kiwi57 Posted January 6, 2018 Posted January 6, 2018 14 hours ago, FormerLDS said: While very easy for all of the "new revelations" groups to make the claim that the Bible has somehow copiously been corrupted, not one person has ever presented an original version which we can compare and see that a doctrinal change exists. NOT ONE! Conversely, anyone can put the Book of Mormon to it's own test as plainly see that it meets it's own claim by comparing today's version with the original version. For example, compare the very passage that makes the "plain and precious truths were removed" claim with the original BoM passage and today's version. Original Version: Today's version: Anyone can plainly see that plain and precious truths were removed... Incidentally, did you intentionally "remove" a "plain and precious truth" when you put in the title "Today's version" instead of "Joseph Smith's 1834 revision?" Were you trying to imply that some nameless person or group had meddled with the text modernly, instead of acknowledging that the prophet himself had made that change just a few years after the original translation? 1
kiwi57 Posted January 6, 2018 Posted January 6, 2018 12 hours ago, snowflake said: Not sure that just because something is mentioned, and not elaborated on, is evidence that the Bible is incomplete, for example: how did Mary die? Where was she buried? What color were her eyes? .......see the bible is incomplete! What has that got to do with what SMac posted? He cited, among other things, explicitly mentioned books of scripture that were relied upon and quoted as authoritative, in scriptures that survive in our Bibles. That blather about Mary's eye colour is entirely unrelated to the evidence before you. Shall we take it, then, that you really don't want to acknowledge that anything has been lost, but you are not able to deal with the evidence provided, so you resort to an attempt at deflection?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 6, 2018 Posted January 6, 2018 On 1/5/2018 at 9:12 AM, snowflake said: The BOM claims that many plain and precious truths have been removed from the Bible. My question is not whether this is true or not but, would it be possible to take anything away out of the BOM or the Bible today and if so how could one do it? Probably not. I just don't see how. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 6, 2018 Posted January 6, 2018 On 1/5/2018 at 10:05 AM, RevTestament said: .......................................... The tendency of critics is to blow the article of faith that LDS believe the Bible so far as it is translated correctly, way out of proportion. ................... Based on the 1828 Webster's dictionary, it is as likely that "translated' means "transmitted," which entails more than just naked translation, but also accuracy in textual transmission. 1
kiwi57 Posted January 7, 2018 Posted January 7, 2018 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Based on the 1828 Webster's dictionary, it is as likely that "translated' means "transmitted," which entails more than just naked translation, but also accuracy in textual transmission. Incidentally, in geometry, to "translate" a figure is to move it from one position to another without changing its aspect. This might be a related meaning. 1
Atheist Mormon Posted January 7, 2018 Posted January 7, 2018 (edited) On 1/6/2018 at 12:48 AM, The Nehor said: 4. There is no point. The sealed portions of the Book of Mormon are destined to be revealed and read at some future date. Yeh, I have some sealed records of my financial mishaps, (my wife never seen), instructed my secretary to show her after my passing. Edited January 7, 2018 by Atheist Mormon
Gray Posted January 7, 2018 Posted January 7, 2018 On 1/5/2018 at 10:43 AM, Benjamin McGuire said: One of the problems that we face with reading scripture is that we don't engage in any sort of "naked" reading of the text, we always read with - we read with all sorts of things (our knowledge, our assumptions, the cultural and societal baggage, and so on). Nephi, for all of his claims of removing plain and precious things, ends up also removing things from the text for his descendants. He discusses this in some detail in 2 Nephi 25-30. Faced with a recognition that reading Isaiah as the Israelites traditionally read Isaiah didn't actually make the Israelites any more righteous, Nephi replaces that cultural and societal knowledge that he has with a process of "likening" scriptures unto themselves. And Nephi doesn't just explain how this is to be done, he proves examples, where he takes his own prophecy, and then uses the words in Isaiah to interpret his own prophecy - radically altering the meaning of those passages in Isaiah. In a way, reading the Isaiah in the Book of Mormon by trying to understand the Old Testament Isaiah in its own cultural milieu can only result in a failure to understand Isaiah as Nephi intended it to be understood. Only be separating ourselves from that historical and contextual knowledge can