Do you believe this?

[Prodigal_Son]

...the Book of Mormon is a translation itself...

A direct translation through the Urim and Thummim from God through one man!!

HARDLY a comparison to, say, the King James Council - who voted and went with man's popular opinion on the translation...

[cjmaldrich]

Sure the Book of Mormon was translated divinely rather than in a similar worldly fashion to the Bible. But the manner of translation doesn't change the fact that it WAS indeed translated. Not only was it translated, but the translation was written down by another person.

I'm not trying to say that the Book is wrong or that anything that is in our book currently that wasn't Josph Smith's exact words changes any meaning. I'm sure the meaning is the same, but can you see my point, seeing how many people have had a hand in the Book of Mormon from Lehi's writing to Mormon's editing to Josph's translating, Parley's writing, the publisher, etc?

The message is still the same, but there is plenty of opportunity for people to change things. Maybe the same could have happened with the Bible?

Or maybe every word in the Book as we know it is exactly correct... I don't know since I wasn't there for any stage of its creation.

[Aesa]

"I'm not attacking you" thing (paraphrased, of course). I think you should have the guts to go ahead and be open with your contempt for our beliefs, and what you have heard are our beliefs.

Ah, see, this is why it's hard to post a topic like this on a board when users who I don't know will take it as an opportunity for an attack.

The users here that perhaps know me a little better should know very well that I'm not attacking. I am curious, but at the same time I feel the right to be sceptical and why shouldn't I be. That's human.

This thread is ripe for locking, because none of us are getting anywhere.

Or maybe every word in the Book as we know it is exactly correct... I don't know since I wasn't there for any stage of its creation.

That's perhaps true, but even the book itself does not claim to be free of error.

[Wingnut]

This thread is ripe for locking, because none of us are getting anywhere.

Yep.

That's perhaps true, but even the book itself does not claim to be free of error.

This is true, but it also says that if there are faults, that they are the faults of men.

(Not women. )

[Prodigal_Son]

Or maybe every word in the Book as we know it is exactly correct... I don't know since I wasn't there for any stage of its creation.

I guess I have a hard time believing there could be an error when God directly authored that translation to Joseph...

[Wingnut]

I guess I have a hard time believing there could be an error when God directly authored that translation to Joseph...

While I agree with you on this, Cjm did make one point that hasn't been followed up on. Joseph translated the book with the Urim and Thummim, but it has since been translated into several other languages, without the help of those translators, and not by the prophets themselves. While the utmost care is taken in selecting the translators, and while they may be entitled to special guidance on their project, they are not prophets, seers, nor revelators. The Book of Mormon has not been translated into all languages. There are a few reasons for this. One may be that there is not yet enough demand in a particular language. Another reason is to prevent translation issues. I have a friend who served in the Durban South Africa Mission about 5 years ago. In a letter I received from her (while on my own mission at the time), she wrote that they only use the Book of Mormon in English in her mission. They had sections of it translated into local native languages, but the entire book had not been translated into Swahili because there were some words in the book for which Swahili words did not exist. Thus, the Book of Mormon was not translated into that language so as not to disturb its purity.

Besides which, I have a feeling that Cjm is mainly playing Devil's Advocate with this argument (not that we need more DAs around here...:))

[Aesa]

Well the actual scripture says so it itself.

I wish I'd highlighted the verses as I read them.

By faults I wasn't reffering to the "faults of man" notion at the start, or faults through Joseph's translation of the book - but faults of the original writers.

[Elgama]

I guess I have a hard time believing there could be an error when God directly authored that translation to Joseph...

might be worth reading Mormon 9

-Charley

[Prodigal_Son]

might be worth reading Mormon 9

-Charley

31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

I was more referring to Joseph's translating, not to the initial inscribings.

Further, verse 34 would seem to indicate that the Lord, in His great wisdom, had the workaround in place. Perhaps those things lost in the translation to Reformed Egyptian were recovered in their subsequent translation to English? (Pure speculation, I know. But so is the assumption that this ISN'T what Mormon meant...)

[Oligith1]

*blinks* I'm not banned yet? I was sure I would be after that personal attack that I did.

I mean, yeah I was in a bad mood already when I came to the forums last and saw someone do something that crossed one of my pet peeves, so I chose to take out my frustrations on that individual, but I've read the rules and it doesn't make allowances for that.

For what it's worth though, Aesa, I do apologize for my accusations. I shouldn't have taken my frustrations out on you, and I am sorry that I did so. I do hope that you forgive me.

Oh.

/derail off

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

No, my understanding is that Adam and Eve chose to forsake God and rebel against what He had commanded them not to do (partake of the fruit).

Well, there is one verse that says in the latter days we will be "fooled by the sciences," I've read it once before and cannot find it again though.

Perhaps, yes, but they all come from the Church? How can a church which has a mantra "perfect church, imperfect people" (which is kinda impossible, to my understanding - the church is the people) get so much wrong?

The Church is not the people...the Church is Christ. We just happen to be members of his Church. In 3 Nephi he openly declares it is his Church, not the people's, not Moses', but his. It is perfect as he is.

