Was BOM wrong?

[Bill Hamblin]

Perhaps not, but they certainly tried their hardest.

Jewish hatred of Christians goes back to the very beginning of Jewish-Chritsitan relations. Acts describes numerous persecutions and murder of Christians. At some point Jewish Christians were formally excommunicated and expelled from synagogues. (Messianic Jews are expelled from Orthodox synagogues today as well.) In the original form of the birkat ha-minim ("blessing on the heretics," which is actually a curse) in the Amidah pray which Jews are to say daily ritually curses the no?erim [Christians] and the minim (heretics). This curse was established long before Christian persecutions of Jews began.

Now, certainly many Christians have treated Jews abominably, and I'm not trying to legitimize such persecutions. On the other hand, whenever they had the chance, many Jews have treated Christians just as abominably.

[Semperfidelis]

I would really appreciate an explanation for the verse that was changed in 2 Nephi (white to pure), and the removal of the name "Jesus Christ" from the 1830 edition. What I mentioned about official statements about studying previous editions of your standard works must vary from stake to stake and from ward to ward. I do, however, recall a recent General Mormon Conference where Dallin H. Oaks said, in one of his sermons, "I enourage you to study the four standard works in their current form and to refrain from reading any faith-demoting literature."

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I would really appreciate an explanation for the verse that was changed in 2 Nephi (white to pure), and the removal of the name "Jesus Christ" from the 1830 edition. What I mentioned about official statements about studying previous editions of your standard works must vary from stake to stake and from ward to ward. I do, however, recall a recent General Mormon Conference where Dallin H. Oaks said, in one of his sermons, "I enourage you to study the four standard works in their current form and to refrain from reading any faith-demoting literature."

The edition I use still says "white" so I can't answer that. But, in all honesty, would you really accept any answer they gave, no matter how reasonable? I very highly doubt it.

[LeSellers]

I would really appreciate an explanation for the verse that was changed in 2 Nephi (white to pure), and the removal of the name "Jesus Christ" from the 1830 edition.

The name "Jesus Christ was not removed from the 1830 (nor from any other) edition of the Book of Mormon. What are you talking about?

The change from "white" to "pure" is very complex, but, as it involves the right or power of a prophet of God to liken the scriptures unto the current audience, you may not be able to understand it in any case.

What I mentioned about official statements about studying previous editions of your standard works must vary from stake to stake and from ward to ward. I do, however, recall a recent General Mormon Conference where Dallin H. Oaks said, in one of his sermons, "I enourage you to study the four standard works in their current form and to refrain from reading any faith-demoting literature."

"Faith-demoting literature" is something I would hope anyone would avoid. What's the problem here?

Lehi

[Semperfidelis]

I have spoken to active Mormons in Southern California who, during the meetings with bishops prior to sacrament meeting, were pointedly asked what they were going to read and cite as scripture in sermomns that they were scheduled to give. One member told me that she was instructed not to read the pre-1988 scripture, in 2 Nephi using "white" instead of "pure" to the congregation. This particular very active Mormon told me that she was confused because she hadn't understood why the 1830 edition of the BOM had been changed. She hadn't realized that the post-1988 edition of the BOM was different from the one she used, that the verse had been changed. She had been telling non-Mormon friends that the BOM only had only been changed grammatically.

[Bill Hamblin]

