The Offense And Defense Of Apoligetics

[Calm]

But I still have the question of why we don't go by the original BoM, as in worship Jesus, because he was God in the original BoM

http://en.fairmormon...rist/Praying_to

http://en.fairmormon...nception_of_God

http://en.fairmormon...ms/Sabellianism

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/%22the_Son_of%22

Edited August 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

why is there no longer a "hell" as in the original BoM.

“There is no eternal hell and punishment.”

Martin’s unstated assumption here is that Mormons believe “there is no eternal hell and punishment.” The Book of Mormon testifies in the strongest possible words that there is a hell and that it is eternal and everlasting. Those who receive this punishment are described as being “cast out, yea . . . cast off from the presence of the Lord; yea, who shall be consigned to a state of endless misery.”

This state, though, is not the archetypal hell envisioned by Martin and many of his evangelical Christian brethren–a bottomless pit where the wicked are continually burning but are never consumed. The Book of Mormon clarifies that the torment of those cast into hell “is as a lake of fire and brimstone.”This separation from the presence of God is so horrifying, so dismal that it is compared to burning fire. It is not literally ”fire and brimstone.”

Because this punishment is not the “classic” hell described by orthodox Christianity, perhaps some Latter-day Saints have mistakenly believed there is no hell. The Book of Mormon warns that this is one of Satan’s tactics:

And behold, others he [the devil] flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none–and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

http://www.fairlds.o...s-of-the-gospel

http://www.lds.org/t...s/hell?lang=eng

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Hell

H. Donl Peterson, professor of Ancient Scripture, Brigham Young University. In the Book of Mormon, “hell” is the destination of the wicked following death. Among these are “the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord.” (2 Ne. 28:15; see also 2 Ne. 9:34, 36; Luke 16:19–25.) Matthew indicates that hell awaits those who habitually turn away from their fellowmen in need. (See Matt. 25:40–46.)

Nephi calls hell “spiritual death” (2 Ne. 9:12), a place where the wicked are “cast off … as to the things which are spiritual, which are pertaining to righteousness. …

“Wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy.” (1 Ne. 15:33–34.)

Two Hells

The prophet Alma explains that the wicked “shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.” (Alma 40:13.)

On the other hand, “the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.” (Alma 40:12.)

These statements may seem to reflect the traditional Christian view of heaven and hell. (See Matt. 13:36–43.) But the Book of Mormon takes us a step farther. It describes these conditions as being, for most of mankind, temporary. Alma, for example, states: “Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.” (Alma 40:14; italics added.)

The Bible alludes to that fact in a number of places. David is promised that his soul would not remain in hell (see Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:27, 31), and it was promised that others as well would be delivered from spirit prison (see Isa. 49:8–9; John 5:25). This, in fact, happened when Christ opened the doors of hell to missionary workamong the dead. (See 1 Pet. 3:18–19; 1 Pet. 4:6; D&C 138:6–37.)

Those who hear and accept the message of salvation, whether in this life or in the spirit world, are raised “unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:29.)

At their resurrection, Nephi explains, all men “must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then … must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.

“And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, … that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.” (2 Ne. 9:15–16; see also Rev. 22:11.)

In the Book of Mormon, therefore, as in the Bible, two distinct states are referred to as “hell.” One is the temporary condition of the wicked between death and the resurrection. The other is the never-ending state of the wicked for whom there is no mercy because they, “like unto the son of perdition” (3 Ne. 29:7; John 17:12), have rejected the mercy of Christ and would sell him “for silver and for gold, and for that which moth doth corrupt.” (3 Ne. 27:32.) These are they, called perdition and the sons of perdition, who come out “in open rebellion against God” and “listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness. …

“Therefore [their] final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.” (Mosiah 2:37, 39; see also 2 Pet. 3:7; Rev. 20:13–15; D&C 76:31–46.)

For the most part, it is this second hell, or “second death,” to which the Book of Mormon prophets refer when they speak of eternal hell and damnation. (See Jacob 3:11; Alma 12:16–18; Hel. 14:16–18.)

Some readers of the scriptures wonder why the Lord often uses phrases like eternal damnation and endless torment to refer to the kind of punishment he administers.

The Lord explains that “every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless. …

“Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

“Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

“Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles. …

“For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

“Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

“Endless punishment is God’s punishment.” (D&C 19:4–12.)

These verses go far to help clarify some statements in the Book of Mormon and the Bible which refer to the temporary hell as being endless.

The Spirit World

As Latter-day Saints, we are fortunate to have four books of scripture, as well as latter-day prophets, to help us understand doctrines that have confused Christianity for centuries. We understand, for example, that the spirits of all who die enter the spirit world to await their resurrection. But even though the righteous enter a state of happiness, rest, and peace, they feel confined. The large assemblage of spirits who awaited Christ’s visit to them shortly after his crucifixion were anxiously anticipating their “deliverance.” The Doctrine and Covenants explains that “the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.” (See D&C 138:49–50.)

Thus, the peace that the righteous experience in the spirit world is not the ultimate state of happiness most of Christianity think of as heaven. It is only when the spirit and body are “inseparably connected” that mankind can “receive a fulness of joy. And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.” (See D&C 93:33–34.) In this context, all spirits between death and resurrection are in confinement.