[Aesa]

The Church is not the people...the Church is Christ. We just happen to be members of his Church. In 3 Nephi he openly declares it is his Church, not the people's, not Moses', but his. It is perfect as he is.

Well yes. But that's a clear doctrinal difference between Biblical Christianity and open-canon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Where, in fact, in Biblical Christianity each person IS the church. This is why it's once in a while emphasised by preachers that you don't need to go to a church building to be part of Christ's church. The spirit of God is within, and we can worship Him day and night - whenever we want, and still be part of His church.

This goes with being joint heirs of Christ, but (as you've sort of touched on it: "In 3 Nephi he openly declares it is his Church, not the people's, not Moses', but his. It is perfect as he is.") governed by Him.

Oligith, no problems - I'm not bothered.

[Elgama]

31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

I was more referring to Joseph's translating, not to the initial inscribings.

Further, verse 34 would seem to indicate that the Lord, in His great wisdom, had the workaround in place. Perhaps those things lost in the translation to Reformed Egyptian were recovered in their subsequent translation to English? (Pure speculation, I know. But so is the assumption that this ISN'T what Mormon meant...)

I would think any work that contains the hand of man in it contains these imperfections to some degree our languages are limited they are not perfect - it is not possible to be 100% accurate transcribing modern Hebrew into English. For example I can watch a well subtitled version of a Chinese film with a Chinese friend and every so often she will burst out laughing, the joke is not translatable into English. The book is the most correct rather than the most perfect book, its part of why we have President Monson. We know earlier additions of the Book of Mormon contained Printing Errors etc

Also I thought the incident with Professor Anthon indicated it was the reformed Egyptian that had been translated.

-Charley

[Prodigal_Son]

I would think any work that contains the hand of man in it contains these imperfections to some degree our languages are limited they are not perfect - it is not possible to be 100% accurate transcribing modern Hebrew into English. For example I can watch a well subtitled version of a Chinese film with a Chinese friend and every so often she will burst out laughing, the joke is not translatable into English. The book is the most correct rather than the most perfect book, its part of why we have President Monson. We know earlier additions of the Book of Mormon contained Printing Errors etc

Ok, I give up. I don't believe there are "errors", as in doctrinal flubs, in The Book of Mormon. I don't think typos, or a prophet rewording himself because he couldn't erase the plates - to be an error. I wasn't being that nitpicky. I don't think we consider the Bible to have a few quirks simply because the punctuation is superfluous... I guess my point was that there will be no JST equivalent to The Book of Mormon, because (in English at least) it appears how Christ wants it to appear to us.

Also I thought the incident with Professor Anthon indicated it was the reformed Egyptian that had been translated.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Unless the inference is that the Professor was able to translate, as was Joseph. IF that's what you were inferring, I'd simply submit that we have no idea how detailed the translation was. We don't know how close the professor got to being accurate. But it's not at all worth splitting hairs over. This whole thing is rather unproductive.

[Prodigal_Son]

Well yes. But that's a clear doctrinal difference between Biblical Christianity and open-canon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Where, in fact, in Biblical Christianity each person IS the church. This is why it's once in a while emphasised by preachers that you don't need to go to a church building to be part of Christ's church. The spirit of God is within, and we can worship Him day and night - whenever we want, and still be part of His church.

This goes with being joint heirs of Christ, but (as you've sort of touched on it: "In 3 Nephi he openly declares it is his Church, not the people's, not Moses', but his. It is perfect as he is.") governed by Him.

The big difference between "them" and us is that we recognize that Christ has the capacity to REMOVE His Church from this earth if man can't keep inline. Thus, man isn't anything, if not a willing participant in Christ's Church. Man is flawed. If man becomes so flawed that he stops meekly pursuing Christ, then man will lose the privilege of having the Gospel in its fullness, directed by revelation through modern prophets.

[rayhale]

I'm not sure how crucial this one is, but I admit to remaining unclear on the distinction LDS make between humans and angels. I sometimes gather that you see far less of a difference than most of us.

Angels, spirits, and souls, have been used interchangeably. Generally, Angels are the servants of God, or the devil in Heaven or Hell, and can be said that they are ministers to God or Satan. Spirits is the more general term. The Soul is the Sprit and the body together.

[prisonchaplain]

So is an angelic spirit and a human spirit the same thing? I've understood that humans are God's highest creation, and that angels are a separate species.

[Prodigal_Son]

So is an angelic spirit and a human spirit the same thing? I've understood that humans are God's highest creation, and that angels are a separate species.

The only distinction between the two is where they exist in the Plan of Salvation. They are one and the same: the spirit children of God.

The pre-existence, this existence, and the afterlife are encompassed within these 2 spirit descriptives. Human spirit is, of course, us here and now. The angelic spirit can include both those who're yet to experience mortality, and those who've already passed the test of this life.

[Carl62]

Well yes. But that's a clear doctrinal difference between Biblical Christianity and open-canon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Where, in fact, in Biblical Christianity each person IS the church. This is why it's once in a while emphasised by preachers that you don't need to go to a church building to be part of Christ's church. The spirit of God is within, and we can worship Him day and night - whenever we want, and still be part of His church.

