 to 11 million non Jews were murdered in the holocaust.

The holocaust had nothing to do with Christianity, Christians were getting gassed along side the Jews in Auschwitz.

Christians, Homosexuals, Gypsies, anyone that didn't fit into Hilter's supreme race was systematically killed.

It is insulting to the millions of non Jews who died under Hitler's regime (especially the Christians) to try an imply that the Holocaust was Christians getting back at Jews!

Learn your history, http://en.wikipedia....i/The_Holocaust, before you accuse Christianity of crimes it did not commit.

[zerinus]

You know that Hitler killed hundreds of thousands of Christians also, right?

He wasn't simply anti-semetic, the world forgets that another 5 to 11 million non Jews were murdered in the holocaust.

The holocaust had nothing to do with Christianity, Christians were getting gassed along side the Jews in Auschwitz.

Christians, Homosexuals, Gypsies, anyone that didn't fit into Hilter's supreme race was systematically killed.

It is insulting to the millions of non Jews who died under Hitler's regime (especially the Christians) to try an imply that the Holocaust was Christians getting back at Jews!

Learn your history, http://en.wikipedia....i/The_Holocaust, before you accuse Christianity of crimes it did not commit.

I think he is referring to the treatment of the Jews throughout Christian history, not the holocaust. It is true that a lot of that was going on; but it is also exaggerated. At other times the Jews enjoyed the rights of citizenship in European countries, and rose to high positions in society, and also made great contributions in art, science, philosophy, literature, music etc. Many of them became great merchants and very wealthy. In Islamic lands too they often enjoyed protection and rose to high positions, and served in the courts of kings. But at other times they suffered persecution and were treated as second class citizens.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I think he is referring to the treatment of the Jews throughout Christian history, not the holocaust. It is true that a lot of that was going on; but it is also exaggerated. At other times the Jews enjoyed the rights of citizenship in European countries, and rose to high positions in society, and also made great contributions in art, science, philosophy, literature, music etc. Many of them became great merchants and very wealthy. In Islamic lands too they often enjoyed protection and rose to high positions, and served in the courts of kings. But at other times they suffered persecution and were treated as second class citizens.

No he is clearly saying that Christians were the reason for the holocaust, the buttons, ect are all holocaust references.

expelled from their homes, had their property taken and their books burned, were forced to live apart and wear certain clothing forced upon them,

This is a direct reference to the holocaust!

If he wasn't referring to the holocaust he was implying it indirectly and even that is a vicious insult given the fact that many Christians also lost there lives in the holocaust.

[volgadon]

I think he is referring to the treatment of the Jews throughout Christian history, not the holocaust.

Correct.

It is true that a lot of that was going on; but it is also exaggerated.

No, not exaggerated. It is true that in some places at some times Jews fared bettern than in others, but that is about it.

At other times the Jews enjoyed the rights of citizenship in European countries,

When and where specifically?

and rose to high positions in society,

You mean court Jews and physicians?

and also made great contributions in art, science, philosophy, literature, music etc.

Your point being? BTW, do you know why Heinrich Heine was called a garlic eater?

Many of them became great merchants and very wealthy.

And constantly had fines and taxes levied on them for being Jewish and enjoyingg the protection of the local prince or such.

In Islamic lands too they often enjoyed protection and rose to high positions, and served in the courts of kings. But at other times they suffered persecution and were treated as second class citizens.

We are however speaking of Jews in Christian Europe.

[volgadon]

No he is clearly saying that Christians were the reason for the holocaust, the buttons, ect are all holocaust references.

No, I am not saying that, though clearly the holocaust drew from a cultural inheritance of medieval hatred and persecution of Jews. I didn't mention buttons, however if you think the Jewish badge was an invention of Nazi Germany's, then you have another think coming.

This is a direct reference to the holocaust!

No, it is not. I was reffering to (among others) the expulsions from England and Portugal-Spain, the burning of the talmuds in Paris 1242, the Venetian ghetto, and the Jew's badge.

If he wasn't referring to the holocaust he was implying it indirectly and even that is a vicious insult given the fact that many Christians also lost there lives in the holocaust.

I was not, and I find your insinuation repugnant.

[zerinus]

Correct.

No, not exaggerated. It is true that in some places at some times Jews fared bettern than in others, but that is about it.

When and where specifically?

You mean court Jews and physicians?

Your point being? BTW, do you know why Heinrich Heine was called a garlic eater?

And constantly had fines and taxes levied on them for being Jewish and enjoyingg the protection of the local prince or such.

We are however speaking of Jews in Christian Europe.

