Was Alma The Younger A Good Bible Belt Baptist?

[LeSellers]

But if an angel declared Joseph's English translation of the gold plates "correct," isn't that as good as having the original text itself?

Doesn't it amount to almost the same thing?

Yes it does.

Sorry, zerinus, it does not.

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

If Moroni (and this is not the only place, nor was he the only one who worried about this) tells us to discount the errors in the scriptures, why should we discount his prophetic words?

It's the principles that are correct, not the words.

Lehi

[torquate]

It is Amulek who is speaking in Alma 34, not Alma.

[Pahoran]

It is Amulek who is speaking in Alma 34, not Alma.

Good catch!

Regards,

Pahoran

[zerinus]

The statement you allude to seems to be this one:

Notice it does not say the translation is correct (in any form), it says that translation was done by the gift and power of God. This is a different proposition.

No it isn't. "Translated by the gift and power of God" means that it is correct. It couldn't have any other meaning.

Sorry, zerinus, it does not.

Sorry Lehi, it does.

If Moroni (and this is not the only place, nor was he the only one who worried about this) tells us to discount the errors in the scriptures, why should we discount his prophetic words?

Moroni doesn’t say that there are faults. He is saying that if there are. He is being overcautious. He is playing it safe. In another post I challenged LDS to show one error in the Book of Mormon (other than scribal errors an misprints), and no one was able to show me one. If you can show me one error, I will believe you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Was Alma The Younger A Good Bible Belt Baptist?

Having served in the gold buckle of the bible belt. I can tell you that this sounds nothing like a Baptist. Not that they might not believe this, but I have never heard them talking about not procrastinating their day of repentance.

as ye have had so many witnesses

Rest easy brother, this is the best part for you. The people have had many witnesses and are not ignorant. It is like saying that "Oh well, I will get a 2nd chance to repent". Well, no that is not true once a person has had a certain amount of knowledge. They cannot repent in the spirit world because they did indeed procrastinate their day of repentance. This is sound LDS theology.

I hope you will make it to church next week.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[inquiringmind]

In the Army, we used to say that "almost" counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and atomic bombs.

The statement you allude to seems to be this one:

Notice it does not say the translation is correct (in any form), it says that translation was done by the gift and power of God. This is a different proposition.

And, as we have pointed out in the past, the statement most people use in this context is one by Joseph Smith.

This does not claim perfection, it claims superiority for the principles in the Book of Mormon compared to other books, and then only in getting men to getting closer to God.

Lehi

I can see the difference here.

Thank you Lehi.

[Kevin Christensen]

Alma is quite a bit different than a Bible Belt baptist.

See Alma NDE and how it affected him.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=2&num=1&id=16

See Alma's cultural background, and how he used it to teach his sons:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=822

See Alma's unusual knowledge, this case of Melchizedek:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=109&chapid=1260

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[David T]

Also, if I perfectly translate a sermon by any given world leader, even under inspiration -- even though it's translated correctly, does that mean the original speaker was expressing everything accurately?

Throughout the history of the world, prophets have understood things differently. Prophets don't suddenly have a deposit of ALL TRUTH. At times, they get nuggets of inight, and try to fill in the blanks using their own understanding, and what appears logical to them. Sometimes they fill in the blanks with true material, sometimes they miss the mark when they try to explain the implications of the revealed principle.

We can't expect Alma (or Amulek, or even Joseph's interpretation of them as the case may be) to be speaking in 21st Century Mormon vernacular, with all the new doctrinal insights that have come since. It has been proncounced that there are things revealed now which have not been revealed ever before.

So we don't have to poo poo a former prophet or inspired text simply because it doesn't have all the details, or even contradicts something that was revealed at a later time. This is why context is very important.

I mean, comparison with the manuscripts of the modern revelations and later published editions - even in the lifetime of Joseph Smith - showed many variations, additions, and downright re-writing. Joseph learned more, and he updated and expanded and revised and made them more accurate bases on his new knowledge. Joseph didn't believe in concrete doctrinal inerrancy with the scriptures he was producing. So I don't see why I should, either.

Edited August 2, 2011 by nackhadlow

[LeSellers]

"Translated by the gift and power of God" means that it is correct. It couldn't have any other meaning.

It can and I submit it does here.

The process of translating does not have a 100% correlation with the result.

For instance, when Oliver wrote "the Son of God" (I don't recall where, exactly), he was wrong, because what Joseph had said was "the sun of God" (or vice versa). There are several instances of this sort of thing. "The mistakes of men", just as Moroni said.

We know, for instance, that Nephi had left out a prophecy of Samuel (dit "the Lamanite"), and that Christ had to tell His servant to include it. This one was important, and it got included eventually, but there is no way of deciding whether other, less important, messages were omitted.