Release for the righteous spirits comes at the beginning of the millennium. At this time, the heirs of the celestial kingdom will come forth from paradise and receive glorified, celestial bodies in the “morning” of the first resurrection, the resurrection of the just. (See1 Cor. 15:20–42; D&C 88:97–98; D&C 76:17; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1938, pp. 295–96.) Following the glorious resurrection of the celestial candidates, the heirs of the terrestrial glory will be resurrected. Their resurrection too, though later, is still considered a part of the first resurrection. (See D&C 76:71–80; 2 Ne. 9:26.) Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated that the terrestrial heirs will come forth in “the afternoon of the first resurrection” which takes place after the “Lord has ushered in the millennium.” (Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 640; see alsoD&C 88:99.)

The Temporary Hell

Among those at death who are assigned to hell are the heirs of the telestial kingdom and the sons of perdition. These spirits will remain in hell, or spirit prison, suffering “the wrath of Almighty God” until the millennial reign is over. (See D&C 76:106.) At that time, they will be resurrected in the last resurrection, the resurrection of the unjust. (See D&C 76:16–17, 81–85; John 5:28–29.)

Those who inherit the telestial kingdom constitute the filthy of the earth—the sorcerers, the adulterers, the whoremongers, “and whosoever loves and makes a lie.” (See D&C 76:103.) But through the mercies of God, even these people will be given a degree of glory. They will be “heirs of salvation,” capable of being instructed by the Holy Spirit and by ministering angels. (See D&C 76:88.)

Elder McConkie wrote that even most murderers will come out of hell, or the spirit prison, in the last resurrection to live in telestial glory:

“When the Lord paraphrases the language of Rev. 21:8 in latter-day revelation (D&C 63:17–18 and D&C 76:103–106) he omits murderers from the list of evil persons. Their inclusion here by John, however, coupled with the fact that only those who deny the truth after receiving a perfect knowledge of it shall become sons of perdition, is a clear indication that murderers shall eventually go to the telestial kingdom, unless of course there are some among those destined to be sons of perdition who are also murderers.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–73, 3:584.)

Hell, then, is a temporary quarter of the spirit world where the wicked are restrained in order for justice to be served and to give them a chance to repent. The Lord’s promise is that all who do repent will receive a kingdom of glory, according to his judgment of their works. Even those who merit no kingdom of glory will be resurrected, for Christ’s atonement broke the bands of death for allmankind. (See 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Ne. 9:14–16.) Following the resurrection, then, that temporary quarter of the spirit world called hell will no longer be necessary. “After all men are resurrected,” wrote Elder McConkie, “the [post-earthly] spirit world will be without inhabitants.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 762.)

The Hell That Has No End

The three degrees of glory provide eternal homes for the vast majority of God’s children who merited earth life. There is a fourth destination, however, for those “comparatively few” who cannot abide even a telestial glory. The Lord explains that the destiny of the sons of perdition is a kingdom without glory (see D&C 88:24), and “the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows,” only those “ordained unto this condemnation” (seeD&C 76:43–49). These are they who “cannot repent.” They “sin against the Holy Ghost” and “put Christ to open shame.” (See Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:47–49.)

“All who partake of this, the greatest of sins, sell themselves as did Cain to Lucifer. They learn to hate the truth with an eternal hatred, and they learn to love wickedness. They reach a condition where they cannot repent. The spirit of murder fills their hearts and they would, if they had the power, crucify our Lord again, which they virtually do by fighting his work and seeking to destroy it and his prophets. …

“Before a man can sink to this bitterness of soul, he must first know and understand the truth with a clearness of vision wherein there is no doubt. The Change of heart does not come all at once, but is due to transgression in some form, which continues to lurk in the soul without repentance, until the Holy Ghost withdraws, and then that man is left to spiritual darkness. Sin begets sin; the darkness grows until the love of truth turns to hatred, and the love of God is overcome by the wicked desire to destroy all that is just and true. In this way Christ is put to open shame, and blasphemy exalted.

“How fortunate it is that in the mercy of God there will be comparatively few who will partake of this awful misery and eternal darkness.” (Ibid, p. 49.)

Thus, hell has an end for all consigned to it except the sons of perdition. They alone remain in a hell which has no end.

http://www.lds.org/e...estion?lang=eng

http://en.fairmormon.org/Plan_of_salvation/Three_degrees_of_glory/Concept_of_Hell

http://en.fairmormon.org/Hell

Edited August 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

This probably directly deals with your question about not teaching hell as taught in the BoM while the others are clarifications of what is actually taught including the below:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Plan_of_salvation/What_is_%22endless_punishment%22

[Tacenda]

This probably directly deals with your question about not teaching hell as taught in the BoM while the others are clarifications of what is actually taught including the below:

http://en.fairmormon...ess_punishment"

So discount the BofM? I don't get it. All it proves is that we don't go by the BofM in many things. Why don't we still believe in hell? Is it because we distance ourselves from the common belief of hell because the Evangelicals believe in it? Just as we distanced ourselves in the belief of wearing the cross or having the cross on our church buildings? Just to be different?

