Reading The Book Of Mormon?

[Guest wigginsmum]

Hi there - I'm an evangelical Christian and I recently picked up a copy of the Book of Mormon so that I could read it and discuss it with LDS online friends. However I've found it really hard-going. Should I attempt to read it from cover-to-cover or are there particular bits you would recommend? I've also got Bruce McConkie's book on LDS doctrine which I dip into.

Thanks,

Jules

[lash4160]

Read about the visit of Christ to the Americas founded in 3 Nephi. B)

[Blessed]

Agreed.

Also, I would read what King Benjamin preached. Also, look in the concordanance and look up Abinadi. I would give you the chapters etc except my version is different than the LDS.

I pray the words will feel you with His Holy Spirit as you read this words.

Blessed

[Guest wigginsmum]

Um no - Mr Wiggins is the first of my seven cats and I'm his Mum

Jules

[Blessed]

Originally posted by LarryB+Jan 3 2004, 08:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LarryB @ Jan 3 2004, 08:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--wigginsmum@Jan 2 2004, 11:36 PM

Thanks,

Jules

Jules,

You're not the mother of Chief Wiggins, are you? I had a vision of 'Blessed' asking me to ask you.

LOL --- Larry B -- every time I see your name I think of Larry Boy and his plunger getting stuck to something. Do you have that problem?

[Traveler]

Originally posted by wigginsmum@Jan 2 2004, 10:36 PM

Hi there - I'm an evangelical Christian and I recently picked up a copy of the Book of Mormon so that I could read it and discuss it with LDS online friends. However I've found it really hard-going. Should I attempt to read it from cover-to-cover or are there particular bits you would recommend? I've also got Bruce McConkie's book on LDS doctrine which I dip into.

Thanks,

Jules

The Book of Mormon is intended to testify of Christ. Read it as you would anything else that testifies of Christ and remember that to many LDS the Book of Mormon is as sacred an anything written of Christ including any of the Books of the Bible. This is because unlike any of the books in the Bible the Book of Mormon was brought forth through a prophet without any changes by Scribes.

The Traveler

[Guest wigginsmum]

1. I hold that the Bible in its original form was without error. Research is pushing back the age of the most authentic documents (for example a portion of the Gospel of Mark was discovered in a Cambridge library and reliably dated to AD 55). A survey of Biblical translations can reveal that some translations are closer to the original than others.

2. What comparisons are made with the original text of the Book of Mormon to check that the translation is correct? Will it ever be retranslated? I'd be interested in this because without wishing to be offensive the translation I have is in poor English, kind of pseudo-King James style. I'm a linguist so the history of languages interests me; I don't have a problem with archaic languages like medieval French and Chaucerian English; I do find the KJV unreadable and inaccurate in places. What will done to update the Book of Mormon for those of later generations? When it's translated into say Spanish, is the modern form of the receiver language used? Or are people expected to learn English in the same way that Muslim converts are expected to learn Arabic to read the Quran?

Jules

[Guest]

Originally posted by Blessed+Jan 3 2004, 12:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Blessed @ Jan 3 2004, 12:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -LarryB@Jan 3 2004, 08:18 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--wigginsmum@Jan 2 2004, 11:36 PM

Thanks,

Jules

Jules,

You're not the mother of Chief Wiggins, are you? I had a vision of 'Blessed' asking me to ask you.

LOL --- Larry B -- every time I see your name I think of Larry Boy and his plunger getting stuck to something. Do you have that problem?

That's a problem?

[Blessed]

Originally posted by LarryB+Jan 6 2004, 10:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LarryB @ Jan 6 2004, 10:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Blessed@Jan 3 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by -LarryB@Jan 3 2004, 08:18 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--wigginsmum@Jan 2 2004, 11:36 PM

Thanks,

Jules

Jules,

You're not the mother of Chief Wiggins, are you? I had a vision of 'Blessed' asking me to ask you.

LOL --- Larry B -- every time I see your name I think of Larry Boy and his plunger getting stuck to something. Do you have that problem?

That's a problem?

I don't know... you tell me... are you stuck?

[AFDaw]

Very interesting questions Wiggins.

All I can truly say is that the BoM will not be re-translated because there is no need for it. The Bible was translated many times, and many times by political money to have it suit the needs of the king. Many truths were changed or lost. The BoM only has 1 translation, so there are not different variations out there to confuse people, therefore no need to try to find the most accurate one.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by AFDaw@Jan 6 2004, 09:23 PM

Very interesting questions Wiggins.

All I can truly say is that the BoM will not be re-translated because there is no need for it. The Bible was translated many times, and many times by political money to have it suit the needs of the king. Many truths were changed or lost. The BoM only has 1 translation, so there are not different variations out there to confuse people, therefore no need to try to find the most accurate one.

