Bernard Gui Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I screw up so often I'm not altogether sure about myself! To me, trusting the prophet is part of trusting God, since He said to trust the prophet: Doctrine and Covenants 1:4-5 Emphasis on patience and faith.
Bernard Gui Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: The problem being, a prophet told the blacks they couldn't return to our Father in Heaven, because of their skin color, or that their African American, or because they are slaves. I have no idea. So prophets didn't lead these people anywhere but maybe to feeling cursed. I was not aware of this. Could you please document this claim? Thanks and best wishes.
Bernard Gui Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: It is canon fodder, for them to show as proof, that Joseph Smith was not a Prophet and a fraud. Canon fodder? Or cannon fodder? Nice pun! Edited September 9, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
JarMan Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 3 hours ago, JAHS said: Modern-Language Editions of the Book of Mormon Discouraged "From time to time there are those who wish to rewrite the Book of Mormon into familiar or modern English. We discourage this type of publication and call attention to the fact that the Book of Mormon was translated “by the gift and power of God,” who has declared that “it is true.” (Book of Mormon title page; D&C 17:6.) The Prophet Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth.” (History of the Church, 4:461.) It contains “the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (D&C 20:9.) When a sacred text is translated into another language or rewritten into more familiar language, there are substantial risks that this process may introduce doctrinal errors or obscure evidence of its ancient origin. To guard against these risks, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve give close personal supervision to the translation of scriptures from English into other languages and have not authorized efforts to express the doctrinal content of the Book of Mormon in familiar or modern English. (These concerns do not pertain to publications by the Church for children, such as the Book of Mormon Reader.)" I guess they are referring to versions like this one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1555174019?tag=plabooofmor-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1555174019&adid=1C3YGVMZ9HECBV4CP96H&/new-window.php#reader_1555174019 I guess curious people will want to buy such things anyway, but how can you trust the accuracy of author? If the church was to be consistent they would restore the manuscript version(s). I think it would be a great study resource to have the manuscript version opposite a modern version, sort of like what you see with Shakespeare. In high school and college I used to love to read Shakespeare and try to understand the archaic language. Now I'm content to read a modern version, even though you lose a little "flavoring."
JarMan Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Calm said: It already has been modernized by a few. While the quality isn't great imo, I do know at least one missionary where one of these versions made all the difference in the world to his seeing himself as functioning as a missionary due to a learning disorder. Here is an online example: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_(Plain_English_Version) some more: https://www.amazon.com/Easy-Read-Lynn-Matthews-Anderson/dp/0964495708 I'd like to see a version done by experts, not hobbyists…a collaborative effort by folks I trust like Skousen and Brant Gardner…just to name a few. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, Tacenda said: Well, the blacks at one time weren't able to receive the PH. I guess I forgot there are different levels in the CK also. My mind's going, dang it. So if you're baptized that is enough to live with God, not just Jesus Christ? But it was always foregone they would receive it sometime -- which would make them eligible for all the blessings of exaltation and the celestial kingdom -- and not just the lower divisions in that kingdom. So I don't know where you're getting the idea they were told they couldn't ever go back to live with God and Christ. Edited September 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 55 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Emphasis on patience and faith. Yes. Patience that things we don't grasp will at some point be clear to us. 1
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yes. Patience that things we don't grasp will at some point be clear to us. Yes. Those who doubt should just continue in the boat until some day when their doubts become reality .......
champatsch Posted September 9, 2017 Author Posted September 9, 2017 15 hours ago, JAHS said: When a sacred text is translated into another language or rewritten into more familiar language, there are substantial risks that this process may introduce doctrinal errors or obscure evidence of its ancient origin. Here church leadership is actually arguing for restoring many (hundreds) of the original dictated words that have been changed. Many of the edits the text has suffered have obscured evidence of the actual lexical and grammatical usage. Interesting to read this Ensign quote. 1
Avatar4321 Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 On 9/6/2017 at 1:17 PM, Johnnie Cake said: Why would the Most Correct Book on earth need re-correcting? I invite you to read it and find out the answer for yourself
cdowis Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) On 9/6/2017 at 2:17 PM, Johnnie Cake said: Why would the Most Correct Book on earth need re-correcting? Correct == most correct book on the planet Earth regarding the Gospel and in doctrine, BUT still subject to human errors in grammar, scribal and coping, changes in meanings of words, etc etc Edited September 9, 2017 by cdowis
Guest Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Cannon fodder? Or cannon fodder? Nice pun! Oh, you are right, anyway you say it.
thesometimesaint Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 14 hours ago, JarMan said: If the church was to be consistent they would restore the manuscript version(s). I think it would be a great study resource to have the manuscript version opposite a modern version, sort of like what you see with Shakespeare. In high school and college I used to love to read Shakespeare and try to understand the archaic language. Now I'm content to read a modern version, even though you lose a little "flavoring." It is mixed bag for results. Few today can read and understand Beowulf in the original Anglo-Saxon. Even if we do loose something in the translation modern American English works for me . As for the Book of Mormon it largely depends on which manuscript version is employed.
