Do They Have To Update The Book Of Mormon Every Few Years?

[Jason]

I wasn't perplexed by the grammer changes...I was concerned about the MEANING changes as was quoted in that link. That was something that got me to wondering where they came up with that stuff.

And again, that's where Modalism may again come into play.

But I suppose we should take that back to the Modalist thread. Where is that sucker anyway?

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

I wasn't perplexed by the grammer changes...I was concerned about the MEANING changes as was quoted in that link. That was something that got me to wondering where they came up with that stuff.

And again, that's where Modalism may again come into play.

But I suppose we should take that back to the Modalist thread. Where is that sucker anyway?

Huh? Modalist? For the benifit of us not as learned as you...please do explain?

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

I wasn't perplexed by the grammer changes...I was concerned about the MEANING changes as was quoted in that link. That was something that got me to wondering where they came up with that stuff.

And again, that's where Modalism may again come into play.

But I suppose we should take that back to the Modalist thread. Where is that sucker anyway?

Huh? Modalist? For the benifit of us not as learned as you...please do explain?

Am I confusing boards again?

Modalism is an heterodoxical teaching about the Godhead. It's more Trinitarian overall, but expresses that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One Being, in different Manifestations. (any modalists here feel free to correct that as you will.)

Since Joseph Smith likely grew up with a belief more in line with Trinitarians (and his brief conversion to Methodism could be used as evidence of that), some suggest that the Book of Mormon teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, as opposed to three persons of the Godhead, and that it is a Modalistic Trinitarianism instead of the orthodox Trinity taught by Roman Catholics, most Protestants, and my Church as well.

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

I wasn't perplexed by the grammer changes...I was concerned about the MEANING changes as was quoted in that link. That was something that got me to wondering where they came up with that stuff.

And again, that's where Modalism may again come into play.

But I suppose we should take that back to the Modalist thread. Where is that sucker anyway?

Huh? Modalist? For the benifit of us not as learned as you...please do explain?

Am I confusing boards again?

Modalism is an heterodoxical teaching about the Godhead. It's more Trinitarian overall, but expresses that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One Being, in different Manifestations. (any modalists here feel free to correct that as you will.)

Since Joseph Smith likely grew up with a belief more in line with Trinitarians (and his brief conversion to Methodism could be used as evidence of that), some suggest that the Book of Mormon teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, as opposed to three persons of the Godhead, and that it is a Modalistic Trinitarianism instead of the orthodox Trinity taught by Roman Catholics, most Protestants, and my Church as well.

So you are saying that you went from not believing in the trinity (when you were Mormon) to believing in it?

You know...as a Baptist, I always had trouble understanding that doctrine...when I ask those who were supposed to know more that me...I always got the lame answer that some things are not ment to be understood, just believed. It wasn't too hard for me to reject the idea of the trinity...I never truly believed it in the first place!

[Jason]

So you are saying that you went from not believing in the trinity (when you were Mormon) to believing in it?

Yep. But I also believe it has a deeper mystical significance than is understood by Roman Catholic theologians. In other words, I don't accept their explanation of why it's true, I believe there are other reasons.

You know...as a Baptist, I always had trouble understanding that doctrine...when I ask those who were supposed to know more that me...I always got the lame answer that some things are not ment to be understood, just believed. It wasn't too hard for me to reject the idea of the trinity...I never truly believed it in the first place!

No office, but Baptists are not well know for their theological profundity.

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

So you are saying that you went from not believing in the trinity (when you were Mormon) to believing in it?

Yep. But I also believe it has a deeper mystical significance than is understood by Roman Catholic theologians. In other words, I don't accept their explanation of why it's true, I believe there are other reasons.

You know...as a Baptist, I always had trouble understanding that doctrine...when I ask those who were supposed to know more that me...I always got the lame answer that some things are not ment to be understood, just believed. It wasn't too hard for me to reject the idea of the trinity...I never truly believed it in the first place!

No office, but Baptists are not well know for their theological profundity.

No offence taken! I'm a Mormon now and I love theology!

And I agree with you on that last point.