[Calm]

Where do you get "discount the BoM" in any of the links I've posted? And what do you mean by LDS not believing in hell when it is clear from the links that we do indeed believe in hell.

I highly doubt that the LDS concept of hell is based on anything but what has been revealed and taught in scriptures.

Edited August 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Where do you get "discount the BoM" in any of the links I've posted? And what do you mean by LDS not believing in hell when it is clear from the links that we do indeed believe in hell.

I highly doubt that the LDS concept of hell is based on anything but what has been revealed and taught in scriptures.

Yes, but it has softened it's tone in the D&C. So it has changed from the BofM.

[Calm]

Yes, but it has softened it's tone in the D&C. So it has changed from the BofM.

"Softening tone" is a long way from "not believing" and "discounting".

[Tacenda]

"Softening tone" is a long way from "not believing" and "discounting".

Got it.

[zerinus]

Yes, but it has softened it's tone in the D&C. So it has changed from the BofM.

If you want to look at it that way, you could argue that the meaning of heaven has changed as well, because heaven is no longer "one size fits all," but is graded according to the degree of our righteousness. But if you look at the Bible more than superficially, you will find that these concepts exist in the Bible too. I am typing this on an iPod, so it is not convenient for me right now to quote specific scripture references; so I will quote from memory, and let others look up the reffs. In the NT, the Lord teaches that hell is graded. It is not one size fits all. Some whose sins are greater than others will be "beaten with many stripes" (meaning endure greater punishment than others,) while those with lesser crimes will be beaten with "fewer stripes" (meanind endure lesser punishment). Also, the concept exists in the NT that hell is not a permanent condition for everyone. It says that "thou shall not come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing," meaning that once the punishment has been paid in full, you are going to come out. Likewise, it is taught that some sins committed in this life shall not have forgiveness "in this life or the next," implying that some sins are forgivable in the next life; and if they are forgivable in the next life, that means that you are going to get out. Similarly, in the NT heaven is not one size fits all either. Some who are more faithful and righteous, it says "the reward of the same is greater in the kingdom of heaven" than for others. That means that heaven is not "one size fits all" any more than hell is. These concepts are all found in the NT, not BoM or D&C.

[Tacenda]

If you want to look at it that way, you could argue that the meaning of heaven has changed as well, because heaven is no longer "one size fits all," but is graded according to the degree of our righteousness. But if you look at the Bible more than superficially, you will find that these concepts exist in the Bible too. I am typing this on an iPod, so it is not convenient for me right now to quote specific scripture references; so I will quote from memory, and let others look up the reffs. In the NT, the Lord teaches that hell is graded. It is not one size fits all. Some whose sins are greater than others will be "beaten with many stripes" (meaning endure greater punishment than others,) while those with lesser crimes will be beaten with "fewer stripes" (meanind endure lesser punishment). Also, the concept exists in the NT that hell is not a permanent condition for everyone. It says that "thou shall not come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing," meaning that once the punishment has been paid in full, you are going to come out. Likewise, it is taught that some sins committed in this life shall not have forgiveness "in this life or the next," implying that some sins are forgivable in the next life; and if they are forgivable in the next life, that means that you are going to get out. Similarly, in the NT heaven is not one size fits all either. Some who are more faithful and righteous, it says "the reward of the same is greater in the kingdom of heaven" than for others. That means that heaven is not "one size fits all" any more than hell is. These concepts are all found in the NT, not BoM or D&C.

Makes me wonder if some of the writers in the bible, which our church says is only true as far as it is translated correctly, sometimes spoke of "hell" as a way to get people to not sin. Which by all accounts, can work. But if the BofM is true and translated correctly, why the changes in the original? Kind of off the subject, but if Oliver Cowdery recorded word for word told to him by JS as JS looked into the hat at the seerstone, and each word was coming across, why the over 4000 changes to the BofM? This has been one of those things I continually have to put on a shelf because the lack of answers. But I appreciate your taking time on your Ipod to write about the ideas in the bible. It really does make me stop to think.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Tacenda

[zerinus]

Makes me wonder if some of the writers in the bible, which our church says is only true as far as it is translated correctly, sometimes spoke of "hell" as a way to get people to not sin. Which by all accounts, can work. But if the BofM is true and translated correctly, why the changes in the original? Kind of off the subject, but if Oliver Cowdery recorded word for word told to him by JS as JS looked into the hat at the seerstone, and each word was coming across, why the over 4000 changes to the BofM? This has been one of those things I continually have to put on a shelf because the lack of answers. But I appreciate your taking time on your Ipod to write about the ideas in the bible. It really does make me stop to think.