Translated many times, and much was lost or changed during translations...thank you for posting that AF Daw. Sometimes people need a reminder.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by AFDaw@Jan 6 2004, 09:23 PM

Very interesting questions Wiggins.

All I can truly say is that the BoM will not be re-translated because there is no need for it. The Bible was translated many times, and many times by political money to have it suit the needs of the king. Many truths were changed or lost. The BoM only has 1 translation, so there are not different variations out there to confuse people, therefore no need to try to find the most accurate one.

Actually, there are several different variations (translations) of the BoM.

The BoM that the LDS use now is vastly different from the one first printed in 1829. There are grammatical changes, changes in versification, changes in theology, etc. The one that most closely resembles the original one is the Restored Covenant Edition printed by the Zarahemla Research Foundation in Independence, MO.

They used the original manuscript as well as the printers manuscript to put the BoM back to it's original form. Here is the URL of the ZRF and an online copy of the BoM if you are interested. http://www.restoredcovenant.org/RCE.asp?CAT=RCE

[Blessed]

Personally, I like the edition I use which I think is called the student version (1966)... Dawn will correct me I am sure!

It is so well used the pages are beginning to fall out.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 7 2004, 08:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 7 2004, 08:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--AFDaw@Jan 6 2004, 09:23 PM

Very interesting questions Wiggins.

All I can truly say is that the BoM will not be re-translated because there is no need for it.  The Bible was translated many times, and many times by political money to have it suit the needs of the king.  Many truths were changed or lost.  The BoM only has 1 translation, so there are not different variations out there to confuse people, therefore no need to try to find the most accurate one.

Actually, there are several different variations (translations) of the BoM.

The BoM that the LDS use now is vastly different from the one first printed in 1829. There are grammatical changes, changes in versification, changes in theology, etc. The one that most closely resembles the original one is the Restored Covenant Edition printed by the Zarahemla Research Foundation in Independence, MO.

They used the original manuscript as well as the printers manuscript to put the BoM back to it's original form. Here is the URL of the ZRF and an online copy of the BoM if you are interested. http://www.restoredcovenant.org/RCE.asp?CAT=RCE

There could be a claim that the original was used to produce a current version of the first publication but the origional manuscript was hidden in Joseph Smith's grave. When the grave was moved to the current site in Nauvoo the there was very little of the origional manuscript left that could be used.

A printer version was created because parts of the manuscript were being released for publication in news papers and othere such things while the printing plates for the Book of Mormon were being prepared for printing. The printer version was released to the printer in sections (just enough for setting the type) and then returned with a new section released to the printer.

The biggest difference between RLDS and LDS versions have to do with foot notes (including cross references) and breakdown of verses. Until recently the two orginazations have not been willing to assist each other in reasearching the origional publications. Neither the RLDS or LDS have admitted having the origional "golden plates".

P.S. I used RLDS as it was the historical refference; though they have decided of late to change their public title to "The Community of Christ" or something similar to that. They also concluded that it is not necessary to have a direct decendent of Joseph Smith involved in leading their organization. I am uncertain if their theology holds that the Book of Mormon is sacred scripture as important as the Bible scriptures. In the past when I have had discussions with our RLDS friends they indicated that some believe the B of M is sacred while other hold mostly to the Bible.

The Traveler

[Blessed]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 7 2004, 10:41 AM

P.S. I used RLDS as it was the historical refference; though they have decided of late to change their public title to "The Community of Christ" or something similar to that. They also concluded that it is not necessary to have a direct decendent of Joseph Smith involved in leading their organization. I am uncertain if their theology holds that the Book of Mormon is sacred scripture as important as the Bible scriptures. In the past when I have had discussions with our RLDS friends they indicated that some believe the B of M is sacred while other hold mostly to the Bible.

The Traveler

While being a member of said CofChrist, I believe and hold the Book of Mormon as sacred and as fully God breathed scripture. Matter of fact most everyone I know does. There are a few who do not. (I don't get their logic)

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Traveler+Jan 7 2004, 09:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Jan 7 2004, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 7 2004, 08:38 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--AFDaw@Jan 6 2004, 09:23 PM

Very interesting questions Wiggins.

All I can truly say is that the BoM will not be re-translated because there is no need for it.  The Bible was translated many times, and many times by political money to have it suit the needs of the king.  Many truths were changed or lost.  The BoM only has 1 translation, so there are not different variations out there to confuse people, therefore no need to try to find the most accurate one.

Actually, there are several different variations (translations) of the BoM.

The BoM that the LDS use now is vastly different from the one first printed in 1829. There are grammatical changes, changes in versification, changes in theology, etc. The one that most closely resembles the original one is the Restored Covenant Edition printed by the Zarahemla Research Foundation in Independence, MO.