we begin to approach Isaiah as Nephi suggests. What comes out of this is the idea that we define as individuals and groups meta-narratives that determine what scripture means and how it should be read. In some cases, this already costs us "plain and precious truths". Nephi's response to this idea is quite simple - when we read with the Spirit, we gain plain and precious truths to replace whatever is lost (perhaps in Nephi's view, these are equivalent). Consequently, this sort of question only makes sense if we start by carefully defining what it is we mean by "plain and precious truths", what we mean when we talk about removing them, and so on. If we alter the text, do we lose plain and precious truths? If we cut the Song of Songs, from the Old Testament, would that cost us "plain and precious truths"? If we translate the text from its original language, and we use a theologically motivated interpretation to guide our translation, does that cost us "plain and precious truths"? What if we ignore the historical-critical context, and we liken the scriptures unto ourselves using only the translation that we have in front of us? Does that cost us "plain and precious truths"? I think in the long run there are many ways that we can lose plain and precious truths. But just as often, the notion of plain and precious truth is itself an idea that is narrowly understand and problematic in its own right. Brigham Young suggested that the Book of Mormon was translated for a specific group of people at a specific point in time, and that should it have been translated for others at another time (or even the same group at a later time) it might have been quite different. In the same way, I am not sure that simply excising material is the only way or even the best way to understand this concept. I think its valuable to understand what Nephi meant when he uses this idea, and to try and understand how his own approach of likening scripture somehow changes the problem (or even offers a solution to it as he seems to be suggesting). Great post. You don't need to cut or alter the text to remove plain and precious truths - all you need to do is to reinterpret it, which happens all the time. But you can also FIND new plain and precious truths through reinterpretation.
snowflake Posted January 8, 2018 Author Posted January 8, 2018 On 1/5/2018 at 5:34 PM, pogi said: Entire books of missing scripture is not equivalent to Mary's eye color not being mentioned. Who knows, these additional books might have prevented much of the fracture that we see in Christianity today, as far as doctrinal disagreements (baptismal age, etc), requirements/ordinances for salvation, exaltation (deification)), nature of the Godhead, priesthood authority , etc. etc. etc. For being complete, there is so much more that could have been said. You are just assuming that the holy spirit wanted these specifics to be in the Bible. The bible mentions nothing of an age requirement about baptism, so to most Christians this is a non-issue, it is about the heart not someone's age. The bible is very clear on salvation too, no ordinances required. No deification, unbiblical, no priesthood authority in the NT....all of these made up by Joseph. Also, these things are not in the BOM either, do you consider the BOM complete?
snowflake Posted January 8, 2018 Author Posted January 8, 2018 On 1/6/2018 at 3:10 AM, kiwi57 said: What has that got to do with what SMac posted? He cited, among other things, explicitly mentioned books of scripture that were relied upon and quoted as authoritative, in scriptures that survive in our Bibles. That blather about Mary's eye colour is entirely unrelated to the evidence before you. Shall we take it, then, that you really don't want to acknowledge that anything has been lost, but you are not able to deal with the evidence provided, so you resort to an attempt at deflection? There are many books in the Catholic bible not included in the KJV. These books are of historical value but never made it in to the cannon because they were not considered inspired. Why didn't Joseph put these in his revised version? Why haven't the LDS prophets fixed the Bible if it is missing so much?
snowflake Posted January 8, 2018 Author Posted January 8, 2018 On 1/6/2018 at 2:42 AM, kiwi57 said: Incidentally, did you intentionally "remove" a "plain and precious truth" when you put in the title "Today's version" instead of "Joseph Smith's 1834 revision?" Were you trying to imply that some nameless person or group had meddled with the text modernly, instead of acknowledging that the prophet himself had made that change just a few years after the original translation? So prophets have the "authority" to change scripture?......only in LDS land do we get such revisions, the current "Prophet" always trumps the previous one with the ability to change doctrine at will and "reinterpret" scripture to fit the current Salt lake LDS sect, i.e. polygamy, adam God, priesthood ban, blood atonement, non-levites holding priesthood, God has a dad etc.