The massive dome in the background has some bearing on the topic of this thread. This is the Hurva synagogue in Jerusalem. The Jordanians blew it up in 1948 and it was rebuilt last year. In 1700 a group of several hundred people- individuals and entire families- arrived from Eastern Europe. They were led by Rabbi Judah ha-Hasid (the Pious) who stirred the people up to acts of penitence preparing for the Messiah, and then led them to Israel, where they would continue preparing the way for the Messia and redempion. R. Judah died a few days after his arrival, but managed to purchase a lot known as the Ashkenazi court (Deir a-Ashkenaz) where a synagogue would be built.A small synagogue was built, but reduced to rubble by the Arab creditors who also evicted Ashkenazi Jews from Jerusalem and held them responsible for the debts. At the beginning of the 19th century, many of the disciples of Rabbi Elijah the Vilna Gaon emigrated to Palestine. They were inspired by the Gaon's doctrine of redemption, which involved practical measures taken below to inspire a response from above. According to the Gaon there were certain acts which, if performed in certain acceptable times, would invoke a favourable response from Heaven, and bring about the arrival of the Messiah and the dawn of redemption. An important part of this was immigration to the Holy Land. The year of redemption was considered to be 1840, and the disciples of the Gaon engaged in messianic agitation as well as practical measures. This wasn't a passive awaiting. They originally settled in Safed (a town in the Galilee), but Menahem Mendel of Shklov decided at great risk to himself to move to Jerusalem and redeem the Hurva. Rebuilding it would be the first step towards rebuilding the temple and reinstating sacrifice, all in hopes of hastening the Messiah's arrrival. He worked hard on cancelling the debts, but it wasn't until 1855 that a firman (or licence) was issued by the Sultan, authorising a synagogue to be built. After many years of hard work, a magnificient structure was erected. The thing was huge, it was impressive, it signalised a change in the status of the Jews in Jerusalem. They now became a force to be reckoned with in the city. Part of the same movement also spearheaded the expansion of Jewish settlement outside the walls of Jerusalem. The people involved iin that venture helped create the settlements of the First Aliyah, and so on, and so forth, all of this leading to the modern state of Israel and the gathering of Jews from all over the world.

Without turning to a belief in the messiah (which is what Christ is), none of the aforementioned events would have taken place.

I think there is a lack of clarity in some of the concepts being discussed here. First, Jews have always expected and hoped for the coming of the Messiah--which is mentioned in the Amida prayer. Simply having Jewish groups with specified Messianic expectations cannot fulfill the prophecy of the BOM, since there have always been such groups. There have also been dozens of Jewish false messiahs. (Lenowitz The Jewish Messiahs (Oxford, 1998)) throughout the ages, and there are contemporary false messiahs (such as the Lubavitcher Rebbe Schneerson (Wolfson, Open Secret (2009)). When Christ warns against "false christs/messiahs" (Mt. 24:24, Mk. 13:22), he is referring to precisely these false Jewish messiahs. False messianic expectations cannot fulfill a prophecy of coming to the true Messiah.

When the BOM mentions Christ/Messiah, it means the real Messiah, Jesus. It does not mean post-Jesus Jewish messianic expectations/claimants. Therefore, the fact that the Jews continue to look for a post-Jesus Messiah cannot fulfill the BOM prophetic expectations. To fulfill the prophecy they must come unto Jesus, not expect a Messiah other than Jesus. I think it is confusing to conflate these two ideas.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have spoken to active Mormons in Southern California who, during the meetings with bishops prior to sacrament meeting, were pointedly asked what they were going to read and cite as scripture in sermomns that they were scheduled to give. One member told me that she was instructed not to read the pre-1988 scripture, in 2 Nephi using "white" instead of "pure" to the congregation. This particular very active Mormon told me that she was confused because she hadn't understood why the 1830 edition of the BOM had been changed. She hadn't realized that the post-1988 edition of the BOM was different from the one she used, that the verse had been changed. She had been telling non-Mormon friends that the BOM only had only been changed grammatically.

It always baffles me how some anti-Mormons LDS critics have this amazing gift to have private conversations with "very active" Mormons on a regular basis about the very things they want to call the LDS Church to task about,

[Semperfidelis]

Dallin H. Oaks has previously said that faith-demoting material is that which will decrease a Latter-Day Saint's testimony in Joseph Smith and the restored gospel, even if it is true. I was hoping that you would focus on what Oaks said about the 4 standard works in their "current" form. I recall a Mormon film called "Man's Search for Happiness," that, in part, said, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is true." What would be faith-demoting about something in print that is historically "true" about Mormonism, if Mormons are encouraged to hold fast that which is true. And D. Michael Quinn was Leonard Arrington's right-hand man, and was an employee of the Church and BYU. Any person familiar with the Mormon Church should know this to be a fact.