This goes with being joint heirs of Christ, but (as you've sort of touched on it: "In 3 Nephi he openly declares it is his Church, not the people's, not Moses', but his. It is perfect as he is.") governed by Him.

So then what about Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Lutherans, and the other 200 Christian CHURCHES. Where do they stand in light of your beliefs as to your definiton of Biblical Christianity? How are they any different than us in that they are each a distinct church (yes, with buildings) with slightly different beliefs?

[Justice]

No, my understanding is that Adam and Eve chose to forsake God and rebel against what He had commanded them not to do (partake of the fruit).

God also commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth. If you consider the knowledge to do so was contained in the fruit, it makes their transgression a choice with consequences. Why would God give them conflicting commandments? That's a better question. You see, in my mind, Eve was speaking specifically about gaining the knowledge of how to have children.

Perhaps, yes, but they all come from the Church? How can a church which has a mantra "perfect church, imperfect people" (which is kinda impossible, to my understanding - the church is the people) get so much wrong?

I think oftentimes since we speak from different backgrounds and perspectives, it makes understanding each other difficult. Because of that it makes it seem we disagree more than we do. That's a difficult subject. We can discuss it in detail if you like.

The Church is the people, in that I agree with you. But, the Church also has rules, regulations, and laws to live by. Technically the Church should be fully converted to Christ, like Christ is to the Church. The people are not, but the Church still teaches Christ' doctrine is the only way to return to the Father.

3 Nephi 16:

13 But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.

The Bible is even replete with this teaching of "returning unto the Father." I believe this is an allegorical, even if not literal, reference to the transgression in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were kicked out of God's presence, or kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and FELL, meaning they were given a chance to repent THEN return to the Father. Had they been able to return unto the Father before repenting they would have appeared before Him in an unprepared state.

This was part of the Father's Plan of Redemption, and it was made before the creation of the earth. In fact, creating the earth was part of the plan. Had the Fall also not been part of the plan, why was the Savior ordained from before even the world was created to redeem mankind from the Fall?

This is also allegorical of what I believe to be the fact that we were alive as spirits before we came here. Without a belief in the pre-mortal existence, as we have, it is very difficult to understand our view of the Fall, as with many of our beliefs.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

So is an angelic spirit and a human spirit the same thing? I've understood that humans are God's highest creation, and that angels are a separate species.

Same species.

Here is an exerpt straight from our Bible Dictionary:

BD Angels

These are the messengers of the Lord, and are spoken of in the epistle to the Hebrews as “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1: 14). We learn from latter-day revelation that there are two classes of heavenly beings who minister for the Lord: those who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Spirits are those beings who either have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone (unembodied), or who have once had a mortal body and have died, and are awaiting the resurrection (disembodied). Ordinarily the word angel means those ministering persons who have a body of flesh and bone, being either resurrected from the dead (reembodied), or else translated, as were Enoch, Elijah, etc. (D&C 129).

...

The word angel is used in various ways. A person who is a divine messenger is called an angel. Thus Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, and Elias all ministered to Joseph Smith as angels. These all shall be exalted and inherit celestial glory. The scriptures also speak of another class of persons who, because of failure to obey the gospel, will not be exalted and will become angels in eternity. These are spoken of as angels in Matt. 22: 29-30 and D&C 132: 16-18. This latter designation should not be confused with the use of the term angels having reference to the heavenly messengers sent forth to minister to the inhabitants of the earth.

[Justice]

One more thought I'd like to add concerning abortion...

Just like murder, abortion is wrong. But, the Bible teaches that even at times taking someone's life is justified.

Notice it does not say in the case of rape or incest that abortion is a must, it simply says each case my be weighed independantly and, in my interpretation, if sex was not consentual you are justified if you so make that choice. It is also saying adoption is an option.

The Church will always prefer that all children have a loving mother and father. What damage are you doing to a child who is born to a mother, not even out of high school yet, who is unmarried? It's not just the mother's well-being that's considered.

Part of this stance is to help relieve much of the shame and remorse that may come later when a young girl chooses to have an abortion because she was raped. I could never look a girl in the eye and tell her she *had to* carry and have the baby of her attacker. Many can do it and be OK, but others may not be able to.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Justice

[Seanette]

Part of this stance is to help relieve much of the shame and remorse that may come later when a young girl chooses to have an abortion because she was raped. I could never look a girl in the eye and tell her she *had to* carry and have the baby of her attacker. Many can do it and be OK, but others may not be able to.

I personally would carry such a child to term (might not be able to face raising him/her, but would at least bring the child into the world). To me, it would be unjust to the child to execute him/her for his/her father's crime against me.

However, I do understand that not all women could feel that way, and I do not condemn a woman who makes the choice to abort under that circumstance.

Casual abortion because you didn't bother with birth control or it didn't work (especially if you're sleeping with someone outside marriage), I consider absolutely unjustified (why should the child die for being an inconvenience?). The situations in which the Church considers it an option, I won't argue with the woman, and if it were a friend who wanted to have a driver, hand-holder, etc., I'd do so if she asked.