pogi Posted January 8, 2018 Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, snowflake said: You are just assuming that the holy spirit wanted these specifics to be in the Bible. And you are assuming that 1) the Holy Spirit didn't want these in the Bible, and 2) that the Holy Spirit even had a say. 5 hours ago, snowflake said: The bible mentions nothing of an age requirement about baptism, so to most Christians this is a non-issue, it is about the heart not someone's age. Another assumption. I don't blame you however, what else can you do but assume when the Bible is so silent? But if the heart is required (as I agree with) do you disagree with child baptism then? 5 hours ago, snowflake said: The bible is very clear on salvation too, no ordinances required. No deification, unbiblical, no priesthood authority in the NT....all of these made up by Joseph. Made up by Joseph? Even the Catholic church, who compiled the Bible, agrees with us on these points, and finds them to be scriptural. Not just the Catholic church either, but many Protestant sects agree as well. There is much fracture and division in Christianity on these points. Not so clear after all...or are you implying that we (Mormons, Catholics, and other Protestants) are incapable of competent literacy? 5 hours ago, snowflake said: Also, these things are not in the BOM either, do you consider the BOM complete? Child baptism...check! (Moroni 8). Priesthood authority...check! (Alma 13). Also, we have always had an open canon, so no, we don't consider the BOM "complete" in that regard. There is still so much to learn for exaltation. Edited January 8, 2018 by pogi
clarkgoble Posted January 8, 2018 Posted January 8, 2018 4 hours ago, snowflake said: So prophets have the "authority" to change scripture?......only in LDS land do we get such revisions, the current "Prophet" always trumps the previous one with the ability to change doctrine at will and "reinterpret" scripture to fit the current Salt lake LDS sect, i.e. polygamy, adam God, priesthood ban, blood atonement, non-levites holding priesthood, God has a dad etc. You do realize that happened in the past too, right? Look up the discovery of the book of law under Josiah (often taken to be Deuteronomy) or the changes in doctrine under Jeremiah. 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted January 8, 2018 Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) Robert wrote: Quote Based on the 1828 Webster's dictionary, it is as likely that "translated' means "transmitted," which entails more than just naked translation, but also accuracy in textual transmission. I don't really agree with this although I probably get to the same place. The 1828 dictionary doesn't use the word "transmit" in it's definition of translate. And part of this is because the issue is more about categories. Early LDS had very little interest in definitions of the word "translate," as opposed to the word "author" where they had a much greater interest beginning with the criticisms that came out of the statement of Joseph Smith as author of the Book of Mormon that appeared with the publication of the copyright statement that is published (according to legal requirements) in mid 1829. To answer this, in November of 1829, Oliver Cowdery effectively quotes the 1829 dictionary entry for author in a letter responding to just such a concern. The 1828 dictionary includes this statement as part of that definition: Quote It is appropriately applied to one who composes or writes a book, or original work, and in a more general sense, to one whose occupation is to compose and write books; opposed to compiler or translator. In that letter, Oliver suggests that Joseph "was the writer of it, and could be no less than the author." This as opposed to Joseph being merely a compiler or translator suggests that while translating was viewed more or less as part of transmission of a text, what Joseph was doing wasn't limited to strictly transmission in his production of the Book of Mormon. Further, what we see in this letter is that translation was viewed in the same category as a compiler. In modern thought, we have, of course, replaced this notion, as we see translation isn't merely a mechanical process but something far more involved in communication, and translators are often given more credit now than there were in the early 19th century for their role in the communicative act that a translation represents that is independent of the original source. In the sense that I disagree, it is precisely in this area where we have some disagreements - that is, I am not sure at all that there was much of a nuanced view of what a "naked translation" was as opposed to some other kind of translation (at least not in popular thought). Translation certainly wasn't conceptually a container for this additional sort of content - it was simply given that extra content by the way in which the notion of translation was categorized (as not normally involving any sort of creative input on the part of the translator). Now, we almost certainly see translators as being more of an author, and we see translators being given a copyright independent of the original author of a text (and even more extreme, perhaps, I am sure you remember the issues with Qimron and Strugnell over the copyright assigned to a reconstruction of MMT in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1990s ....). Edited January 8, 2018 by Benjamin McGuire 2
snowflake Posted January 8, 2018 Author Posted January 8, 2018 44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: You do realize that happened in the past too, right? Look up the discovery of the book of law under Josiah (often taken to be Deuteronomy) or the changes in doctrine under Jeremiah. I assume you are talking about 2 Kings 22? Josiah does not go back and change the law or change Doctrine, he realizes that the people are not living the law of Moses and brings the Jews to once again come under the law. Not sure about your claims under Jeremiah, specifics please.
