Christ-like?

[rameumptom]

I think Aesa's comment is that we don't have the original writings from the original authors in the original languages. We have translations. In the case of the Bible, we have a translation from a long series of translations.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, we have Mormon's or Nephi's abridgements translated by Joseph Smith into English.

So, in many ways, these ARE commentaries. The difference is, these are inspired commentaries that bring the Spirit of truth with them.

[BenRaines]

Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so. I am weak and He is strong. Yes Jesus love me, yes Jesus love me, yes Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so.

That is how I remember it but haven't sung it in about 45 years.

Asea, about parents bringing little children up in Fast and Testimony meeting and having them parrot what the parents whisper in their ears is not encouraged in the LDS church. Does it happen? Yes. Is it encouraged? No. There have been several great talks given on what a testimony is in General Conference over the last couple of years. Each one has discouraged the practice of bringing small children up, but it is a tradition that is hard to end.

I have a real problem with those who get up in testimony meeting and think it is stand up comedy time but that is another thread all together.

Ben Raines

[Elgama]

I have a real problem with those who get up in testimony meeting and think it is stand up comedy time but that is another thread all together.

Ben Raines

You know what I used to hate our testimony meetings basically John would get up and tell us about his prostate, Marjorie would update us on her market stall, Stan had spent time with the brass band, Eric had had another dream, our resident adulterer would get up and lecture everyone on morals, then a Sister would get up and cry and we would all go home.

But I really miss them now have learned not to judge a testimony I know what it should be but that was those people's testimony, just like Ellie's raspberry was hers, my daughter is a show off and loves getting up.

-Charley

[Outshined]

Ah, you're right. I apologise for the use of the word brainwashing. It's easy to look at one side of the coin.

I haven't actually, been to a church where that song is sung. Becuase I haven't been to an institutional Church since I went to a presbyterian church, and before that being raised on the Catholic church.

The point is that little children cannot have true faith in God or any religious principle, because they have no comprehension, so they must be taught. It is a bit trite when small children are taken up to "bear testimony", but it is by emulation of their parents that they biuld the foundation for their own eventual understanding and a testimony of their own.

[Aesa]

You obviously haven't read the Book of Mormon if you assume it's a book of Biblical commentary.

It is a commentary because it's not in the supposed original language.

The point is that little children cannot have true faith in God or any religious principle, because they have no comprehension, so they must be taught. It is a bit trite when small children are taken up to "bear testimony", but it is by emulation of their parents that they biuld the foundation for their own eventual understanding and a testimony of their own.

Personally I disagree with the notion of "teaching" the child to bear testimony. When they are old enough to read and comprehend what you would call scriptures, and they find it to be "true," then bearing testimony should come naturally.

[KristofferUmfrey]

It is a commentary because it's not in the supposed original language.

Personally I disagree with the notion of "teaching" the child to bear testimony. When they are old enough to read and comprehend what you would call scriptures, and they find it to be "true," then bearing testimony should come naturally.

It is a commentary because it's not in the supposed original language.

That would be a translation...

trans⋅la⋅tion

   /trænsˈleɪʃən, trænz-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [trans-ley-shuhn, tranz-] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language.

A commentary is something completely different...

com⋅men⋅tar⋅y

   /ˈkɒmənˌtɛri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kom-uhn-ter-ee] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -tar⋅ies.

1. a series of comments, explanations, or annotations: a commentary on the Bible; news followed by a commentary.

2. an explanatory essay or treatise: a commentary on a play; Blackstone's commentaries on law.

3. anything serving to illustrate a point, prompt a realization, or exemplify, esp. in the case of something unfortunate: The dropout rate is a sad commentary on our school system.

[MarginOfError]

Thomas B. Marsh, formerly president of the Twelve, having apostatized, repaired to Richmond and made affidavit before Henry Jacobs, justice of the peace, to all the vilest slanders, aspersions, lies and calumnies towards myself and the Church, that his wicked heart could invent. He had been lifted up in pride by his exaltation to office and the revelations of heaven concerning him, until he was ready to be overthrown by the first adverse wind that should cross his track, and now he has fallen, lied and sworn falsely, and is ready to take the lives of his best friends. HC 3:167

Of this testimony and the action of Marsh and Hyde the late President Taylor in his discourse on Succession in the Presidency, makes the following pertinent remarks: "Testimonies from these sources are not always reliable, and it is to be hoped, for the sake of the two brethren, that some things were added by our enemies that they did not assert, but enough was said to make this default and apostasy very terrible. I will here state that I was in Far West at the time these affidavits were made, and was mixed up with all prominent Church affairs. I was there when Thomas B. Marsh and Orson Hyde left there; and there are others present who were there at the time. And I know that these things, referred to in the affidavits, are not true. I have heard a good deal about Danites, but I never heard of them among the Latter-day Saints. If there was such an organization, I never was made aware of it." HC 3:167-168