[CrimsonKairos]

Almost makes me sick to be so nice.

You rock Jason. Thanks for being fair-minded about it even though you don't believe what we do. I appreciate that respect.

Now as for modalism...I think the First Vision kinda' makes that issue a non-issue, i.e. seeing two personages, God the Father and God the Son.

Of Smith's four different accounts of the First Vision (to wit: 1828, 1835, 1838, 1842), only the 1828 version focuses solely on Christ's presence, and doesn't mention God the Father (nor do I think every version had to, though I'm certainly glad he did explain it more fully through his various accounts).

Click here for a comparison of Smith's four accounts. I have this printed out and taped in my quad at the end of Joseph Smith-History. I love it.

[musashi]

I was born into the church and was one of the people that put my whole heart it into it. I also "knew" it was true until I looked into the 'anti-mormon' junk. Then I really KNEW. Not like before where I FELT it was true. Members have this idea that the devil has these people's hearts and all they want to do is destroy God's kingdom. It is such a load! These people are honest, and all they are doing are stating the facts. I was shattered when I "lost my testimony" but what I have is so much better now. It's real.

Why can't LDS study both sides of the equation and then make a wise decision, instead of just listening to the brethren and then ignoring everything that sounds negative? I know that there are people in this forum that have studied both sides and they chose to be LDS and THAT I respect. I think those people are smart I really do. Even though to me it seems so clear that it could never be true, I know that it's stupid to think that I'm the only one who can't be fooled. If they have really studied it out, without any bias, and come to that conclusion, then I truly respect those people.

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks. I've studied both sides in depth, probably read every anti-mormon argument there is, and the answer to my prayers has remained unchanged. I also respect the right of everyone to choose what they will believe, and I'm glad you're not as conflicted as you were before.

[Jason]

Why can't LDS study both sides of the equation and then make a wise decision, instead of just listening to the brethren and then ignoring everything that sounds negative? I know that there are people in this forum that have studied both sides and they chose to be LDS and THAT I respect. I think those people are smart I really do. Even though to me it seems so clear that it could never be true, I know that it's stupid to think that I'm the only one who can't be fooled. If they have really studied it out, without any bias, and come to that conclusion, then I truly respect those people.

This is a common feeling held by many non-LDS. To believe it blindly invites our scorn, but to believe it in spite of it all, well that we can at least live with.

You rock Jason. Thanks for being fair-minded about it even though you don't believe what we do. I appreciate that respect.

I do try. I may not always come across like it, but I do try to be fair and give credit where it is due.

Now as for modalism...I think the First Vision kinda' makes that issue a non-issue, i.e. seeing two personages, God the Father and God the Son.

Of Smith's four different accounts of the First Vision (to wit: 1828, 1835, 1838, 1842), only the 1828 version focuses solely on Christ's presence, and doesn't mention God the Father (nor do I think every version had to, though I'm certainly glad he did explain it more fully through his various accounts).

That's a handy link CK. Do you know of a link that has all four versions printed out in their entirety?

[musashi]

For me its like this. Imagine growing up having your parents tell you and your brothers and sisters that vegetable are not good for you. You grow up eating fruit and grains and other good stuff so because thats all you know, you KNOW vegetables are bad for you.

Your parents tell you not to listen to anyone who is not in your family because they are of the world and they will weaken your testimony about the vegetables. Those that are not in your family look at the evidence which is abundant, that says that vegetables are infact good for you. Nothing at all supports what your parents believe. But you've always believed that what they said was true and it feels right.

As your friends mature they start eating less junk and more vegetables to look after their body with a healthy diet. You know they are just being worldly. One day you start to study it for yourself and you find alot of information that really proves that vegetables are infact good for you. So you have to decide - Do you continue doing what you KNOW is true and ignore science which is fickle and changes its opinions about things easily (Remember MAN used to think the world was flat, eh? eh?) Or do you eat vegetables based on your newly discovered knowledge?