I can't remember the detailed history now, but it depended on when and where they lived. In England they enjoyed better protection than in Spain for example. Sir Isaac Newton lived in England in the 17th century, and rose to very hight positions and was regarded in the highest esteem, otherwise he would not have been able to accomplish all that he did.

[volgadon]

I can't remember the detailed history now, but it depended on when and where they lived. In England they enjoyed better protection than in Spain for example. Sir Isaac Newton lived in England in the 17th century, and rose to very hight positions and was regarded in the highest esteem, otherwise he would not have been able to accomplish all that he did.

Sir Isaac Newton, however, was not Jewish. Jews in England fared well after the 17th century. Prior to that, a great deal had been expelled by Edward I. The Jews probably fared better in Holland than anywhere else, but you have still to address most of my points.

[zerinus]

Sir Isaac Newton, however, was not Jewish. Jews in England fared well after the 17th century. Prior to that, a great deal had been expelled by Edward I. The Jews probably fared better in Holland than anywhere else, but you have still to address most of my points.

You may be right about Newton; there doesn't appear to be direct evidence that he was Jewish; although he still may have been. I don't know where the legend comes from that he was Jewish. As for the rest, I am not really interested in getting into a protracted discussion on the subject of the persecution of the Jews, although I readily admit that they were subject to considerable discrimination and persecution during Middle Ages in Christian Europe.

[volgadon]

You may be right about Newton; there doesn't appear to be direct evidence that he was Jewish; although he still may have been. I don't know where the legend comes from that he was Jewish.

Still may have been? Come up with evidence that he was, let us deal with facts, not wild, blind conjectures.

I think the false notion that Newton was Jewish is due to his learning Hebrew.

As for the rest, I am not really interested in getting into a protracted discussion on the subject of the persecution of the Jews, although I readily admit that they were subject to considerable discrimination and persecution during Middle Ages in Christian Europe.

So in other words you made a statement that you aren't going to defend, that is completely fine with me.

[zerinus]

Still may have been? Come up with evidence that he was, let us deal with facts, not wild, blind conjectures.

I think the false notion that Newton was Jewish is due to his learning Hebrew.

Or maybe because there had been many Jews since before his time living in England who had disguised themselves as Catholics in order to avoid persecution. He or his ancestors could have been one of those. There were many Hebrew scholars since before his time in England, such as those who translated the KJV for example, and they were never considered Jews for that reason.

So in other words you made a statement that you aren't going to defend, that is completely fine with me.

If you want to consider that a victory, you are welcome to do so.

[Semperfidelis]

I have read the BOM numerous times, the 1830 edition and subsequent editions, and have found many contextual emendations, not merely grammatical and punctuation changes. I am wondering if this is the reason the Mormon Church discourages investigators from reading the earlier editions of the BOM, the 1832 Book of Commandments, and other 19th Century Mormon literature.

I am very interested in the verse in 2 Nephi concerning the changing of the Lamanites skin color to that which would be white and delightsome. The 1830 edition of the BOM has white and delightsome in the verse, which connects contextually to the other verses in the BOM that show that the verse was referring to a "skin color" instead of a 'state of spiritual purity." I am not LDS, but because I have been approached many times abouyt the religion, mainly from missionaries, I have been very interested in investigating 19th Century Mormon doctrine and history, because the Mormon Church insists that what was true then, in Mormon doctrine, is true now. So, the BOM is as interesting to me as it was to B.H. Roberts, who saw some very poignant aspects of it that the Mormon Brethren didn't want to disclose to the world. I have read Ro berts works and find the "skin color" word change, white to pure, extremely damaging to the validity of the BOM. Everywhere else in the BOM, where this Lamanite curse is mentioned, the white skin color was the context, not purity. I am wondering how Mormon missionaries defend this BOM change in the face of the strong evidence that the verse was changed because the Lamanites (Native Americans?) skin color was not changing as prophecied. Another change, in which I am interested, is the deletion of the name of Jesus Christ in 1 Nephi (1830 Edition), so that the first mention of Christ is in 2 Nephi (1839 Edition, changed by Parley Pratt). Since the BOM is considered by Mormons as the most correct book on earth ( and Joseph Smith considered it the most correct in 1830), why would such a major textual change be necessary?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have read the BOM numerous times, the 1830 edition and subsequent editions, and have found many contextual emendations, not merely grammatical and punctuation changes. I am wondering if this is the reason the Mormon Church discourages investigators from reading the earlier editions of the BOM, the 1832 Book of Commandments, and other 19th Century Mormon literature.

CFR that "the Mormon Church discourages investigators from reading the earlier editions of the BOM, the 1832 Book of Commandments, and other 19th Century Mormon literature."

