Jenda Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Joseph Smith did lay the cornerstone of the Nauvoo house, but with the emphasis being placed on building the temple, the Nauvoo house did not get past the basement and first floor. It sat for years without any innards. When Joseph and Hyrum were killed, they secretly buried them in (or under) the foundation of the Nauvoo house, and they buried the manuscript in the cornerstone thinking it would be safe there. The Nauvoo house still remained unfinished till after Emma re-married. Her second husband, Louis Bidamon, tore down part of the Nauvoo house and re-built it into a much smaller building, and they lived there. It was years after they were killed that the graves of Joseph and Hyrum were opened and they were re-buried, and it was years later that they opened up the cornerstone again and retreived the manuscript. It had badly deteriorated by then. Quote
srm Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 13 2004, 12:37 PM Joseph Smith did lay the cornerstone of the Nauvoo house, but with the emphasis being placed on building the temple, the Nauvoo house did not get past the basement and first floor. It sat for years without any innards.When Joseph and Hyrum were killed, they secretly buried them in (or under) the foundation of the Nauvoo house, and they buried the manuscript in the cornerstone thinking it would be safe there. The Nauvoo house still remained unfinished till after Emma re-married. Her second husband, Louis Bidamon, tore down part of the Nauvoo house and re-built it into a much smaller building, and they lived there. It was years after they were killed that the graves of Joseph and Hyrum were opened and they were re-buried, and it was years later that they opened up the cornerstone again and retreived the manuscript. It had badly deteriorated by then. I thought that Joseph himslef place the manuscriot there...ergo; it was before he died. Quote
Jenda Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by srm+Jan 13 2004, 01:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Jan 13 2004, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jan 13 2004, 12:37 PM Joseph Smith did lay the cornerstone of the Nauvoo house, but with the emphasis being placed on building the temple, the Nauvoo house did not get past the basement and first floor. It sat for years without any innards.When Joseph and Hyrum were killed, they secretly buried them in (or under) the foundation of the Nauvoo house, and they buried the manuscript in the cornerstone thinking it would be safe there. The Nauvoo house still remained unfinished till after Emma re-married. Her second husband, Louis Bidamon, tore down part of the Nauvoo house and re-built it into a much smaller building, and they lived there. It was years after they were killed that the graves of Joseph and Hyrum were opened and they were re-buried, and it was years later that they opened up the cornerstone again and retreived the manuscript. It had badly deteriorated by then. I thought that Joseph himslef place the manuscriot there...ergo; it was before he died. No. It wasn't until after their deaths that it was placed in the cornerstone. The did it becaused they feared that mobs would storm the places where they lived and plunder them, and destroy all that they considered sacred. Especially the manuscript of the BoM. Prior to that time, they had the Nauvoo Legion to protect them. Quote
Snow Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Seems you missed it but wiggins is a setup. I'm not even paying attention and I can spot half sober. Quote
Jenda Posted January 14, 2004 Report Posted January 14, 2004 Originally posted by srm+Jan 13 2004, 12:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Jan 13 2004, 12:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 13 2004, 09:44 AM <!--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 Father1Nephi 3:62 ...Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father1Nephi 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. Ahhh. But the critics would say, if it came directly from God's lips to Joseph's ears (or eyes), why would it not have come in the correct form? See, I don't see them as saying the same thing if one believes that God and Christ are, in reality, two separate beings. Why would it be translated one way and within, say, 6 or 7 years, need to be corrected? Did Joseph see the words wrong in the stone? Did God make a mistake, or Joseph? Did God change his nature?Peace, I agree with you, it does validate those scriptures. That is the first thing I thought of when I first read it, the scripture from Mosiah. Quote
srm Posted January 14, 2004 Report Posted January 14, 2004 Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 13 2004, 03:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 13 2004, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -srm@Jan 13 2004, 01:59 PM <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jan 13 2004, 12:37 PM Joseph Smith did lay the cornerstone of the Nauvoo house, but with the emphasis being placed on building the temple, the Nauvoo house did not get past the basement and first floor. It sat for years without any innards.When Joseph and Hyrum were killed, they secretly buried them in (or under) the foundation of the Nauvoo house, and they buried the manuscript in the cornerstone thinking it would be safe there. The Nauvoo house still remained unfinished till after Emma re-married. Her second husband, Louis Bidamon, tore down part of the Nauvoo house and re-built it into a much smaller building, and they lived there. It was years after they were killed that the graves of Joseph and Hyrum were opened and they were re-buried, and it was years later that they opened up the cornerstone again and retreived the manuscript. It had badly deteriorated by then. I thought that Joseph himslef place the manuscriot there...ergo; it was before he died. No. It wasn't until after their deaths that it was placed in the cornerstone. The did it becaused they feared that mobs would storm the places where they lived and plunder them, and destroy all that they considered sacred. Especially the manuscript of the BoM. Prior to that time, they had the Nauvoo Legion to protect them. What is your source? Every source that I've seen says that in October 1841, Joseph placed the original manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. Quote