If you had spent even a minimal of time researching your subject before asking that question, you would have thought twice before asking. Can you be a bit more specific about those "over 4000 changes"? Around 90% of those changes are are punctuational. The text of the Book of Mormon was given by revelation, not the punctuation. The original punctuation was done by the printer, who was not even a Mormon. It has needed a lot of improvements, and still does. If I had it my way, I could make another 4000 changes to it to make it better. Of the remaining 10%, 90% percent of those were the result of correcting copying errors and printing errors that were made in the first edition. The original manuscript was not submitted to the printer; it was copied by hand by Oliver Cowdery, and the copy was submitted to the printer. Anybody who has dome any amount of copying by hand knows that it is impossible to do that without making some mistakes. The printing also entailed errors. In those days books were typeset by hand. The typesetter had to read a hand-written manuscript correctly, then not make any mistakes when setting the type, which was an impossible thing not to do. That is why old typeset books always contained printing errors. The first edition of the Book of Mormon was also not properly proofread, because of the pressures under which it was published. Another source of the changes was that American spelling was not standardized in those days. Words were spelled differently in different parts of the country. All of these factors combined to make up around 99% of those so called "4000 changes". When all of that is discarded, there are only a handful of changes left that make a (minor) doctrinal difference to the text, and most of these were in fact dome by Joseph Smith himself as he prepared the book for the second edition. So I come back to my original question once again: Can you give some specific examples of those so called "4000 changes" that you think are significant enough to to be worth worrying about, so we can talk about them?

[Tacenda]

Makes me wonder if some of the writers in the bible, which our church says is only true as far as it is translated correctly, sometimes spoke of "hell" as a way to get people to not sin. Which by all accounts, can work. But if the BofM is true and translated correctly, why the changes in the original? Kind of off the subject, but if Oliver Cowdery recorded word for word told to him by JS as JS looked into the hat at the seerstone, and each word was coming across, why the over 4000 changes to the BofM? This has been one of those things I continually have to put on a shelf because the lack of answers. But I appreciate your taking time on your Ipod to write about the ideas in the bible. It really does make me stop to think.

Indeed anti-mormon, but can you dispute it?

link deleted, site contains temple content.

"Saturday Feb. 25, 1881, I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, which was as follows as near as I can recollect the substance of his description. Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and every letter was given to him by the gift and power of God. So it is the work of God and not of Joseph Smith, and it was done in this way ... . The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual." (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, page 168 of typed copy at Utah State Historical Society)

[zerinus]

Both are indeed anti mormon, but can you dispute them?

http://www.utlm.org/...s/3913intro.htm

"Saturday Feb. 25, 1881, I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, which was as follows as near as I can recollect the substance of his description. Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and every letter was given to him by the gift and power of God. So it is the work of God and not of Joseph Smith, and it was done in this way ... . The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual." (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, page 168 of typed copy at Utah State Historical Society)

1831 Edition 1981 Edition

1 Nephi 11:18 "And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of [. . . . ] God, after the manner of the flesh "And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh."

1 Nephi 11:21 "And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the [. . . . ] Eternal Father!..." "And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!..."

1 Nephi 11:32 "...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, [. . . . ] the Everlasting God, was judged of the world..." "...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world..."

1 Nephi 13:40 "...and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is [. . . . ] the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world..." "...and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the World..."

1 Nephi 19:20 "...for had not the Lord been merciful, to shew unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old; [. . . . ] for he surely..." "...for had not the Lord been merciful, to show unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old, I should have perished also."

1 Nephi 20:1

changed in 1964 ed. "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah,[. . . . ] which swear..." "Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear..."

Mosiah 21:28

changed in 1964 ed. "...king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;..." "...king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;..."

Alma 46:40 "...because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared, to remove the cause of diseases which was subsequent to man by the nature of the climate." "...because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to removed the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate."

3 Nephi 3:23 "And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land of Zarahemla and the land Bountiful." "And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla [ . . . .] and the land Bountiful..."

3 Nephi 10:4 "O ye people of these great cities which have fallen which are a descendant of Jacob; yea which are of the house of Israel; O ye people of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you..." "O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, [. . . . ] how oft have I gathered you..."

3 Nephi 16:10 "and thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you at that day, When the Gentiles shall sin against my Gospel, and shall subject the fulness of my Gospel, and shall be lifted up..." "And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel,[. . . . ] and shall be lifted up..."

3 Nephi 22:4 "...for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, [. . . . ] and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more." "...for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more."

Ether 9:2 "...nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons and to his daughters, which were not, or which did not seek his destruction." "Nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons, and to his daughters [. . . . ] who did not seek his destruction."

Note: When I tried to break them in two columns it wouldn't work. It was originally like that but in transfering it didn't break out. So you have to read the two all on one line.

Did you even bother to read my previous post? What you have copied and pasted from anti-Mormon sites is about all the changes worth mentioning that they could come up with. If they had found more, I assure you they would have presented them. So I ask you again, where are the 4000 changes? Now, if you think those "changes" are worth worrying about, I suggest instead of copying and pasting brainless, pick a couple of them that you think are the most serious, and let's discuss them.

[Tacenda]

Did you even bother to read my previous post? What you have copied and pasted from anti-Mormon sites is about all the changes worth mentioning that they could come up with. If they had found more, I assure you they would have presented them. So I ask you again, where are the 4000 changes? Now, if you think those "changes" are worth worrying about, I suggest instead of copying and pasting brainless, pick a couple of them that you think are the most serious, and let's discuss them.

As you'll see, I deleted the side by side differences above, for exactly the reason put forth by you. I really wanted to concentrate on the paragraph that said each word was written down carefully, and if it wasn't, the word would reappear. Are you going to go the route of ignoring some things brought up like so many apologists do in my experience? Can we concentrate on this and then I'll get into another thing that bothers me?