[Semperfidelis]

I am not anti-Mormon. I am a curious investigator who has lived all over the U.S., mainly in California, and have many friends who are LDS. The truth is somethimes stranger than fiction, but if you are perplexed by the questions that I'm asking, the same questions are being asked quite frequently to your full-time missionaries. I think they are quite relevant. I'm like the Bereans were during the New Testament period, who the Apostle Paul said were more noble because they didn't just accept what he said, or as a result of prayer, but searched the scriptures thoroughly. I wish more Mormon investigators would do that before agreeing to be baptized into your church.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Dallin H. Oaks has previously said that faith-demoting material is that which will decrease a Latter-Day Saint's testimony in Joseph Smith and the restored gospel, even if it is true. I was hoping that you would focus on what Oaks said about the 4 standard works in their "current" form. I recall a Mormon film called "Man's Search for Happiness," that, in part, said, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is true." What would be faith-demoting about something in print that is historically "true" about Mormonism, if Mormons are encouraged to hold fast that which is true. And D. Michael Quinn was Leonard Arrington's right-hand man, and was an employee of the Church and BYU. Any person familiar with the Mormon Church should know this to be a fact.

I am not LDS, so I have no dog in the fight as far as defending any changes made by them to their editions of the scriptures or statements by their leaders. I just found it curious your amazing access to situations in which LDS members seem to find something to cause them to doubt.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I am not anti-Mormon.  I am a curious investigator who has lived all over the U.S., mainly in California, and have many friends who are LDS.  The truth is somethimes stranger than fiction, but if you are perplexed by the questions that I'm asking, the same questions are being asked quite frequently to your full-time missionaries.  I think they are quite relevant.  I'm like the Bereans were during the New Testament period, who the Apostle Paul said were more noble because they didn't just accept what he said, or as a result of prayer, but searched the scriptures thoroughly.  I wish more Mormon investigators would do that before agreeing to be baptized into your church.

I am no longer LDS because I DID ask the questions- Though my journey has led me to quite a different place then you seem to have landed.

[thesometimesaint]

Semperfidelis:

I live in Southern California. I have lived in northern California, and several other states.

I've given talks in Sacrament Meetings. NO ONE has told me what materials to use or say. I've taught Sunday School and NO ONE has told me what to materials to use or what to say. I've taught the Elders Quorum NO ONE has told me what materials to use or what say. I've taught the High Priest Group NO ONE has told me what materials to use or what to say.

[Semperfidelis]

I enjoy talking to people with open minds. Most active Mormons do not have open minds. Most active Mormons will not discuss the scripture change in 2 Nephi, because they don't know what to say, or how to respond. Most active Mormons, called TBMs, have never read the 1830 edition of the BOM, even though it is available at Deseret Book Stores. That's where I bought my copy. But do you know what it takes for a person to be called active in the Mormon Church? One sacrament meeting per month. You can drink coffee, tea, and alcohol, and even smoke, and still be considered active, if you make one sacrament meeting per month. The Mormons I've talked with were regarded as active, but they were questioning their belief in the BOM and church doctrine. Salt Lake doesn't even remove your name from the population of the Church if you ask for your name to be removed, or if you are excommunicated. You see, before I would want to commit myself to live a certain way, I'd want to know everything about the church preaching that particular lifestyle. That's why most Mormon converts leave the church within 5 years.

[Bill Hamblin]

Semperfidelis:

I live in Southern California. I have lived in northern California, and several other states.

I've given talks in Sacrament Meetings. NO ONE has told me what materials to use or say. I've taught Sunday School and NO ONE has told me what to materials to use or what to say. I've taught the Elders Quorum NO ONE has told me what materials to use or what say. I've taught the High Priest Group NO ONE has told me what materials to use or what to say.

Same here. This is the fallacy of generalization form a single example: All Indians walk in single file; at least the one I saw did.

[Bill Hamblin]

Latter-day Saints frequently assume that the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948 represents the fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecies of the gathering of Israel. A careful examinations of these prophecies, however, demonstrates that gathering unto Christ is the essence of the the Book of Mormon gathering, and that this entails a knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah, not a messianic expectation in general. This spiritual gathering to Christ must precede the physical gathering to the Land of Israel. There are a number of Book of Mormon passages that clearly make this point.

1 Ne. 10:14

And after the house of Israel should be scattered they should be gathered together again; ... or come to the knowledge of the true Messiah, their Lord and their Redeemer.