clarkgoble Posted January 8, 2018 Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, snowflake said: I assume you are talking about 2 Kings 22? Josiah does not go back and change the law or change Doctrine, he realizes that the people are not living the law of Moses and brings the Jews to once again come under the law. Not sure about your claims under Jeremiah, specifics please. I was referring to the Josiah reforms. They were pretty major changes to Jewish worship. Deuteronomy, if that's the Law referred to, leads to pretty significant changes. Now Biblical innerrantists usually try to dismiss these changes, however most scholars see pretty significant changes especially to the centralization of the cult to Jerusalem. While Mormons often like Barker's writings on this era since they support the Book of Mormon narrative, that love isn't universal among Mormons. Further even those who disagree with Barker's constructions of the era would acknowledge the huge religious shifts in this period. Here's a paper on the topic that doesn't embrace Barker's views. The main point though is that religion is hardly static. Further prophets can and should correct errors that arise in belief. It's not hard to find NT theological claims that contradict earlier Jewish beliefs. Edited January 8, 2018 by clarkgoble 2
Guest Posted January 8, 2018 Posted January 8, 2018 On January 5, 2018 at 11:12 AM, snowflake said: The BOM claims that many plain and precious truths have been removed from the Bible. My question is not whether this is true or not but, would it be possible to take anything away out of the BOM or the Bible today and if so how could one do it? It is an easy claim to make, and hard to prove. There is of course some proof, via missing books of the Bible, and the teachings of Enoch which we have in the Book of Moses.
snowflake Posted January 8, 2018 Author Posted January 8, 2018 50 minutes ago, pogi said: Child baptism...check! (Moroni 8). Priesthood authority...check! (Alma 13). Also, we have always had an open canon, so no, we don't consider the BOM "complete" in that regard. There is still so much to learn for exaltation. Christians baptize children....not sure what you mean here by Check! Many children give their hearts to Jesus and get baptized. Priesthood authority? Alma 13 is extremely vague describing multiple high priests at one time. Impossible in the OT, only one high priest at a time was allowed. No ordinances described, no keys described, no laying on of hands.....very vague and incomplete. Also Alma 13 31 And Alma spake many more words unto the people, which are not written in this book. Where is the other book recording Alma's teachings?.....the BOM surely is incomplete!!!!
pogi Posted January 8, 2018 Posted January 8, 2018 31 minutes ago, snowflake said: Christians baptize children....not sure what you mean here by Check! Many children give their hearts to Jesus and get baptized. "Check" means that infant baptism is addressed in the BOM. Can an infant consent with their heart to be baptized? Both Catholics and some Protestant congregations baptize infants. 34 minutes ago, snowflake said: .....the BOM surely is incomplete!!!! Which point I already acknowledged. We believe in an open canon, which suggests that there is...more. Not only do we have the Bible and BOM, but we also have the PoGP and D&C. Beyond that, we believe that many things are yet to be revealed pertaining the kingdom of God and exaltation. The Book of Mormon does not contain ALL of God's word. It is simply another testament of Jesus Christ.