Very similarly, with the word of wisdom. I served my mission in Japan, and people would often say to me "Why do I have to give up green tea? It's good for you!" Because my testimony was strong I could tell them that the reason they should give it up is because God said it is not for the body. I would encourage them to pray about the Book of Mormon, because once they knew it was true then they would know that green tea is not good for you. I can remember the subsequent visits when I exhorted them to continue praying because I KNEW they would get an answer.

I remember those that had had answers to their prayers but they just didn't know it yet. My job was to identify the spirit for them. I can remember learning in the MTC that everyone needs to learn what the spirit feels like, as it can be different for every person. Different for every person? Really?

???

I can remember one returning missionary’s final testimony at a zone conference. He was a zone leader at the time. He shared his story of how he gained his testimony, of how he had read the Book of Mormon many times, and prayed many times, and never received an answer. Until one time when he prayed about it, and a feeling came over him “You know. You’ve known the whole time it is true.” To me that is not much of an answer from God. But still we had all been trained that when we bore our testimony we must say we KNOW its true. If we said BELIEVE it was not a powerful testimony. After all, a testimony is found in the bearing of it. So we should lie and say we KNOW its true, then God is gonna tell us it is true after. A reward for your leap of faith – even though you’re actually lying.

I remember learning that the gift of tongues was not what it was in the Bible, but the gift that missionaries received, which was 90% perspiration, 10% inspiration. Where is the miracle in that? In my mission it was simple. Those that studied the hardest, and the ones that had a natural ability for languages were the ones who spoke the language the best.

Like the vegetables, when I was in the church I knew it was true and life was good. When I really studied it out for myself I knew it wasn’t true. You cannot argue with facts. You can argue with feelings.

Man…I could go on forever. But posting here does not change anything. I have not even tried to convince my family to believe what I believe. They are happy the way they are, and they feel sorry for me because I don’t have what they have anymore.

It’s so humiliating when those that were my best friends before now see me as a project and say things like “You know deep in your heart its true. When are you gonna come back to church?”

Look at it for yourself. If the church is true, then the proof is in the pudding, and you’ve got nothing to worry about with so called anti-mormon material. Studying anti-mormon material could even be benefical because you could see the arguments against the church and then confirm its all just a load of crap.

This was a long post…I might leave it here for now. I hope this made sense to some people out there. The vegetable analogy was probably pretty dumb, I don’t know.

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

*Yawwwwwwn*

That list cracks me up.

Why does it crack you up? Where does this guy get his information? And is there any validity to his claims?

The list is accurate, but like anything, subject to interpretation.

Yediyd you should pick up a reprint of the original 1830 edition and compare for yourself. They're running about twenty bucks.

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Facsimil...3458&sr=8-1

I can actually do better than that. The library at Syracuse University has an original copy of the first printing. I've seen it and a friend of mine and I read 2 Nephi chapter 2 out of it. I was surprised that they let people touch it, but as long as you follow their strict rules...you can handle it and read it. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to have anything with us when we view it, so I couldn't take my scriptures in there to compare. I will buy a replica...but now, I want to go look at that original again. Thanks for sparking my interest.

[CrimsonKairos]

That's a handy link CK. Do you know of a link that has all four versions printed out in their entirety?

I found this page. If you scroll down to the middle of the page, you will find several versions of the First Vision listed and then compared. Not all the accounts on this page were dictated or written by Joseph Smith.

Also, this page compares nine accounts of the First Vision (some of which I'd never read).

So we should lie and say we KNOW its true, then God is gonna tell us it is true after. A reward for your leap of faith – even though you’re actually lying.

No one ever told me to lie or pretend I knew what I didn't. I've never heard anyone (in the MTC or elsewhere) tell missionaries or members to fudge their testimonies until they get one. Plenty of people say, "I believe..." in their testimonies. I know I do. But I also add "I know..." when I do in fact know.

When I really studied it out for myself I knew it wasn’t true. You cannot argue with facts. You can argue with feelings.

Even though I can argue with feelings, I won't argue with you. I'm glad you've found a greater amount of personal peace, and I'm sorry you were raised in a way that you felt brainwashed you.

Studying anti-mormon material could even be benefical because you could see the arguments against the church and then confirm its all just a load of crap.