Schuyler Colfax, vice-president of the United States, in his discussion with the late President John Taylor on the "Mormon Question," quoted this Marsh-Hyde affidavit, and Elder Taylor in reply said: "I am sorry to say that Thomas B. Marsh did make that affidavit, and that Orson Hyde stated that he knew part of it and believed the other; and it would be disingenuous in me to deny it; but it is not true that these things existed, for I was there and knew to the contrary; and so did the people of of Missouri, and so did the governor of Missouri." HC 3:168

Finally, the affidavit was made to Henry Jacobs, a justice of the peace in Ray county, Missouri, where mobs were gathering as tensions between Mormons and Missourians grew. It was recorded "Fourteen citizens of Ray county, one of whom was a Mr. Hudgins, a postmaster, wrote the governor and inflammatory epistle. Thomas C Burch, of Richmond, wrote a similar communication. Also the citizens of Ray county, in public meeting, appealed to the governor of the state, to give the people of Upper Missouri protection from the fearful body of "thieves and robbers;" while the fact is the Saints were minding their own business, only as they were driven from it by those who were crying thieves and robbers" (HC 3:166). Those in Ray county had already made up their minds about the Mormons, and weren't exactly the most objective of people. A lot of the statements on both sides are of questionable objectivity and truthfulness.

A great deal of the third volume of History of the Church deals with the troubles in Missouri. Reading this volume might enrich the context of the affidavit in the initial post.

[Justice]

Nephi speaks to comments like this from the dust:

2 Nephi 9:

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

I would like to make 2 comments about this statement:

Quote:

You obviously haven't read the Book of Mormon if you assume it's a book of Biblical commentary.

It is a commentary because it's not in the supposed original language.

If this is supposed to be logic, which it looks like logic because it is structured as such, it is severely flawed.

1) To say one thing is not true, or "commentary," because it is not written in a "supposed" "original" language would mean you would have to pick one "original language" and discount all the rest of the writings ever made by man. Are you saying anyone who ever wrote a journal in a language other than this "supposed" "original" language is not writing about their own life, but about the writing of another person who wrote in this original language? How can it be that the language one uses makes anything flawed or false? Either they are writing about factual events or they are not... the language they use has absolutely nothing to do with it. Whoever taught you this is not as intelligent as they think they are, and the above scripture is directed at them.

2) The Book of Mormon is NOT a commentary on the Bible. It was not meant to be when it was written, nor was it meant to be when it was translated into English, or any of the other hundreds of languages it's available in today. It is a group of people who lived in a different place who wrote of what they saw and heard, and what they read from prophets who wrote long ago. Are you saying that the New Testament is merely a commentary of the Old Testament since nearly all of the writers quote from it?

I started to not reply, because I don't really have anything good or nice to say about your comment. However, I really have no malicious intent. My only intent is to expose bad logic that attempts to discredit a book that is as true as any other book on earth. For one who is not familiar with it to discredit it because they don't want to give it an "honest" read, and take the simple challenge it offers to all honest seekers of truth, is something I can't sit back and watch.

It is nothing personal. My comments are directed at your actions and words, and not at who or what you are. Good people often make honest mistakes.

Something tells me you aren't reading my posts; *really* reading my posts with the intention to learn from others who may know. It appears your mind is already made up, and we have discussed the danger in that already. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ. If you reject it you reject what it testifies of.

I will post all of chapter 29 of 2nd Nephi with the intent that you will ponder it and actually read it. If it is logic you like, it doesn't get any better than this... and it is speaking to you!

Listen for the answer to the language thing, and whether or not it matters what language a truth is written in:

1 But behold, there shall be many—at that day when I shall proceed to do a marvelous work among them, that I may remember my covenants which I have made unto the children of men, that I may set my hand again the second time to recover my people, which are of the house of Israel;

2 And also, that I may remember the promises which I have made unto thee, Nephi, and also unto thy father, that I would remember your seed; and that the words of your seed should proceed forth out of my mouth unto your seed; and my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel;

3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?

5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.

6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

14 And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the blands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed iforever.

Sound logic.

Something tells me you won't try to refute any of this logic, because it is sound and you know it can't be. The *only* question is whether or not you are willing to listen.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Justice

[Aesa]

I'm not going to bother quoting your text.

What I'm saying is, and I thought it was, is that the Book of Mormon is a commentary because it is said by you to have originally existed in reformed egyptian on gold plates -- thus it is a commentary on the original, and what makes it a commentary is the fact that you could translate it 100 times and it would always differ in at least small ways -- as is with the Bible.