They used the original manuscript as well as the printers manuscript to put the BoM back to it's original form. Here is the URL of the ZRF and an online copy of the BoM if you are interested. http://www.restoredcovenant.org/RCE.asp?CAT=RCE

There could be a claim that the original was used to produce a current version of the first publication but the origional manuscript was hidden in Joseph Smith's grave. When the grave was moved to the current site in Nauvoo the there was very little of the origional manuscript left that could be used.

A printer version was created because parts of the manuscript were being released for publication in news papers and othere such things while the printing plates for the Book of Mormon were being prepared for printing. The printer version was released to the printer in sections (just enough for setting the type) and then returned with a new section released to the printer.

The biggest difference between RLDS and LDS versions have to do with foot notes (including cross references) and breakdown of verses. Until recently the two orginazations have not been willing to assist each other in reasearching the origional publications. Neither the RLDS or LDS have admitted having the origional "golden plates".

The Traveler

The Zarahemla Research Foundation which prints the Restored Covenant Edition (RCE) of the BoM is not a church-sponsored group. The person who did the research and publication financed it himself. If nothing else, it is extremely easy to read, which is a huge plus. It has a large introduction that explains the Hebrew poetry and Chiasmus, as well as the addition of grammatical (don't want to say corrections because they aren't) tools that help delineate the reflective portions of the text.

The main difference between the RLDS and the LDS BoMs is the versification. The RLDS BoM maintains the original versification while the LDS changed it to make the chapters shorter. The RCE follows the RLDS versification.

The original manuscript was buried in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House when Joseph Smith died (and he was secretly buried in close proximity), and when Louis Bidamon opened up the cornerstone when they moved Joseph's and Hyrum's bodies, much of the manuscript had deteriorated. He literally tore the rest of the manuscript in half and gave half to the LDS and half to the RLDS. As the RLDS was a new organization at the time, and did not have the capacity to preserve it, it deteriorated beyond ability to save. The part the LDS have fared better. The RLDS own the printers manuscript in it's full form.

When the person doing the RCE did the research, he compared what we now have with what is in what's left of the original manuscript and the printer's manuscript. The greatest number of changes seem to have been made in the first part of I Nephi, which is the section of the original manuscript that is still intact (luckily).

Blessed, your version is the 1966 Revised Authorized Edition.

[Guest lt]

I use to tell people to read bits and pieces, but then when I read the book myself I found so much was lost or misunderstood that way... not I suggest a prayers, read cover to cover and then pray again

[Guest Starsky]

Jenda stated:

...changes in theology, etc.

Could you give me an example of a theological change? Thanks. :)

[Cal]

Also, don't forget to read in the Book of Ether where the brother of Jared built these "submarines" with holes in the top and bottom. Try to envision a trip in this craft---try not to get sea sick thinking about it, if you can imagine that such a trip is survivable at all.

Also, try to imagine that millions of inhabitants, all of Jewish decent left NO genetic markers in the Native American population who are supposed to be their decendents.

[srm]

1. I hold that the Bible in its original form was without error. Research is pushing back the age of the most authentic documents (for example a portion of the Gospel of Mark was discovered in a Cambridge library and reliably dated to AD 55). A survey of Biblical translations can reveal that some translations are closer to the original than others.

Golly, you sound like a mormon!

2. What comparisons are made with the original text of the Book of Mormon to check that the translation is correct? Will it ever be retranslated? I'd be interested in this because without wishing to be offensive the translation I have is in poor English, kind of pseudo-King James style.

The closest we have are parts of the original manuscript as translated by Joseph Smith and the printers manuscript. This is only once removed from the Plates (the original source). It seems that when it is reviewed for correctness we go back to the original manuscripts, the printer's manuscripts or the revisions made by the translator.

I'm a linguist so the history of languages interests me; I don't have a problem with archaic languages like medieval French and Chaucerian English; I do find the KJV unreadable and inaccurate in places. What will done to update the Book of Mormon for those of later generations? When it's translated into say Spanish, is the modern form of the receiver language used? Or are people expected to learn English in the same way that Muslim converts are expected to learn Arabic to read the Quran?

I don't believe that they are looking to change the wording of the English and when they translate to other languages they attempt to use 'biblical type' language. For example in Spanish... The vosotros form is used although most of the spanish speaking world does not use it

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 13 2004, 01:00 AM

Jenda stated:

...changes in theology, etc.

Could you give me an example of a theological change? Thanks. :)

Most of the changes that I know of are in I Nephi, and they all surround the nature of the Godhead.

I will give the quote from the present BoM (LDS and RLDS), and then give the quote from the RCE which was restored to the original manuscript.