2 Ne. 6:11

11 Wherefore, after they [the Jews] are driven to and fro, for thus saith the angel, many shall be afflicted in the flesh, and shall not be suffered to perish, because of the prayers of the faithful; they shall be scattered, and smitten, and hated; nevertheless, the Lord will be merciful unto them, that when they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, they shall be gathered together again to the lands of their inheritance.

2 Ne. 10:7-8

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I enjoy talking to people with open minds. Most active Mormons do not have open minds. Most active Mormons will not discuss the scripture change in 2 Nephi, because they don't know what to say, or how to respond. Most active Mormons, called TBMs, have never read the 1830 edition of the BOM, even though it is available at Deseret Book Stores. That's where I bought my copy.

Is that the LDS Churches fault? You will find there is plenty of discussion right here with these Mormons. And, heck, they let me stick around, with all my arguments, and have left my signature alone even though the first link is a refutation of polygamy from an "apostate" point of view- so they can't be all THAT bad.

But do you know what it takes for a person to be called active in the Mormon Church? One sacrament meeting per month. You can drink coffee, tea, and alcohol, and even smoke, and still be considered active, if you make one sacrament meeting per month. The Mormons I've talked with were regarded as active, but they were questioning their belief in the BOM and church doctrine. Salt Lake doesn't even remove your name from the population of the Church if you ask for your name to be removed, or if you are excommunicated. You see, before I would want to commit myself to live a certain way, I'd want to know everything about the church preaching that particular lifestyle. That's why most Mormon converts leave the church within 5 years.

I am not exactly sure what the above has to do with anything.

[Semperfidelis]

When you gave your talk in sacrament meeting, did you meet with the bishop or one his counselors prior to the meeting? If you did, did the bishop or one of his counselors ask you what you were going to present and read to the ward? According to the current Mormon General Handbook of Instructions (which, by the way, takes precedence over interpretations of church operations from the 4 Standard Works), only Church-approved materials should be presented, and read, to the wards of the church during sacrament meetings.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Latter-day Saints frequently assume that the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948 represents the fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecies of the gathering of Israel. A careful examinations of these prophecies, however, demonstrates that gathering unto Christ is the essence of the the Book of Mormon gathering, and that this entails a knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah, not a messianic expectation in general. This spiritual gathering to Christ must precede the physical gathering to the Land of Israel. There are a number of Book of Mormon passages that clearly make this point.

It is not mere Jewish messianism that is being described here. It is acceptance that Jesus is the Messiah. These passages clearly teach that the physical gathering of the Jews to the land of Israel is preceded by coming to a knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah. The contemporary state of Israel therefore cannot be the fulfillment of this prophecy, since, by and large, the Jews have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

AMEN!

I am glad someone with a little more knowledge and authority here then me was brave enough to say that.

[LeSellers]

I am no longer LDS because I DID ask the questions- Though my journey has led me to quite a different place then you seem to have landed.

And I remain a Saint because, not only did I ask the questions, I sought answers beyond the simplistic and superficial garbage spewed by antis.

As Owens and Mosser (evangelical critic of the LDS Church) have said, all the usual slams against the Church and Joseph Smith, etc., have been answered or made far more complex than the antis would like to believe.

Semperfidelis (a former Marine?) and BookofMormonLuvr seem not to have investigated more deeply than scratching the surface. Because, no matter how many questions I have asked, the answer is always that Joseph Smith, acting at the behest of God, restored the Priesthood and Gospel of Jesus Christ, and translated the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and all those things that brought us to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as

she is today.

Lehi

[Semperfidelis]

I just wanted to let you know that the Mormons, with whom I've talked, are considered active even though they are pretty inactive, and do things TBM Mormons consider bad. Most people don't know how the Mormon Church grades levels of activity.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

<br>And I remain a Saint because, not only did I ask the questions, I sought answers beyond the simplistic and superficial garbage spewed by antis. <br><br>As Owens and Mosser (evangelical critic of the LDS Church) have said, all the usual slams against the Church and Joseph Smith, <i>etc</i>., have been answered or made far more complex than the antis would like to believe. <br><br>Semperfidelis (a former Marine?) and BookofMormonLuvr seem not to have investigated more deeply than scratching the surface. Because, no matter how many questions I have asked, the answer is always that Joseph Smith, <b>acting at the behest of God</b>, restored the Priesthood and Gospel of Jesus Christ, and translated the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and all those things that brought us to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as <br>she is today.