Jenda Posted January 14, 2004 Report Posted January 14, 2004 Originally posted by srm+Jan 13 2004, 07:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Jan 13 2004, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 13 2004, 03:31 PM Originally posted by -srm@Jan 13 2004, 01:59 PM <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jan 13 2004, 12:37 PM Joseph Smith did lay the cornerstone of the Nauvoo house, but with the emphasis being placed on building the temple, the Nauvoo house did not get past the basement and first floor. It sat for years without any innards.When Joseph and Hyrum were killed, they secretly buried them in (or under) the foundation of the Nauvoo house, and they buried the manuscript in the cornerstone thinking it would be safe there. The Nauvoo house still remained unfinished till after Emma re-married. Her second husband, Louis Bidamon, tore down part of the Nauvoo house and re-built it into a much smaller building, and they lived there. It was years after they were killed that the graves of Joseph and Hyrum were opened and they were re-buried, and it was years later that they opened up the cornerstone again and retreived the manuscript. It had badly deteriorated by then. I thought that Joseph himslef place the manuscriot there...ergo; it was before he died. No. It wasn't until after their deaths that it was placed in the cornerstone. The did it becaused they feared that mobs would storm the places where they lived and plunder them, and destroy all that they considered sacred. Especially the manuscript of the BoM. Prior to that time, they had the Nauvoo Legion to protect them. What is your source? Every source that I've seen says that in October 1841, Joseph placed the original manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. I am sorry, you are correct. I stand corrected. I swore that that was one of the things they taught me in church history, but maybe I am dreaming it. I did look it up and you are correct. Quote
Guest Taoist_Saint Posted January 14, 2004 Report Posted January 14, 2004 Originally posted by AFDaw@Jan 6 2004, 09:23 PM All I can truly say is that the BoM will not be re-translated because there is no need for it. Why do you think there is no need for another translation. I actually think it is a great idea. If the King James English were translated into modern english, taking care to not lose or change the meaning of anything, it would make it more accessible to modern readers. If theire was an "Modern English" version of the BoM, I probably would have finished it in half the time, and understood it better.On the other hand, do you think that INVESTIGATORS would be more willing to believe in the BoM as an authentic piece of ancient literature if it is full of words like "thou"and "thee" and "speaketh"? Probably, they would be. I guess its just a psychological thing. If it is in King James English, it sounds like "real" scripture.But still, what if Missionaries used the KJV of the BoM...for investigators...but the Church still published "Modern English" versions for sale at Deseret Books...just to read in the home? I think its a good idea. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted January 15, 2004 Report Posted January 15, 2004 Maybe you would enjoy the 'Hallowed Journey' version which is really great for helping to understand the book...it is a dramatized version... My friends, who could never really get into the book, really loved it. Quote
Guest Taoist_Saint Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 I wonder if I translated the Tao Te Ching into King James English, and use a few Christian sounding words, if I could pass it off as scriptures?I'll give it a try...pardon my grammatical errors, if there are any...Hope and fear art both demons that ariseth from thought of thy self. When thou doest not see thy self as self, what doest thou fearest? Thou shalt seeth the world as thy self. Thou shalt have faith in the way things art. Thou shalt loveth the world as thou loveth thy self.And it shall come to pass, that thou wilt careth for all things. Quote
Ray Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 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 Father1Nephi 3:62 ...Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father1Nephi 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 don’t see that as a change in theology. I see “Son of God” as a relative term. The church has always taught that Christ was and is the same person that Abraham and his descendants knew as God, and is the same person who becomes our Father and our God through spiritual rebirth.I think when Christ referred to Himself as the “Son of God”, He was doing so in humility, to point our minds to the being who He worships. If we ever meet His Father in heaven, I suspect that He will also tell us that He is the “Son of God”, in humility, to point our minds to the being who He worships. I suspect the same will be true forever, because there never has been and never will be a Father who does not also have a Father. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.