Bobbieaware Posted January 8, 2018 Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, snowflake said: Christians baptize children....not sure what you mean here by Check! Many children give their hearts to Jesus and get baptized. Priesthood authority? Alma 13 is extremely vague describing multiple high priests at one time. Impossible in the OT, only one high priest at a time was allowed. No ordinances described, no keys described, no laying on of hands.....very vague and incomplete. Also Alma 13 31 And Alma spake many more words unto the people, which are not written in this book. Where is the other book recording Alma's teachings?.....the BOM surely is incomplete!!!! The Latter-Day Saints baptise children too, just not children who are too young to make that decision for themselves. The priestesshood authority Alma is speaking of in Alma 13 is that of the Melchizedek order of priesthood, the same priesthood authority that caused the Apostle John to declare: 5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us (plural) kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1) Not coincidentally, Melchizedek was both a king and high priest. The ordinances aren’t described in Alma 13 because they are the ones administered in the temples. But any Latter-Day Saint with eyes to see and ears to hear knows the ordinances of our temples plainly encorporate imagery that plainly demonstrates how Christ atoned for our sins. As to your final question, the Book of Mormon testifies of itself that it contains the lesser portion of the word of God. Which is why in the Book of Mormon the Lord promises that if enough latter-day gentiles embrace the Book of Mormon as the word of God, he will then reveal the greater portion of his word. And that greater portion of the word was revealed and is now contained in the Doctrine and Covenants and in the teachings and ordinances of the temple. Read for yourself... 8 And these things (the Book of Mormon as it exists today) have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken. 9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them. 10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. 11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbadeit, saying: I will try the faith of my people. (3 Nephi 26) Here’s the problem: because many critics are largely ignorant of the teachings of Mormonism, they keep thinking they’re making devastating points against my religion, when the fact of the matter is the things they think make a strong case against the LDS Church are all easily, coherently and convincingly explained. If the critics could only decide to stop being so combative, and listen with an open mind, they’d make far less embarrassing mistakes when discussing the LDS Church. Edited January 8, 2018 by Bobbieaware
kiwi57 Posted January 8, 2018 Posted January 8, 2018 40 minutes ago, snowflake said: 31 And Alma spake many more words unto the people, which are not written in this book. Where is the other book recording Alma's teachings?.....the BOM surely is incomplete!!!! Do you really think you've scored some kind of point there? Do you assume that we need some kind of complete and infallible canon somewhere, and if there's anything not in some given volume of scripture, then we have to discard it and start over? Does this explain why you keep talking past us? We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. (Articles of Faith 1:9) If you don't understand that, Snowflake, you are doomed to keep boxing at shadows - and vainly imagining that you are scoring points. 2
theplains Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 On 05/01/2018 at 11:12 AM, snowflake said: The BOM claims that many plain and precious truths have been removed from the Bible. My question is not whether this is true or not but, would it be possible to take anything away out of the BOM or the Bible today and if so how could one do it? I think some believe the 116 page lost manuscript will eventually be added to the Book of Mormon. It's already on the Internet for people to view. Jim
ksfisher Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 On 1/8/2018 at 3:24 PM, snowflake said: 31 And Alma spake many more words unto the people, which are not written in this book. Where is the other book recording Alma's teachings?.....the BOM surely is incomplete!!!! And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. (John 21:25) Where are the other books recording what Jesus did?...The Bible surely is incomplete!!! 1
kiwi57 Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 49 minutes ago, theplains said: I think some believe the 116 page lost manuscript will eventually be added to the Book of Mormon. It's already on the Internet for people to view. Jim Really? Do you have a link?
Stargazer Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 52 minutes ago, theplains said: I think some believe the 116 page lost manuscript will eventually be added to the Book of Mormon. It's already on the Internet for people to view. Jim Well, that's nice! Where would that be? If you're talking about Christopher Nemelka's "Sealed Portion", he's admitted with pride that he wrote it himself.
Jeanne Posted January 25, 2018 Posted January 25, 2018 59 minutes ago, theplains said: I think some believe the 116 page lost manuscript will eventually be added to the Book of Mormon. It's already on the Internet for people to view. Jim Huh???
Recommended Posts