Let's get one thing straight...

I did not leave the LDS Church because I was suckered by anti-Mormon trash about the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. So you need to disabuse yourself of that idea.

Second, don't ever pretend to judge how much work or investigation I put into trying to rightly divide truth from error. Just because my ultimate conclusion doesn't jive with your own doesn't mean I am some ill-informed moron.

I KNOW the Book of Mormon is the word of God and Joseph Smith was used to restore the Gospel and Priesthood to the earth. That testimony will be on my lips as I take my last breath and pass on to Paradise.

So back off, Lehi.

[thesometimesaint]

Semperfidelis:

For Sacrament Meetings the Bishop(or one of his counselors) calls me on the phone and asked me to give a talk next week. Generally related to some theme the Bishop feels the Ward needs at that time. That's it. No one has ever asked me a thing about what I was going to say, what materials to use. For instance if I'm going to teach Church doctrine on tithing, of course I'll want to use the Standard Works of the Church. But I'm certainly not limited to those. After 40 years in the Church I have enough anecdotal incidences of obeying the law of tithing, and its rewards to keep it interesting and still on topic.

[Semperfidelis]

When I said that the name "Jesus Christ" was deleted, it was from subsequent editions of the BOM. In 1 Nephi, "Jesus Christ is mentioned, but in the second edition it deleted by Parley Pratt. If Joseph Smith got it right the first time, why was it deleted? And your explantion, that a prophet, subsequent to Joseph Smith, had the right to change "white to pure" in order to make it more readable for a current audience, when it didn't make a bit of sense contextually. "White" did not mean "pure" as applied to the context in 2 Nephi. It had to do with skin color, and it actually confused the current audience of Mormons more than it did clarify.

[thesometimesaint]

Semperfidelis:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Curse

[LeSellers]

I enjoy talking to people with open minds. Most active Mormons do not have open minds.

Most people are closed minded. But it has been my experience that the Saints are more open minded than most people with otherwise similar backgrounds. We can see this in this fact: Latter-day saints have, on average, more education than people of other backgrounds.

Most active Mormons will not discuss the scripture change in 2 Nephi, because they don't know what to say, or how to respond.

Then they are wise. Discussing things about which one knows little or nothing is a poor choice.

Most active Mormons, called TBMs, have never read the 1830 edition of the BOM, even though it is available at Deseret Book Stores.

Most Christians© have not read the Bible, either. So what is your point?

But do you know what it takes for a person to be called active in the Mormon Church? One sacrament meeting per month.

Your point?

You can drink coffee, tea, and alcohol, and even smoke, and still be considered active, if you make one sacrament meeting per month.

Wow! Imagine that! The Church.whose mission is to perfect the Saints, encourages people who are not perfect to progress in their quest to return to God. Whodathunkit?

The Mormons I've talked with were regarded as active, but they were questioning their belief in the BOM and church doctrine.

I thought your premise was that we are closed minded. One or the other, buddy, one or the other.

Salt Lake doesn't even remove your name from the population of the Church if you ask for your name to be removed, or if you are excommunicated.

This is false. One's name is removed from the records of the Church when he is excommunicated. And, in spite of what many antis claim, when one asks for his name to be removed, it is, and he is no longer counted among the Saints.

That does not mean that there is no record of his ever being a member, but he is no t counted as a Saint for the simple reason that he is not.

You see, before I would want to commit myself to live a certain way, I'd want to know everything about the church preaching that particular lifestyle. That's why most Mormon converts leave the church within 5 years.

Perhaps, but that should not be the primary question. That question should be, "Is it true?" If it is, does it matter what the lifestyle required is? Jesus gave us the parable of the Pearl of Great Price. The man, having found a pearl of great price sold all that he had to get it. It is the same with the Gospel of Jesus Christ: if it is what it claims to be (and it is), it is worth everything, even coffee.

Lehi