Here it is....I think that in the BofM there are still scriptures that say we are to worship Jesus, in those words, because before the changes, Joseph believed Jesus was God incarnate, my opinion. And I guess he neglected to change the wordage to worship Jesus in other passages.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Tacenda

[zerinus]

As you'll see, I deleted the side by side differences above, for exactly the reason put forth by you. I really wanted to concentrate on the paragraph that said each word was written down carefully, and if it wasn't, the word would reappear. Are you going to go the route of ignoring some things brought up like so many apologists do in my experience? Can we concentrate on this and then I'll get into another thing that bothers me?

Here it is....I think that in the BofM there are still scriptures that say we are to worship Jesus, in those words, because before the changes, Joseph believed Jesus was God incarnate, my opinion. And I guess he neglected to change the wordage to worship Jesus in other passages.

Okay, so exactly what is you question, and what is it based on, and how do you want me to answer it for you? If you have "suspicions" about Joseph's motives and intentions, what do you want me to do to alleviate your suspicions?

[Tacenda]

Here are a couple of scriptures about worshipping Jesus...

And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ... wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.”—2 Nephi 25:29

“...I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.”—1 Nephi 11:24

“Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him.”—3 Nephi 11:17

Here is one on praying to Him....

Jesus came and stood in the midst...he spake unto the multitude, and commanded them that they should kneel down again upon the earth, and also that his disciples should kneel down upon the earth. And it came to pass that when they had all knelt down upon the earth, he commanded his disciples that they should pray. And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.”—3 Nephi 19:15-18

These are the ones that were changed..from the original in 1830 here...

I Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh.

I Nephi 11:21 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!

I Nephi 11:32 ...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world...

I Nephi 13:40 ...that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world...

Also, this....

For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.”—Moroni 8:18

“...the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity...”—Mosiah 3:5

has been changed here....

We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,...he was once a man like us...”—Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346

Just another change to the BofM.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Tacenda

[DBMormon]

jesus is the father in the old testament. Elder ballard said this life is about being adopted his sons and daughters under the gospel covenant. Jesus is the Father in many ways... this does not negate the fact he has a fther who organized our intelligences and put the plan of salvation in motion.

Good talk on this

http://byutv.org/watch/7d468334-acc8-4015-a75f-7134f11c4aba#!page=1&season=2003

[zerinus]

Here are a couple of scriptures about worshipping Jesus...

And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ... wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.”—2 Nephi 25:29

“...I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.”—1 Nephi 11:24

“Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him.”—3 Nephi 11:17

Here is one on praying to Him....

Jesus came and stood in the midst...he spake unto the multitude, and commanded them that they should kneel down again upon the earth, and also that his disciples should kneel down upon the earth. And it came to pass that when they had all knelt down upon the earth, he commanded his disciples that they should pray. And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.”—3 Nephi 19:15-18

These are the ones that were changed..from the original in 1830 here...

I Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh.

I Nephi 11:21 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!

I Nephi 11:32 ...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world...

I Nephi 13:40 ...that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world...

Also, this....

For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.”—Moroni 8:18

“...the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity...”—Mosiah 3:5

has been changed here....

We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,...he was once a man like us...”—Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346

Just another change to the BofM.

I don't think that you are interested in a serious discussion. I have serious doubts that you are a Mormon at all. You appear to be another one of those anti-Mormon trolls who come here pretending to be a Mormonin order to stir things up.

[Tacenda]

I don't think that you are interested in a serious discussion. I have serious doubts that you are a Mormon at all. You appear to be another one of those anti-Mormon trolls who come here pretending to be a Mormonin order to stir things up.

Nope, I've been LDS all my life, married in the temple, current temple recommend holder. Many callings, etc. Never inactive while married for many years. Short inactivity as a youth. I stumbled onto some info that threw me into the quandry of if I should be in the church. And have been struggling for several years. Haven't been able to leap in either direction. Come here for the social aspect because I can't discuss this with members of my ward, need answers, but not trying to hurt anyones testimony, but think I've crossed the line apparently here. So sorry.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Tacenda

[Nemesis]

I don't think that you are interested in a serious discussion. I have serious doubts that you are a Mormon at all. You appear to be another one of those anti-Mormon trolls who come here pretending to be a Mormonin order to stir things up.

Sigh! There you go mind reading again. We don't allow this behavior and you know better.

Nemesis

[DBMormon]

Tacenda, I consider you sincere for what it is worth... Faith crisis questions are difficult to answer it sometimes seems like your chasing the inevitable... hang there... I know firsthand.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, I consider you sincere for what it is worth... Faith crisis questions are difficult to answer it sometimes seems like your chasing the inevitable... hang there... I know firsthand.

Thanks DB, I've noticed you are sure coming around. Me, I go two steps forward and then one step back and can't get my act together. Tonight I went to a ward pool party. It was wonderful. I didn't get in the pool but had fun socializing. The members of my ward mean the world to me.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Ok so the issue of God in the Book of Mormon.