At the same time, gaining a solid testimony of the gospel basics is of greater priority than exposing yourself to all the arguments against your beliefs. Most anti-mormon stuff doesn't attempt to tear down the "milk" of the gospel. Usually, anti-mormon stuff twists or attacks the "meat" of the gospel. If someone hasn't learned to eat "meat" yet, what do you think the effect of eating "poisoned meat" will be?

[Pelagius]

I wasn't perplexed by the grammer changes...I was concerned about the MEANING changes as was quoted in that link. That was something that got me to wondering where they came up with that stuff.

I believe that JS was a prophet...I also believe that Baalim was and Jonah...they too made some mistakes in their ministrey.

I still have no doubts about JS...but I wonder about these changes. I'd like to see them for myself. Then pray about it. I still do trust the Holy Spirit..and for that matter...the modern day prophets...what say they about these changes?

Back (closer) to the original point of this string .. . Moroni, the book's final contributor, anticipated errors in The Book of Mormon when he composed the message that's printed on the cover page. He said,

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

I know it's true Yediyd. And I believe you when you say that you do too. Keep that spiritual knowledge bound within you as you continue your search for truth.

Questions are healthy and the answers are exciting. Once the spiritual knowledge has been gained by the power of the Holy Ghost, you are free to prove all things without having to entertain doubt. It's no longer doubt that will motivate the searching, but rather, a thirst for truth and righteousness. -- and the desire to have meaningful factual answers for those who do feel doubt because of these anti-mormon arguments.

[musashi]

It is not unusual to have a missionary say, ‘How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?’ Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! … It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. It is quite another to have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom that what you have testified is true. Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it? As you give that which you have, there is a replacement, with increase!

-Boyd K. Packer.

Maybe what we are taught varies slightly depending on what ward we attended, or who our mission president was. Where I live we were taught about pure testimonies. In sacrament we were not supposed to be sharing stories, faith promoting though they may be. As a priest I used to pay attention to the testimonies, and if they consistently weren't "correct" then I would get up there and make sure I did it properly. The checklist was if I remember correctly to say.

1. The church is true

2. Joseph is a prophet of God

3. Gordon B Hinckley is a prophet of God.

4. The Book of Mormon is true.

5. Jesus is the Savior.

Am I making this up? Furthermore we were taught to say "I know"

The kids in primary are taught to say "I know". The kids that go to the stand during testimony meeting and just repeat what their parents say - "I love my family. I know the church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God."

Am I twisting things? That's exactly what I grew up with.

[Jason]

Thanks for the links CK. I'll be checking them out soon.

I've never heard anyone (in the MTC or elsewhere) tell missionaries or members to fudge their testimonies until they get one.

I can say I heard this in the MTC back in Jun-Aug of 1994. I don't remember who said it, but someone in a leadership position told us that if we didn't have a testimony, that we should act as though we did until we actually got one.

[Dr T]

"Fake it til you make it idea"?

[Guest Yediyd]

I believe this might be true, because I've had to encourage some very discouraged missionaries from time to time. I have reminded them that for every 100 doors that get slamed in their face...there is someone like me just waiting for someone to pull me out of my confusion. I've had many a depressed missionary at my house for dinner. I love them and I know that what they are doing is hard. I even went door knocking in the Baptist church that I grew up in...I know how it feels to knock on an unwelcoming door.

[Jason]

"Fake it til you make it idea"?

Apparently. It did work. I know of at least two guys who didn't have a testimony, who after "pretending" for awhile eventually said that they finally, really and truly believed.

Is that God in action, or self-delusion?

[Dr T]

Hey Jason,

Long time no see. Hope you've been well. Action affects thoughts and emotion just as emotion affect thought and action and thought affects action and emotion. It is an interaction of the three.

[CrimsonKairos]

It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. --Elder Packer

Emphasis mine above. The first step is indeed gaining a witness of the truth of what we read or hear. Then, and only then, does our testimony increase as we share our knowledge of truths that God has confirmed in our hearts and minds.

The kids in primary are taught to say "I know". The kids that go to the stand during testimony meeting and just repeat what their parents say - "I love my family. I know the church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God."

