Do Mormons consider every word in the Book of Mormon to be literally true?

[Caitlyn]

Or is some of it metaphorical? Same question for the other Mormon scriptures, such as Pearl of Great Price.

Edited November 20, 2011 by pam
Links must be in the signature and not in the body of the message.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think some people take it that way, however, the book Mormon America cited that a BYU professor once described it as "19th century revelation" rather than a literal record of the Lamanites and Nephites. However, the Apostles didn't seem to support that interpretation at the time. I think the majority of Mormons consider it literal.

[Caitlyn]

I think some people take it that way, however, the book Mormon America cited that a BYU professor once described it as "19th century revelation" rather than a literal record of the Lamanites and Nephites. However, the Apostles didn't seem to support that interpretation at the time. I think the majority of Mormons consider it literal.

I've read that with each new edition, something is altered. Is that true?

Edited November 20, 2011 by pam
Links must be in the signature and not in the body of the message

[Dravin]

I've read that with each new edition, something is altered. Is that true?

Welcome - de WYCHE COLLEGE

This article goes into the changes and the reasons behind them, namely the process of dictation, to original manuscript, to printers manuscript, to printing wasn't flawless: Changes in the Book of Mormon On a side note it's not surprising that editions are marked with changes, otherwise all they'd do is reprint the current one. Though one of the editions the big change was the addition of cross standard work footnotes.

As to the question that is the title of the thread some scripture is clearly allegorical, such as Jacob 5 for starters. You also have phrases like Christ raising with healing in his wings and I don't think any LDS take that to mean that Christ literally has wings. The latter is clearly a metaphor. So yes, some of it is metaphorical or allegorical.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Dravin

[NeuroTypical]

I've read that with each new edition, something is altered. Is that true?

You mean like intentionally altered? No, that's not true. Differences? Sure. Just like the Bible. You try copying a chapter by typing (or by hand like they used to have to do it). Your copied version will be different than the original version - because you are human and subject to human errors.

[annewandering]

God didnt write them with his own hand. Men wrote them under inspiration. Men are not perfect. God is perfect. Man is not. But they were chosen by God to write them so I expect they were pretty good if God thought they were good enough.

[Mamas_Girl]

I agree that the Book of Mormon has some metaphors in it.

As to the changes in the Book of Mormon, I thank the Lord a lot for the paragraphs and verses. I have a facimile of the original on my lap and it reads like a novel. For example, each book gives a title and gives chapter, but there are no verses. I can't take it to church as a substitute for the current BOM because it just says 2nd Book of Nephi chapter I, II, III, etc. The first 27 verses of 2nd Nephi are all one long paragraph! Yikes! It certainly is much easier to find passages in verse rather than scanning 3 pages of one long paragraph to find what we're looking for.

[Guest gopecon]

The ancient prophet authors of the Boof of Mormon allowed for human error and weakness in their writing, so "every word" may not be spot on. As has been mentioned, there are allegories and symbolism in it that are not to be taken literally (as there also are in the Pearl of Great Price). That doesn't take away from the value of the book as inspired scripture written for our day.

[Blackmarch]

Or is some of it metaphorical? Same question for the other Mormon scriptures, such as Pearl of Great Price.

THere is some that is more literal than symbolic and there are definitely other parts that are allegory, symbolic, or metaphorical. (the same with the pearl of great price and the bible. but not as much with the doctrine and covenants). However many times things are both symbolic and literal.

Do we believe that things happened exactly as stated? that probably differs by some degree between members. I believe that it being written anciently by prophets and having been translated by a prophet in these times to be true. However as i know that prophets are men, I'd doubt that all the events are recorded in perfect detail.

[mnn727]

I agree that the Book of Mormon has some metaphors in it.

As to the changes in the Book of Mormon, I thank the Lord a lot for the paragraphs and verses. I have a facimile of the original on my lap and it reads like a novel. For example, each book gives a title and gives chapter, but there are no verses. I can't take it to church as a substitute for the current BOM because it just says 2nd Book of Nephi chapter I, II, III, etc. The first 27 verses of 2nd Nephi are all one long paragraph! Yikes! It certainly is much easier to find passages in verse rather than scanning 3 pages of one long paragraph to find what we're looking for.