I think we have several issues there. What might be helpful (at least as a starting point) is to look at a bit in the Old Testament - which is at least as confusing to Christianity in general (including LDS) in terms of trying to understand how it relates to our own theological models. Psalm 82 is one of those classic texts. Here are two translations of the first verse:

NIV: God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”:

KJV: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

What is interesting for us is that a word that can be translated "god" occurs three times in this verse. So here is the KJV with the Hebrew put back in (and with that Hebrew there, you can start to see how and why the translations do what they do with the text):

Elohim standeth in the congregation of the El; he judgeth among the Elohim.

The same word is first translated as "God" and then as "gods". The Second title is reduced to referring to something else. What it really refers to shows up in verse 6 (again in the two versions):

NIV: “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’

KJV: I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

And here again is the modified KJV:

I have said, Ye are Elohim; and all of you are children of Elyon.

Within a cultural context, we have Elyon, the Most High (God), who presides over his divine assembly (the assembly of El). The members of that assembly are collectively called his sons - they are the Elohim. And the speaker for most of this Psalm is one of their number - one of the Elohim. In an Israelite context, this would presumably be YHWH - although in some ways, this Psalm is almost generic in its text. A Canaanite might be just fine singing this Psalm with the understanding that the singular Elohim who stands to judge his companions in the divine assembly was Ba'al.

For part of the history of Israelite religion, YHWH was seen as one of the Elohim - one of the sons of El Elyon. As a stricter an stricter monotheism develops, the notion of a divine assembly fades.

Nephi comes out of an Israel/Judah that is just undergoing a reform. And at least from my reading, Lehi and Nephi are not very happy with the reform Judaism that they are leaving in Jerusalem. At least from that perspective, seeing a God (Elohim) the son of God (El) wouldn't be entirely out of place in their writings - even while it could be a potential source of confusion among modern LDS trying to read the text. And the emphasis occurs in different places in different ways in the Book of Mormon.

You note that Joseph changed the text to insert the "Son of" in the Book of Mormon, which he did in four different places: 1 Nephi 11:18, 11:21, 11:32 and 13:40. But, there are other places where that phrase existed already in the original text and did not need to be modified: 1 Nephi 10:17, 11:7. And there are places where he could have changed it, but didn't - like 2 Nephi 25:12 or Mosiah 3:8, and so on.

It's been speculated that the actual reasons for the changes in 1 Nephi 11 are not really to clarify the text, but rather as a way of deflecting the criticism of Alexander Campbell, who noted in an early critical piece (reproduced by the way in the Messenger and Advocate in 1835 - five years before Joseph published the second edition with the changes) that the phrase as it stood in the first edition in 1 Nephi 11:18 was very Catholic - "The Mother of God". The references to the Eternal Father are more interesting. I can understand the use much better in the rest of the Book of Mormon than in Nephi's works, since the Book of Mormon shows clear indications of a liturgical title being used in the parts redacted by Mormon and Moroni (in a very long form, a couple of long forms, and a couple of short forms). To suggest that Nephi only took the part "eternal father" from Isaiah's compound name in Isaiah 9:6, is certainly possible, but the way that everything else in 9:6 is virtually ignored makes it a less useful argument perhaps. But, there may have been a corresponding usage elsewhere on the Brass Plates that we aren't aware of that would have made such a usage much more likely (had another prophet used just that phrase for example - but that's pretty speculative for my tastes).

In any case, a notion like God, the son of God, is much more representative of a pre-exilic Old Testament theology moved into our language without the words to create as nuanced a picture as the Hebrew does (the same sort of problems we find in translations of Psalm 82 - with a similar additional problem of differences in the underlying theological model of divinity that we find in Mormonism and in other modern Christianities).

As far as the related issue of the worship of Jesus, I think that we have a couple of components there. The first is that there is clearly a pushback in the remarks made by McConkie (on which a great deal of this discussion rests) towards specific ideas and beliefs (some of them not LDS). Later leaders, in particular Hinckley, have made some movement away from that sort of interpretation of McConkie's remarks. Perhaps a more nuanced statement would be that LDS rather emphatically suggest that the worship of Jesus in a way excusively of the other members of the Godhead is inappropriate. That if we single out any member for worship we should single out God the Father.

Often the example of the Lord's prayer is presented as an example of why we should pray to the Father (only), but, that does seem a bit problematic in light of the Book of Mormon accounts in which (the resurrected) Jesus is prayed to. We wouldn't expect the mortal Jesus to hold himself up as an object to be worshiped, or even as one to be prayed to. But, the resurrected Jesus might be seen in a different light. LDS leaders (at least in the past) have suggested they are aware of the incongruity, and attempted to explain that praying to a resurrected Jesus who is present is perhaps acceptable - while falling back on the more traditional position that when we pray we should follow the example that Jesus set (both in the New Testament and in the Book of Mormon) of praying to the Father. I think this fits into the idea that if we are going to pick a member of the Godhead to deliver our devotion to, it should be to the Father and not to the Son, although we can certainly worship the Son as part of that Godhead in a more general sense. (And of course its more difficult to speak of these kinds of issues without wading into the sometimes murky waters of debates over the nature of the trinity).

If I had to make a personal statement on the issue, it would be this. Worship occurs in a lot of different ways. Jesus is our revelation of God. We come to know God through Jesus - and I think that part of what this means is that we strive to live increasingly Christ-like lives. True worship isn't just prayer, or singing hymns, or attending church or the temple - it is emulating Christ. And we worship both God the Father and God the Son when we emulate the actions and attitudes of Jesus Christ. We too become a revelation of God.