Bernard Gui Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 13 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: Oh, you are right, anyway you say it. It should have read "canon fodder or cannon fodder." Ruined the pun! I hate auto-fill sometimes. 2
Guest Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: It should have read "canon fodder or cannon fodder." Ruined the pun! I hate auto-fill sometimes. As do I, it helps with spelling, but often you get proper spelling, but the wrong word.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 On 9/7/2017 at 4:44 PM, champatsch said: This is an extremely unlikely view. To entertain this view you must have an extreme view of Joseph's abilities in the realms of biblical intertextuality and English usage. To entertain this view one would also have to believe that Joseph Smith is a liar who produced a fraudulent document. That is the elephant in the room of hope_for_things's assertions, whether or not he chooses to admit it. Then, he has the temerity to claim that Joseph would say as much were he alive today and that Brigham Young implied it. This ranks high among the most outlandish drivel I have ever seen or heard. I denounce it for the falsehood that it is.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, JarMan said: If the church was to be consistent they would restore the manuscript version(s). I think it would be a great study resource to have the manuscript version opposite a modern version, sort of like what you see with Shakespeare. In high school and college I used to love to read Shakespeare and try to understand the archaic language. Now I'm content to read a modern version, even though you lose a little "flavoring." Are you aware that the Church has published a photo reproduction with accompanying typescript transcription of the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon? And, according to my very recent Church News story, it plans to do the same in the next three or four years with the extant portion of the original manuscript? All of this under the auspices of the Joseph Smith Papers project. Edited September 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
JarMan Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Are you aware that the Church has published a photo reproduction with accompanying typescript transcription of the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon? And, according to my very recent Church News story, it plans to do the same in the next three or four years with the extant portion of the original manuscript? All of this under the auspices of the Joseph Smith Papers project. Yes. I was very interested and pleased to read your article when you posted a link to it awhile back.
Marginal Gains Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 On 08/09/2017 at 11:28 PM, JarMan said: No, you're only partway there. The point is that JS used grammar that was old. . . too old for him to have known. Some of the old words and grammar is found in the KJV Bible, but much of it is not. You'll need to read Carmack's earlier papers to see a myriad of examples. One of the criticisms against "Joseph couldn't have known this language" has been the suggestion that maybe these ancient forms of English (or Early Modern English, if you will) survived for hundreds of years in isolated, rural pockets of the English-speaking world and therefore could have existed in 1820's upstate New York and been known by Joseph. Carmack's latest essay, which you appear to be referencing, simply shows that near the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon, JS did not use the grammar of the Book of Mormon when writing in his own words. So it falsifies the argument that JS wrote or spoke in Early Modern English near the time the Book of Mormon came to be. Who is making the argument that JS wrote or spoke in KJV’esque Early Modern English as part of his normal speech and writing? How does falsifying “the argument that JS wrote or spoke in Early Modern English near the time the Book of Mormon came to be.” falsify the argument that JS (and/or others) could have written the Book of Mormon without external inspiration?
Marginal Gains Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 On 08/09/2017 at 10:09 PM, CV75 said: I think context carries a lot of weight. The context for this quote is a society’s racial culture and how the people leveraged their biblical and restoration scriptures with that societal prejudice, and not the scriptural messages themselves. The Book of Mormon does not say that black skin is a curse as a matter of eternal principle, but as a sign specifically accommodating the understanding of the Book or Mormon peoples. The term references actual and/or metaphorical conditions depending on the circumstance. The physical manifestation was applied both by God and also unknowingly fulfilled by at least one rebellious group (Alma 3:4-18) -- interesting that “red” in this case is the new “black;" rebellion and the results thereof providing forms of the metaphorical manifestation. The Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites were to be divinely cursed for their wickedness, and so that righteous Nephites could identify them and avoid intermingling with them, he marked them with a black skin. How does the context of the Nephites racial culture have any bearing - unless you’re saying God din’t curs and mark the Lamanites and the Nephites were just attributing skin colour differences to God? And if so that presents us with a different problem, because it is Nephi informing us that he witnessed the change in skin colour. So, according to Nephi, it didn’t happen over generations of intermarriage with a dark skinned indigiunous population (whom Nephi never mentions), it happened ‘right before his eyes’ so to speak.
Tacenda Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 On 9/8/2017 at 7:54 PM, Bernard Gui said: I was not aware of this. Could you please document this claim? Thanks and best wishes. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
Scott Lloyd Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, Tacenda said: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng Please quote the specific portion that says blacks were told they would never be able to return to live with Heavenly Father and Jesus.
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: The Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites were to be divinely cursed for their wickedness, and so that righteous Nephites could identify them and avoid intermingling with them, he marked them with a black skin. How does the context of the Nephites racial culture have any bearing - unless you’re saying God din’t curs and mark the Lamanites and the Nephites were just attributing skin colour differences to God? And if so that presents us with a different problem, because it is Nephi informing us that he witnessed the change in skin colour. So, according to Nephi, it didn’t happen over generations of intermarriage with a dark skinned indigiunous population (whom Nephi never mentions), it happened ‘right before his eyes’ so to speak. Such is a supposition on your part. The BoM has places where Nephites and Lamanits were indistinguishable. It seems to me that it was a religio-political designation rather than one of a skin color.
Tacenda Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Please quote the specific portion that says blacks were told they would never be able to return to live with Heavenly Father and Jesus. Like some say that the gist is Jesus in the church meetings, I say the gist is that they were told they may not go to the temple. What in our church is taught about going to the temple may I ask, and therein you have the answer. ETA:In the temple we are taught, we make covenants, and we are promised blessings. We receive ordinances that enable us to live in the presence of God. https://www.lds.org/liahona/2010/10/commonly-asked-questions?lang=eng&clang=ase Edited September 10, 2017 by Tacenda
cdowis Posted September 10, 2017 Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: Like some say that the gist is Jesus in the church meetings, I say the gist is that they were told they may not go to the temple. What in our church is taught about going to the temple may I ask, and therein you have the answer. ETA:In the temple we are taught, we make covenants, and we are promised blessings. We receive ordinances that enable us to live in the presence of God. https://www.lds.org/liahona/2010/10/commonly-asked-questions?lang=eng&clang=ase Obviously you and I got a very different answer. It is sad that you are unaware that vicarious work for the dead is done in the temple. Over the past several years we had two converts die before they could fulfill the one year requirement. I guess you think they cannot receive exaltation. Edited September 10, 2017 by cdowis
Recommended Posts