I can't tell you how glad I was when the Brethren came out and said, in essence, "Don't take your kids up to the podium and whisper a testimony into their ears. Home is the place to teach them how to bear testimony and they shouldn't do so until they have their own." It drove me nuts when people marched their three year old up to the podium and told them what to say. My parents never did that with me or my three older brothers, and I don't plan on doing that with any kids I may have.

It's unfortunate whenever someone is told to pretend they feel something when they don't. I think this is one reason (among many) why the bar was raised relating to prospective missionaries. A young man should have a testimony of the gospel and Book of Mormon before he enters the MTC. To expect someone to gain a strong gospel foundation in two weeks or whatever is ridiculous. Sure its happened, but the testimony should be built and solidified through 19 years of discipleship and study.

[a-train]

Man, I am sooooo sick of hearing that STUPID one about Benjamin being changed to Mosiah and how supposedly Benjamin was dead at that time. WE DO NOT KNOW THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those asserting that have NOT read the Book of Mormon. We could have just left it saying 'Benjamin' and all the world would have never known any difference. Why? Because if you do your homework and know the story line, we cannot be sure whether Benjamin had died when Ammon told Limhi about the King who could translate.

Yes, Benjamin stepped down as king and did missionary work for three years before his death. Yes, Ammon went on his mission within the year of Benjamin's death, but we are not told if he left before or after Benjamin's death. THAT IS NOT IN THE BOOK OF MORMON AND THE ANTI'S KEEP PRETENDING THEY READ IT THERE.

The anti's love to say: 'King Benjamin died two chapters previous!', but if they had read, they would know that the manner in which it is worded is actually inconclusive.

Just my thoughts on that one specific item.

-a-train

[MaidservantX]

Although I'm not exactly a stranger to so-called "anti-mormon" information and argument, nevertheless if there was ever a lack in my life of it, no more!! There is plenty of information and alternatives available here on the never dull lds talk forums!! :) (I mean it, I love it!) Other than that, sorry if I don't have time to between my visiting teaching, two jobs, six kids, choir practice, house cleaning, gardening, praying on my face to God to sustain me, on and on, to do tons of formal research. And believe me if I did, church history and current administrative details are not my interests -- I like ancient world history much better, and if I had time for any kind of formal research I would spend it on the subject of the origin of man.

I'm pretty sure one thing that hasn't changed in the Book of Mormon -- that has been in all the editions -- is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, Savior and Son of God and that he gave his atonement and that I need to accept his atonement.

All of the 'light' shed on the church, its doctrines and practices by those who think the church is wrong -- is, to me, predictable and boring. That is my main experience of it, sorry no sugar coating. I mean, the information was interesting perhaps the first time, but not the 40th.

My experience (I'm not going to call it testimony, knowledge or belief) -- but my EXPERIENCE with my Heavenly Father, my Savior, the Church, the Church members and all kinds of people I have met and situations I have lived through, both ordinary and mystical, restful or grueling -- my experience is woven through who I am. I would have to point to my entire life as my witness that I am in the right place at the right time and generally doing the right thing (specifically doing the right thing? another topic!) and that what is being taught to me from my Heavenly Father is the greatest light I can enjoy on this earth -- I do not find light (speaking for myself) in anything thing that I have heard offered in alternative-to-the-Church/ freedom from the Church information.

I can easily grant another their experience of life that has brought them to the point where they are at, and I accept that it is a good journey for them and that Heavenly Father is also teaching them.

[Jason]

Hey Jason,

Long time no see. Hope you've been well. Action affects thoughts and emotion just as emotion affect thought and action and thought affects action and emotion. It is an interaction of the three.

I had to take a break after the hanging of Saddam. It really bothered me. Still does, but able to come back without being so upset.

[the_jason]

A friend of mine claims that the Book of Mormon has to be updated every few years. Is this true?

I think your friend may be referring to the fact that the copies of the Book of Mormon keep getting thinner. They have reduced the size 2 or 3 times in the last 10 years or so. The contents hasn't changed. The paper it's printed on has gotten thinner. This is so missionaries can carry more copies with them.