Ben M.

[Kevin Christensen]

Yes, but it has softened it's tone in the D&C. So it has changed from the BofM.

Most of the teaching about the afterlife in the Book of Mormon comes from Alma.

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

In particular, regarding the duration of hell in the Book of Mormon compared to D&C 19, pay close attention to Alma's experience:

In the Grofs' discussion, the process of psychological death and rebirth "bears a striking similarity to the events described through the ages in shamanistic initiation, rites of passage, temple mysteries, and in the ecstatic religions of many ancient and preliterate cultures."¹² They identify the first of three stages as cosmic engulfment, related to the onset of biological delivery, beginning with "an overwhelming feeling of anxiety and an awareness of a vital threat."¹³ This corresponds to Alma's shock at seeing the angel.

The second stage is no exit, related to "the second stage of delivery in which uterine contractions encroach on the foetus, but the cervix is closed." Subjectively, "the situation is inescapable and eternal. There is no hope and no way out either in space or in time."¹⁴

Notice how Alma describes a longing for annihilation while he felt "racked with eternal torment," being "encircled about by the everlasting chains of death" (Alma 36:12, 18). Concerning "the ordeal of hell," the Grofs write:

The feeling that suffering is eternal is an essential experimental attribute of hell. The endlessness of this state does not consist in an extreme extension of linear time, but in its transcendence. The individual undergoes tortures beyond any imagining which at that point are the only available reality; since the sense of the linear flow of time is lost, there appears to be no way out. It is only when this situation is fully accepted that one has experienced hell, and the journey can continue.

15

In Alma's account of his torment, the terms "everlasting" and "eternal" do not refer to duration, but to quality. Alma reports that his "eternal torment" lasted for three days (cf. D&C 19:1–21).

The third stage is the death-rebirth struggle. Again, the Grofs' description illuminates Alma's experience.

The "death and rebirth" phase represents the termination and resolution of the "death-rebirth struggle." Suffering and agony culminate in an experience of total annihilation on all levels—physical, emotional, intellectual, moral, and transcendental. . . . Such annihilation is often followed by visions of blinding white or golden light and a sense of liberating decompression and expansion. The universe is perceived as indescribably beautiful and radiant; subjects feel themselves cleansed and purged, and speak of redemption, salvation,

moksha

, or

samadhi

. Numerous images of emerging into light from darkness, glorious opening of the heavens, revelation of the divine . . . and the final victory of the pure religious impulse, express this state of consciousness. . . . In death and rebirth mythologies, the correspondence is with the revival and resurrection of the sacrificed god.

16

On the changes in the Book of Mormon in light of First Temple Theology: see Brant Gardner here:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2003-fair-conference/2003-monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book

On the Mother of God issue in the Book of Mormon, you can get a good start here:

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Tacenda]

Ok so the issue of God in the Book of Mormon.

I think we have several issues there. What might be helpful (at least as a starting point) is to look at a bit in the Old Testament - which is at least as confusing to Christianity in general (including LDS) in terms of trying to understand how it relates to our own theological models. Psalm 82 is one of those classic texts. Here are two translations of the first verse:

NIV: God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”:

KJV: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

What is interesting for us is that a word that can be translated "god" occurs three times in this verse. So here is the KJV with the Hebrew put back in (and with that Hebrew there, you can start to see how and why the translations do what they do with the text):

Elohim standeth in the congregation of the El; he judgeth among the Elohim.

The same word is first translated as "God" and then as "gods". The Second title is reduced to referring to something else. What it really refers to shows up in verse 6 (again in the two versions):

NIV: “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’

KJV: I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

And here again is the modified KJV:

I have said, Ye are Elohim; and all of you are children of Elyon.

Within a cultural context, we have Elyon, the Most High (God), who presides over his divine assembly (the assembly of El). The members of that assembly are collectively called his sons - they are the Elohim. And the speaker for most of this Psalm is one of their number - one of the Elohim. In an Israelite context, this would presumably be YHWH - although in some ways, this Psalm is almost generic in its text. A Canaanite might be just fine singing this Psalm with the understanding that the singular Elohim who stands to judge his companions in the divine assembly was Ba'al.

For part of the history of Israelite religion, YHWH was seen as one of the Elohim - one of the sons of El Elyon. As a stricter an stricter monotheism develops, the notion of a divine assembly fades.

Nephi comes out of an Israel/Judah that is just undergoing a reform. And at least from my reading, Lehi and Nephi are not very happy with the reform Judaism that they are leaving in Jerusalem. At least from that perspective, seeing a God (Elohim) the son of God (El) wouldn't be entirely out of place in their writings - even while it could be a potential source of confusion among modern LDS trying to read the text. And the emphasis occurs in different places in different ways in the Book of Mormon.

You note that Joseph changed the text to insert the "Son of" in the Book of Mormon, which he did in four different places: 1 Nephi 11:18, 11:21, 11:32 and 13:40. But, there are other places where that phrase existed already in the original text and did not need to be modified: 1 Nephi 10:17, 11:7. And there are places where he could have changed it, but didn't - like 2 Nephi 25:12 or Mosiah 3:8, and so on.