[Elgama]

I

Personally I disagree with the notion of "teaching" the child to bear testimony. When they are old enough to read and comprehend what you would call scriptures, and they find it to be "true," then bearing testimony should come naturally.

I have known of God and Christ and had a testimoney since I was 3 long before I read a scripture, the vast majority of the Earth;s inhabitants are religious and have a relationship with God, but are illiterate, God is not a book and scripture is not necessary for a basic testimony - a child that states they love Jesus and they love their Mummy and Daddy is bearing the testimony they have at that stage. Scriptures are necessary for progression, but so is that initial testimony - without it the the Bhagdad Gita is as useful as the Standard Works. My daughter's testimony is based on when she prays she finds her cuddlie and the rain stops etc, and that her Mummy and Daddy love Jesus and Heavenly Father, she also has a strong testimony at 5 of the pre-existence not an understanding just a knowledge it exists.

You cannot teach a testimony but a child can be taught and given confidence, so when that testimony does come they can share it. At 3 they are merely wanting to join in the service like everyone else. Like my son at 2 cannot speak but sits down every night with his blue Book of Mormon when we do family scripture study and he kneels and puts his hands to pray he doesn't know what he is doing but he knows he is part of a family that does these things,

-Charley

[Aesa]

You're right -- I simply feel that a child should be at an accountable age to bear witness.

You wouldn't have a 6 year old prophet bearing witness, hypothetically.

[Maya]

I also remember I had a testimony of God and Jesus already when very little... but then I was a lutheran....

I cant see anything wrong about kids learning to give their testimonies when very young. I know a child can have a MUCH grater love to HF and JK and certainly the information channel is more open!

Small children are able to see the angles if needed and they take care of them. Often children met with accidents, and who actually should have died, tell stories about some shinny person who helped them...

[Elgama]

You're right -- I simply feel that a child should be at an accountable age to bear witness.

You wouldn't have a 6 year old prophet bearing witness, hypothetically.

since she could talk if my daughter has said she has had an answer to prayer yes I would listen. Sometimes she gets promptings because I am too busy she

has more time to listen. And actually have started to watch my son despite being unable to talk he is capable of dragging me away from something that is wrong or organising me.

I think if you ignore a small child's perception of faith, that is when you brainwash and remove their testimony. My daughter's ideas are not always 100% academically correct but she knows wht she is talking about - for example she describes the prexistence as being a grown up before she became a child and that Emma down the road was the only person not there because she says she wasn't lol she does not doubt it but her understanding is that of a 5 year old. So yes if a 6 year old said they had received revelation I would do the same as with an adult listen to the Holy Ghost

-Charley

[Justice]

I'm not going to bother quoting your text.

What I'm saying is, and I thought it was, is that the Book of Mormon is a commentary because it is said by you to have originally existed in reformed egyptian on gold plates -- thus it is a commentary on the original, and what makes it a commentary is the fact that you could translate it 100 times and it would always differ in at least small ways -- as is with the Bible.

So, when a literary work is translated from one language to another it is considered a commentary of the previous language?

Wasn't the Bible translated into English from other languages?

But, you say it's a commentary too.

I'm not sure what to say to that. That is something I would never reason through. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I think it's logic at it's worst.

How about a comment on the words of Nephi I posted about how the Lord can speak to whomever He chooses? Agree? Disagree?

Edited December 5, 2008 by Justice

[Aesa]

Agreed, ofcourse.

But it's a commentary because each translator has their own opinion as to how the text should be translated and using what words in what context.

It's the same as something like the Qur'an which, in it's english form, is never disputed as a commentary.

I always say that it's not the translation or the words, but the Spirit. You could read a version as rotten as the NIV and still get truth from the Spirit out of it.

[Justice]

Well, that's the entire premise behind why the Book of Mormon, or any work of scripture for that matter, can be considered simply a translation into a new language and not just a commentary... the spirit is the key. The Spirit knows what words were written and knows how to convery the messages from one language to another, independant of the knowledge of the one doing the translating.

It sounds like you know it's possible, you just don't think it is?

The Book of Mormon only had 1 translator... Joseph Smith. He said he was given a Urim and Thummim by which he would translate from the Spirit by the gift and power of God. He had a second grade education, and even if he had a PhD in language translation, he would still have had to rely on the Spirit because Nephi said his language was one that only they used.

As I said earlier, either the book is true or it isn't. There is only one way to determine that. You have to have faith and be believing that God can make it happen, and not read it to trifle with the words.