But its certainly easier to read as a whole the old way.

[Origen]

The BoM was mainly intended as a historical record, not a revealed dictation by God such as the Qur'an is, so there are bound to be inaccuracies. That said most Mormons believe that the events described therein did literally occur - though perhaps not exactly as they were recorded.

[volgadon]

I've read that with each new edition, something is altered. Is that true?

Of course it is, otherwise it wouldn't be a new edition. Most alterations don't affect the text directly, but involves such things as splitting the chapters into verses, adding headers, footnotes, indices, prefaces, etc.

[annewandering]

The BoM was mainly intended as a historical record, not a revealed dictation by God such as the Qur'an is, so there are bound to be inaccuracies. That said most Mormons believe that the events described therein did literally occur - though perhaps not exactly as they were recorded.

hmmm... No. It is not a historical record mainly. It is historical, incidently. Yes we believe the events in the Book of Mormon happened.

[john doe]

hmmm... No. It is not a historical record mainly. It is historical, incidently. Yes we believe the events in the Book of Mormon happened.

I believe what you are trying to say, and the way it is viewed by the LDS Church, is that the BoM is a religious record, and was edited and abridged to provide a brief religious history of the people who came to the Americas with Lehi. What it is not, is a chronological or archaeological historical record.

By the way, neither is the Bible, although it does contain more references to known historical figures and places. That said, while place names in the Bible can sometimes be located, there is very little evidence that what the Bible says happened in those places, happened quite the way the Bible claims they did or even occurred at all. People who come here claiming that the BoM is false because there is no archaeological evidence for it and then compare it to the Bible are using straw men to make their point. It's a very weak argument against the Book of Mormon.

[annewandering]

lol well yes that is what I am saying. :) The plates that were not translated include the secular history not the Book of Mormon part.

[Shelly200]

I read the Book of Mormon a few weeks ago, and some of it was quite confusing to me. Doesn't the author (I guess that would be Moroni? Or Nephi? I'm honestly fuzzy about who wrote what, because it mentions multiple people passing the record keeping down to their sons...) mention that there are other records that weren't passed down? Is in, when the gold plates were buried, there were other plates that could've been buried also, but weren't? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I had read that in the BofM somewhere. Like, maybe the other tablets were of things that they didn't think were that significant?

[Vort]

A chronological history of the records of the Nephites:

• Under instruction of their father, the prophet Lehi, Nephi returns to Jerusalem with his brothers to get the Jewish record held by Laban. This record was known as "the brass plates of Laban", or simply "the brass plates". ("Brass" refers to any bronzelike copper alloy, and not just the modern alloy called brass. If we had those plates today, we would almost certainly call them bronze.)

• At some point in their travels, Nephi (who appears to have been a metalsmith) follows God's commandment and creates plates out of gold or gold alloy to record his words, either from gold the family had or from gold he mined. He calls these plates "the plates of Nephi". Eventually, they grow to be very voluminous and come to be called "the large plates of Nephi", or simply "the large plates".

• At about this same time and still by commandment of God, Nephi reserves a much smaller set of gold or gold alloy plates, which he calls "my plates" or "the other plates of Nephi". This record never grows very large -- in fact, it appears the size of this set of plates was a fixed, limited amount from the beginning -- and so come to be called "the small plates of Nephi", or simply "the small plates".

• Before or at his death, Nephi gives the "large plates" to the kings that succeed him, along with the rest of the holy artifacts (sword of Laban, Liahona). The kings subsequently keep records on and add to the large plates for most of the rest of the next thousand years of Nephite history.

• At the same time, Nephi gives the "small plates" to his brother Jacob, who acts as the spiritual leader of the people. Jacob and his descendants keep the record of the small plates going for several generations amounting to a couple of hundred years, but with increasingly smaller entries in the record, until the small plates are filled up. At that time, the small plates are given back over to the protection of the kings, specifically to Benjamin.

• A generation after Benjamin, an offshoot group of Nephites who had left during the time of Benjamin's father return during the reign of Benjamin's son. They bring with them a record of their own doings, which is added to the general Nephite records. They also bring the record of a destroyed people, recorded on 24 gold plates. This latter record is referred to as the plates of Ether, named for the final prophet and record-keeper of this destroyed people.