1Nephi 3:58 RLDS (LDS 1 Nephi 11:18) ...Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God...

1Nephi 3:58...Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God...

1Nephi 3:62 RLDS (LDS 1 Nephi 11:21)...Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father

1Nephi 3:62 ...Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father

1Nephi 3:193 RLDS (LDS 1 Nephi 13:40) ...the Lamb of God is the son of the Eternal Father...

1Nephi 3:193 ...the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father...

The original text clearly demonstrates that God and Christ are one. It has a more modal view of the Godhead. It was changed to reflect a more trinitarian view of the Godhead.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 13 2004, 09:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 13 2004, 09:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 13 2004, 01:00 AM

Jenda stated:

...changes in theology, etc.

Could you give me an example of a theological change? Thanks. :)

Most of the changes that I know of are in I Nephi, and they all surround the nature of the Godhead.

I will give the quote from the present BoM (LDS and RLDS), and then give the quote from the RCE which was restored to the original manuscript.

1Nephi 3:58 RLDS (LDS 1 Nephi 11:18) ...Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God...

1Nephi 3:58...Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God...

1Nephi 3:62 RLDS (LDS 1 Nephi 11:21)...Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father

1Nephi 3:62 ...Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father

1Nephi 3:193 RLDS (LDS 1 Nephi 13:40) ...the Lamb of God is the son of the Eternal Father...

1Nephi 3:193 ...the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father...

The original text clearly demonstrates that God and Christ are one. It has a more modal view of the Godhead. It was changed to reflect a more trinitarian view of the Godhead.

Wow...Jenda that is awesome. I have always had a problem with those passages and didn't know why. Thank you! :)

[Guest Starsky]

The original text clearly demonstrates that God and Christ are one. It has a more modal view of the Godhead. It was changed to reflect a more trinitarian view of the Godhead.

This would validate and accomadate Mosiah 15:

1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the dwill of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Also it would make the passages in 3rd Nephi work....doctrinally...

3 Ne. 19:

16 And it came to pass that he spake unto the multitude, and commanded them that they should kneel down again upon the earth, and also that his disciples should kneel down upon the earth.

17 And it came to pass that when they had all knelt down upon the earth, he commanded his disciples that they should pray.

18 And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.

19 And it came to pass that Jesus departed out of the midst of them, and went a little way off from them and bowed himself to the earth, and he said:

20 Father, I thank thee that thou hast given the Holy Ghost unto these whom I have chosen; and it is because of their belief in me that I have chosen them out of the world.

21 Father, I pray thee that thou wilt give the Holy Ghost unto all them that shall believe in their words.

22 Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them.

23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one.

24 And it came to pass that when Jesus had thus prayed unto the Father, he came unto his disciples, and behold, they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray unto him; and they did not multiply many words, for it was given unto them what they should pray, and they were filled with desire.

25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.

26 And Jesus said unto them: Pray on; nevertheless they did not cease to pray.

27 And he turned from them again, and went a little way off and bowed himself to the earth; and he prayed again unto the Father, saying:

28 Father, I thank thee that thou hast purified those whom I have chosen, because of their faith, and I pray for them, and also for them who shall believe on their words, that they may be purified in me, through faith on their words, even as they are purified in me.

29 Father, I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world, because of their faith, that they may be purified in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one, that I may be glorified in them.

30 And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they were white, even as Jesus.

[srm]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 7 2004, 09:41 AM

There could be a claim that the original was used to produce a current version of the first publication but the origional manuscript was hidden in Joseph Smith's grave.  When the grave was moved to the current site in Nauvoo the there was very little of the origional manuscript left that could be used.

I thought that Joseph placed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo house.

[srm]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 13 2004, 09:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 13 2004, 09:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Jan 13 2004, 01:00 AM

Jenda stated:

...changes in theology, etc.

Could you give me an example of a theological change? Thanks. :)

Most of the changes that I know of are in I Nephi, and they all surround the nature of the Godhead.

I will give the quote from the present BoM (LDS and RLDS), and then give the quote from the RCE which was restored to the original manuscript.

1Nephi 3:58 RLDS (LDS 1 Nephi 11:18) ...Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God...

1Nephi 3:58...Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God...

1Nephi 3:62 RLDS (LDS 1 Nephi 11:21)...Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father

1Nephi 3:62 ...Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father

1Nephi 3:193 RLDS (LDS 1 Nephi 13:40) ...the Lamb of God is the son of the Eternal Father...

1Nephi 3:193 ...the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father...

The original text clearly demonstrates that God and Christ are one. It has a more modal view of the Godhead. It was changed to reflect a more trinitarian view of the Godhead.

I disagree with what it clearly demonstrates. Both versions are true, however, it was changed in order to clarify the correct doctrine. So that there would be no question.