It's been speculated that the actual reasons for the changes in 1 Nephi 11 are not really to clarify the text, but rather as a way of deflecting the criticism of Alexander Campbell, who noted in an early critical piece (reproduced by the way in the Messenger and Advocate in 1835 - five years before Joseph published the second edition with the changes) that the phrase as it stood in the first edition in 1 Nephi 11:18 was very Catholic - "The Mother of God". The references to the Eternal Father are more interesting. I can understand the use much better in the rest of the Book of Mormon than in Nephi's works, since the Book of Mormon shows clear indications of a liturgical title being used in the parts redacted by Mormon and Moroni (in a very long form, a couple of long forms, and a couple of short forms). To suggest that Nephi only took the part "eternal father" from Isaiah's compound name in Isaiah 9:6, is certainly possible, but the way that everything else in 9:6 is virtually ignored makes it a less useful argument perhaps. But, there may have been a corresponding usage elsewhere on the Brass Plates that we aren't aware of that would have made such a usage much more likely (had another prophet used just that phrase for example - but that's pretty speculative for my tastes).

In any case, a notion like God, the son of God, is much more representative of a pre-exilic Old Testament theology moved into our language without the words to create as nuanced a picture as the Hebrew does (the same sort of problems we find in translations of Psalm 82 - with a similar additional problem of differences in the underlying theological model of divinity that we find in Mormonism and in other modern Christianities).

As far as the related issue of the worship of Jesus, I think that we have a couple of components there. The first is that there is clearly a pushback in the remarks made by McConkie (on which a great deal of this discussion rests) towards specific ideas and beliefs (some of them not LDS). Later leaders, in particular Hinckley, have made some movement away from that sort of interpretation of McConkie's remarks. Perhaps a more nuanced statement would be that LDS rather emphatically suggest that the worship of Jesus in a way excusively of the other members of the Godhead is inappropriate. That if we single out any member for worship we should single out God the Father.

Often the example of the Lord's prayer is presented as an example of why we should pray to the Father (only), but, that does seem a bit problematic in light of the Book of Mormon accounts in which (the resurrected) Jesus is prayed to. We wouldn't expect the mortal Jesus to hold himself up as an object to be worshiped, or even as one to be prayed to. But, the resurrected Jesus might be seen in a different light. LDS leaders (at least in the past) have suggested they are aware of the incongruity, and attempted to explain that praying to a resurrected Jesus who is present is perhaps acceptable - while falling back on the more traditional position that when we pray we should follow the example that Jesus set (both in the New Testament and in the Book of Mormon) of praying to the Father. I think this fits into the idea that if we are going to pick a member of the Godhead to deliver our devotion to, it should be to the Father and not to the Son, although we can certainly worship the Son as part of that Godhead in a more general sense. (And of course its more difficult to speak of these kinds of issues without wading into the sometimes murky waters of debates over the nature of the trinity).

If I had to make a personal statement on the issue, it would be this. Worship occurs in a lot of different ways. Jesus is our revelation of God. We come to know God through Jesus - and I think that part of what this means is that we strive to live increasingly Christ-like lives. True worship isn't just prayer, or singing hymns, or attending church or the temple - it is emulating Christ. And we worship both God the Father and God the Son when we emulate the actions and attitudes of Jesus Christ. We too become a revelation of God.

Ben M.

Most of the teaching about the afterlife in the Book of Mormon comes from Alma.

http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=16

In particular, regarding the duration of hell in the Book of Mormon compared to D&C 19, pay close attention to Alma's experience:

On the changes in the Book of Mormon in light of First Temple Theology: see Brant Gardner here:

http://www.fairlds.o...nd-mormons-book

On the Mother of God issue in the Book of Mormon, you can get a good start here:

http://www.joehunt.o...arker-talk.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I read all the writings from both of your replies, it took me a long time because I had to read over each sentence on the links, many times. I saw that FAIRMORMON used alot of what was in Margaret Barker's letter. It was really interesting how Margaret conjoined alot ot Lehi's experience with the Old Testament and how she thought the revelations to Joseph Smith were consistent with the situation in Jerusalem at about 600 B.C.E. There are many things to ponder and think about. I really appreciate the time you both took on this. Instead of just assuming I had alterior motives. I just wish it didn't mostly go over my head a bit. So if you both ever feel inclined to dumb it down for me that would be great. (haha)

I feel I need to be honest on one thing so you can see why I'm struggling with this. As I listen to the likes of the dreaded anti mormon Shawn McCraney, he puts over that if we don't accept Jesus as being God in the flesh, we might go to the place called "hell" and also, if we aren't born again, etc. So therefore I'm constantly thinking this might be the case or that we might be following a false prophet (J.S.) So now you might be thinking satan has taken hold of me. Which is something I would assume would happen. But when there are scriptures in the bible I'd never heard of that point to that, it keeps me from progressing. If it weren't for people like you who don't jump to conclusions in thinking I'm anti, who knows where I'd be. Even my bishop who knows of my concerns and lack of testimony, is very kind and friendly to me despite it.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Tacenda