• After close to a thousand years of record-keeping, the Nephites enter the terminal phase of their civilization and become increasingly wicked. At this time, the great Nephite historian Mormon is born and, at a young age, commissioned with the oversight of the record of the Nephites.

• As an adult, Mormon assiduously studies the extensive, voluminous history of the Nephites as recorded on the large plates. He is then commanded by God to redact this history into a much smaller abridgment.

• After redacting the history of the Nephites from the time of Lehi down to the reign of king Benjamin, Mormon apparently remembers about the existence of the small plates. He digs through the stacks of records he has until he finds the small plates, then apparently inserts them physically into the record he is making (or else he transcribes the contents word for word). He then continues with his abridgment work.

• Finishing his abridgment of the Nephite record, Mormon adds some final information regarding his own time, the wickedness of the Nephites, and their utter destruction. Then he turns the records, including his abridgment, over to his surviving son Moroni.

• Many years later, perhaps sixteen year, Moroni writes in his father's abridgment to finish out the record of his father regarding the Nephites. He then adds in his own abridgment of the record of Ether.

• Moroni writes a final entry in his father's abridgment, including a description of some ordinances, some letters of his father to him, and some final words of counsel and hope. Then he hides the record up in a stone box on the side of a hill, to be retrieved some fourteen hundred years later by another prophet, Joseph Smith.

Hope this helps.

[Shelly200]

Vort-

Big help. Thanks!

I asked one of my LDS friends once also about something I had read in the BofM: one of the arguments FOR the BofM is the verse in the Bible in which Christ speaks of "other sheep"... these sheep are, to the LDS, the Americans. However, I believe I also read in the BofM that there were even *other* sheep that also kept records. So... there should be records from at least one other group of Christians that hasn't been found yet (or may never be), right?

The girl I spoke with said yes, but I was just wondering if this was a common LDS belief.

(Please excuse my sketchy knowledge of the BofM... I *have* read it, and recently, but it is completely and totally new to me, so I haven't grown up hearing the stories. So a lot of them kind of meld together or get lost in the language (I use a more modern translation of the Bible... I can understand KJV-sounding language, it just takes longer for me to read it, and therefore remember it later.).

[estradling75]

Yes it is common... We expect lots of other records to come forth... Even of the Book of Mormon plates we only have about a third of it.

[RMGuy]

Vort-

Big help. Thanks!

I asked one of my LDS friends once also about something I had read in the BofM: one of the arguments FOR the BofM is the verse in the Bible in which Christ speaks of "other sheep"... these sheep are, to the LDS, the Americans. However, I believe I also read in the BofM that there were even *other* sheep that also kept records. So... there should be records from at least one other group of Christians that hasn't been found yet (or may never be), right?

The girl I spoke with said yes, but I was just wondering if this was a common LDS belief.

(Please excuse my sketchy knowledge of the BofM... I *have* read it, and recently, but it is completely and totally new to me, so I haven't grown up hearing the stories. So a lot of them kind of meld together or get lost in the language (I use a more modern translation of the Bible... I can understand KJV-sounding language, it just takes longer for me to read it, and therefore remember it later.).

Shelly,

Yes, that would be the general LDS belief. That the two groups of known scripture (Book of Mormon, and Bible) are records of the people in the America's and the Holy Land respectively. Most LDS members would agree with your assessment that there are other records not yet revealed from other groups of saints.

-RM

[Vort]

Might be helpful to remember some of how the Book of Mormon (Mormon's abridgment of the Nephite history) came to be translated. Specifically:

• On instruction from the now-resurrected Moroni, Joseph Smith, seventeen years old, uncovers the abridged record that lay hidden for fourteen hundred years, but is forbidden from taking it at that time.

• After four years of specific preparation, in September of 1828, the 21-year-old Joseph receives the abridgment from Moroni in the same place -- which might just mean he was allowed to take the plates from the stone box they were in -- along with a solemn charge to avoid any idea of using the plates to make money, either by melting them down for their gold content or by exhibiting them for a fee. (In fact, so sacred were the plates of Mormon's abridgment that only about a dozen people other than Joseph were even permitted to see them, including only three members of his own family.)