[Semperfidelis]

CFR that "the Mormon Church discourages investigators from reading the earlier editions of the BOM, the 1832 Book of Commandments, and other 19th Century Mormon literature."

I have been told numerous times, by active Mormons, that they are told by bishops and stake presidents not to study any of the previous editions of the 4 standard works, but to study, and cite scripture, from the current editions, especially in their sacrament meetings and during Sunday school. The volume, "Mormon Doctrine," by McConkie, is currently not an approved book for sermon preparation. Is this not true? Or is it only true in some LDS wards and stakes?

[Semperfidelis]

I know that most active Mormons don't like to hear reference to excommuinicated BYU professor D. Michael Quinn, but at one time

Quinn was Church Historian Leonard Arrington's right-hand man in the Church Historical Department. That was just before Quinn published a scholarly paper proving that certain LDS Prophets engaged in polygamy after the 1992? Manifesto was issued by the Church. That paper was published in the 1980s, when President Ezra Taft Benson and the Quroum of the Twelve Apostles were actively seeking to excommunicate any Mormon who published faith-demoting 19th Century esoteric Church history, even if it was true. As I see it, the progression of disclosure of historical information, from officially hidden to that of the Internet, made it necessary for Church leaders to recommend that only approved material be read and studied by Church members, to avoid people losing faith in Mormonism.

[thesometimesaint]

Semperfidelis:

I been in various Branches, and Wards of the Church all across this country for 40 years. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[LeSellers]

I have been told numerous times, by active Mormons, that they are told by bishops and stake presidents not to study any of the previous editions of the 4 standard works, but to study, and cite scripture, from the current editions, especially in their sacrament meetings and during Sunday school.

The text is essentially the same in all editions (there are some minor changes in the Book of Mormon due to its being brought into closer alignment with the original manuscripts), so this is not even reasonable on the basis of text. However, it is very useful for all of us to have the same edition, especially new converts and children, because if someone is unfamiliar with the location of a particular passage, we can simply use the page number to get them to the correct place.

The volume, "Mormon Doctrine," by McConkie, is currently not an approved book for sermon preparation. Is this not true? Or is it only true in some LDS wards and stakes?

I can't speak for every ward or stake, but I've never heard this at all in any of the wards I have lived in around the world.

Mormon Doctrine was never an official publication of The Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It contains many known (and probably many unknown) errors, and its author never claimed anything more than that it was his interpretation of the Gospel and scripture. It is useful for study and writing Sacrament Meeting talks, but should not usually be the sole source of information on any subject.

What's this all about in the first place? I can tell you're a critic of The Church of Jesus Christ, but this sort of trivial nonsense serves only to waste people's time and efforts.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I know that most active Mormons don't like to hear reference to excommuinicated BYU professor D. Michael Quinn, but at one time

Quinn was Church Historian Leonard Arrington's right-hand man in the Church Historical Department.

You're overstating the case, fer shure. I can't find any information of his ever being an employee of the Church History Department at all, much less Arrington's "right-hand man".

That was just before Quinn published a scholarly paper proving that certain LDS Prophets engaged in polygamy after the 1992? Manifesto was issued by the Church.

If you can't even get this simple fact straight, you might consider stopping in your attacks on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to gather appropriate information.

There were two "manifestos", the first in 1890, the second, the "Little Manifesto", in 1904.

That paper was published in the 1980s, when President Ezra Taft Benson and the Quroum of the Twelve Apostles were actively seeking to excommunicate any Mormon who published faith-demoting 19th Century esoteric Church history, even if it was true. As I see it, the progression of disclosure of historical information, from officially hidden to that of the Internet, made it necessary for Church leaders to recommend that only approved material be read and studied by Church members, to avoid people losing faith in Mormonism.

Odd, since all of this is freely available on Church web sites and books published by the Church of one of her organizations.

Methinks thou hast too deeply imbibed of the elixir of anti-mormonism.

Lehi

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have been told numerous times, by active Mormons, that they are told by bishops and stake presidents not to study any of the previous editions of the 4 standard works, but to study, and cite scripture, from the current editions, especially in their sacrament meetings and during Sunday school.

Is that why I was able to by a reprint copy of the 1st Edition of the Book of Mormon at LDS Church owned Deseret Book?

http://deseretbook.c...House/i/2609476

and why they also sell Royal Skousen's work? because they don't want people to study the "old" editions?

http://deseretbook.com/Book-Mormon-Earliest-Text-Royal-Skousen/i/5036306?s_iid=ymae_2609476_2

They sure are shooting themselves in the foot if they don't.