Moroni doesn’t say that there are faults. He is saying that if there are. He is being overcautious. He is playing it safe. In another post I challenged LDS to show one error in the Book of Mormon (other than scribal errors an misprints), and no one was able to show me one. If you can show me one error, I will believe you.

You suddenly restrict the universe to things that are not scribal and typogrpahical errors. This is not quite fair because the entire Book of Mormon was written by "scribes", from Lehi (whose book is lost) and Nephi (maybe Moses and Joshua) to Emma Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The compositer, John Gilbert, did the punctuation and capitalization, along with setting the type. Punctuation is a huge part of modern (but not ancient) written language. He was not inspired (and disliked the project itself) so we are left with an "anti's" interpretation of the text of the Book of Mormon (albeit faithful to the words, within the scope of manual typesetting).

Just as with the Joseph Smith Translation, about which Brother Robert Matthews (the best scholar ever on this subject) says that, at one point, the Lord seems to have said, "this is taking too long, get on with it!", there was a deadline (18200406) and since "the perfect", as General Patton reminds us, "is the enemy of the good," there was not much time to get a perfect version of the Book of Mormon printed. God wanted it "out there", and out there in time for the formal founding of His Church on that specific morning.

Even in Moroni's day, there were hedges against his doing his best work. He is also worried about the errors introduced into his narrative by his using the reformed Egyptian script (not his native language, and possibly known only to Nephite prophets, a sort of sacred alphabet) of his predecessors.

There is, too, in English a "soft affirmative" if. We see it frequently in exactly this context: "If you are going, please get milk." There is no question hubby is on his way to the grocery. Moroni was not raising the unlikely possibility of there being errors on the plates of Mormon, he was softly admitting they were there and that we moderns who would read his (and his father's) work should not unjustly attribute them to God.

Lehi

[zerinus]

It can and I submit it does here.

The process of translating does not have a 100% correlation with the result.

For instance, when Oliver wrote "the Son of God" (I don't recall where, exactly), he was wrong, because what Joseph had said was "the sun of God" (or vice versa). There are several instances of this sort of thing. "The mistakes of men", just as Moroni said.

We know, for instance, that Nephi had left out a prophecy of Samuel (dit "the Lamanite"), and that Christ had to tell His servant to include it. This one was important, and it got included eventually, but there is no way of deciding whether other, less important, messages were omitted.

You suddenly restrict the universe to things that are not scribal and typogrpahical errors. This is not quite fair because the entire Book of Mormon was written by "scribes", from Lehi (whose book is lost) and Nephi (maybe Moses and Joshua) to Emma Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The compositer, John Gilbert, did the punctuation and capitalization, along with setting the type. Punctuation is a huge part of modern (but not ancient) written language. He was not inspired (and disliked the project itself) so we are left with an "anti's" interpretation of the text of the Book of Mormon (albeit faithful to the words, within the scope of manual typesetting).

Just as with the Joseph Smith Translation, about which Brother Robert Matthews (the best scholar ever on this subject) says that, at one point, the Lord seems to have said, "this is taking too long, get on with it!", there was a deadline (18200406) and since "the perfect", as General Patton reminds us, "is the enemy of the good," there was not much time to get a perfect version of the Book of Mormon printed. God wanted it "out there", and out there in time for the formal founding of His Church on that specific morning.

Even in Moroni's day, there were hedges against his doing his best work. He is also worried about the errors introduced into his narrative by his using the reformed Egyptian script (not his native language, and possibly known only to Nephite prophets, a sort of sacred alphabet) of his predecessors.

There is, too, in English a "soft affirmative" if. We see it frequently in exactly this context: "If you are going, please get milk." There is no question hubby is on his way to the grocery. Moroni was not raising the unlikely possibility of there being errors on the plates of Mormon, he was softly admitting they were there and that we moderns who would read his (and his father's) work should not unjustly attribute them to God.

Lehi

You still haven't shown me one error in the Book of Mormon that is not scribal or a misprint. When you do bring it along, and we can talk business.

[LeSellers]

You still haven't shown me one error in the Book of Mormon that is not scribal or a misprint. When you do bring it along, and we can talk business.

How would we know? There isn't any way to check most of it.

I haven't even tried to identify a potential error because there is no way to know. But you do not have even one statement by any of the Brethren, from Joseph onward, that supports the stance that there are no errors in the Book of Mormon (or, for that matter, in the Doctrine and Covenants or The Pearl of Great Price).

Lehi

[zerinus]

How would we know? There isn't any way to check most of it.

I haven't even tried to identify a potential error because there is no way to know. But you do not have even one statement by any of the Brethren, from Joseph onward, that supports the stance that there are no errors in the Book of Mormon (or, for that matter, in the Doctrine and Covenants or The Pearl of Great Price).

Lehi

Until such errors can be shown, especially knowing how the book originated, my preference is for believe that there aren't any.