• Joseph experiments with translating the plates. After some period of trial and learning, he begins translating in earnest, albeit slowly. He completes translating the first part of the record, which was called "the Book of Lehi" and covered a period from Lehi's days in Jerusalem down until the reign of the Nephite king Benjamin.

• Joseph's good friend and financier, an older farmer named Martin Harris (who was one of those privileged to see the plates), begs Joseph to let him show the translation to his wife, who is threatening to leave him because of all this ancient gold plate translation nonsense. Joseph says no several times, but eventually relents and allows Martin to take the transcript.

• The transcript is stolen. Martin is mortified. Joseph is horrified and believes he is condemned of God for having given over the sacred translation into the hands of "a wicked man". Fortunately for all concerned, God, who is good and merciful, eventually forgives Joseph, but forbids him from retranslating the Book of Lehi, which is then permanently lost.

• Joseph then recommences translation and finds that Mormon had thoughtfully included the small plates in his abridgment, which covers more or less the same history that Joseph had just translated (and lost). So by the grace of God, the essential elements of the Book of Lehi are still there, even if that part of the abridgment is gone for good.

So when you read the Book of Mormon, instead of getting Mormon's introduction where he says, "Hi, there, I'm Mormon and I'll be your redactor. Once there was a prophet named Lehi who had a wife, Sariah, and four sons...", you are instead thrust immediately into Nephi's narrative, telling who he is and what he's doing.

Later on, when you finish the small plates (at the Book of Omni), you suddenly come across this guy called "Mormon" inserting some confusing words about how he lives many hundred years later, he found and inserted the preceding record of Nephi, and now he's "returning" to his abridgment.

Huh?

Well, remember the history of the translation. You're missing the introductory Book of Lehi. It's like reading a novel that is missing the first three chapters. You're sort of thrust into the middle of everything without a proper introduction.

[Shelly200]

How exactly did Joseph Smith translate the BofM anyway? I've heard different stories. Weren't the instruments needed to translate them, the Urim and Thummim, buried with the plates? And wasn't there a breastplate buried with them as well? Why did Moroni bury them with the plates?

What happened to the plates after they were translated? Why weren't they preserved, like some manuscripts of the Bible were?

[estradling75]

Joseph Smith by his own words translated the Book of Mormon by the Gift and Power of God. Which is another way of saying revelation from God. Given the Joseph Smith was reasonably inexperienced and there was alot of work to do God prepared some help in the form of the Urim and Thummin. The Urim and Thummin were originally attached to the breastplate so that the user could where the breastplate and have them in the proper place while freeing up the hands.

The plates (including the two thirds that Joseph Smith was told not to translate) were returned to god where they await the day that the Lord decides we are ready for the rest.

[RMGuy]

Shelly,

The plates were retrieved by Moroni after Joseph was finished with them. One explanation is that in this way we are required to rely upon faith. As far as how the plate were translated this is from an Ensign article on the topic in September of '77, "On the means of translation Stevenson reported, “He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.”

After Martin Harris lost the part of the translation done in 1828, Oliver Cowdery became chief scribe for the entire Book of Mormon as it is now printed. Toward the end of this new work of 1829, David Whitmer on occasion watched and afterwards spoke of the seer stone. Yet as an intimate assistant, Oliver Cowdery stressed the Urim and Thummim in his statements. "

-RM

[Shelly200]

Those were the two ways I remember being described: the Urim and Thummim, and a seer stone. I'm just confused as to why Smith would use a seer stone if the Urim and Thummim were purposely buried with the plates for that purpose. (Also- how did Moroni know to bury them together? Did he just know that the language they were written in would die out?) I know that the plates were taken away from Smith for a time, and then given back. Were the Urim and Thummim taken away and given back as well? Should they all be a package deal?

And can someone please explain to me one more time why we only have 1/3 of the translation? I thought we had all of the translation from all of the plates that Smith had. Except that he just didn't re-translate the pages that were stolen (but it didn't matter, because the abridgment was translated later). Where does it mention the other 2/3? I have a BofM, D&C, and POGP, and I'd be interested in looking this up.

Thanks for all of your answers!