The question is not "is it a commentary by Joseph Smith" because he did not have the know-how nor intellect at that young age to understand one iota of the language of the Nephites. The question is "we have the Book of Mormon, was it by God's hand?" Quite frankly, it is impossible that Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon on his own, and even with the aid of all those who claimed to help.

But, the direction one should take to determine whether it's true or not should follow the path outlined in the text itself, not any other way. No one ever said one can determne it's truth by man's understanding, like by proving it's a commentary by logical means. One would have to know the original text in reformed Egyptian to know if it's a commentary. The English version IS our original. Most of the Book claims to be an abridgement, which isn't quite the same thing as a commentary.

What is important is that it consists of words by people who actually lived, telling events that actually happened to them. Whether or not it's commentary that Jesus appeared to them and instructed them is all but irrelevant when compared to the point that it claims Christ's appeared to them and taught them His gospel. That it's "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" should impress our minds much more than whether or not it's commentary or abridgement of actual events.

[Aesa]

Well ofcourse, but since the Book of Mormon is said to be scripture -- we can also assume that it will follow the path outlined in the other scriptures.

Let me clarify, what I mean is -- nothing is included that would diminish other scriptures, so for example a doctrine that makes an already existing doctrine (not creed, lets be clear) do a 360.

I don't consider "adding to" the scriptures as inherently incorrect though, when you take into account that for example revelation was written before the "bible" was a book. You're probably aware that I'm reffering to the "if anyone adds to this..." warning. Obviously it's talking about revelation and only revelation.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Agreed, ofcourse.

But it's a commentary because each translator has their own opinion as to how the text should be translated and using what words in what context.

It's the same as something like the Qur'an which, in it's english form, is never disputed as a commentary.

I always say that it's not the translation or the words, but the Spirit. You could read a version as rotten as the NIV and still get truth from the Spirit out of it.

The translation of the Book of Mormon was given by God through the Urim & Thummim, so Joseph and Oliver may have used some hillbilly writing when writing it down initially but the writing was not their opinion of what the text said.

[Justice]

I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. This isn't another Sunday meeting testimony, I am speaking from the heart. Christ did appear to these people and He did teach them His gospel. There is revelation in the Book of Mormon.

If there is anything that seems new in the Book of Mormon, or seems to be a 180 degree turn from what is in the Bible, then it is the weakness of those trying to understand.

In the simple yet profound words of Nephi:

2 Nephi 25:

26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

2 Nephi 33:

6 I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.

Surely there is good in the book.

Moroni 7:

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

Surely the book is of God.

[Maya]

I do have to say I am not so very comfortable, when I see a child climb to testify on the meeting.... Although sometimes it would be VERY refreshing and probably full of teachings for us grownups to hear the small ones tell us the truth. A real eyeopner!

[bodhigirlsmiles]

Remarkable how people will look past so much good in order to find some item of negativity they can dwell upon. Read first through the Standard Works and General Conference addresses for a feel of our beliefs.

the mormons among whom i live have always treated me with the kindest regard and most amiable manner. when i have politely declined their requests to join, they have yet to draw a sword.

[bodhigirlsmiles]

I have read through the standard works, thankyou. Well at least the BoM anyway.

Christ's rage was loving, not hateful or destructive.

surely one member's words spoken on one occassion can give no cause to believe that this is the feeling of all members of that group. hitler (though he was austrian) and his fellow nazis said some pretty horrific things about jews, but are all germans bad? are all austrians?

[bodhigirlsmiles]

I can find much on most religions.

Catholics at one time had 3 concurrent popes who excommunicated each other. Of course, we could also discuss the Inquisition and Indulgences....

Protestants had John Calvin burning people at the stake; witches being burned at the stake; and supported Henry VIII in his "divorces". Protestant ministers led the way of those who murdered Joseph Smith, and in implementing the "extermination order" against the Mormons in Missouri.

Given such histories, I don't think a few quotes from Joseph Smith seem quite so bad.

I don't judge churches from their past histories, as I know they are all run by imperfect humans. What makes a good or bad church, is what are the doctrines they teach and implement?

except for we buddhists. we are perfect and never do anything wrong.

(i hope you know i am only joking! )

[Old Tex]

Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so. I am weak and He is strong. Yes Jesus love me, yes Jesus love me, yes Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so.

Ben Raines

Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so, LITTLE ONES TO HIM BELONG, I am weak but He is strong.

Funny how something like that can pop up after seven decades.

[Old Tex]

-- thus it is a commentary on the original, and what makes it a commentary is the fact that you could translate it 100 times and it would always differ in at least small ways -- as is with the Bible.

I think it could more correctly be considered as a "companion" to the bible wherein they support each other in their testimony that Jesus is the Christ. Put whatever word you want on it, but that is the relationship. They both are "God's written word".