Original Book Of Mormon

[bytebear]

Can we get on topic.  We should fork Joseph Smith polygamy to a separate thread.

 

Blossom, is your concern just that the Book of Mormon has changed over time? Or are you concerned with specific changes?  You had mentioned the change from "God" to "son of God". How does that change the meaning of the verse to you?

[Blossom76]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Hmm... Well, I just looked at the history of this thread.  The bad comments began on page 2.  I started my answers (no accusations or snarky comments or attacks) on page one.  Go look.  You'll see. But you chose to ignore my comments even though I straightway answered your questions.

By the time I logged back in Bad Karma and the others had started their personal attacks on me, I don't sit here waiting all day for people to reply, I don't see all the replies in real time. And like I said in my previous post to you I have been too busy defending myself and my husband from all the HORRIBLE INSULTING and UNACCEPTABLE things people have said to me to have had the time to go through a thread full of hateful accusations and personal attacks looking for answers to my question. 

[Blossom76]

2 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Can we get on topic.  We should fork Joseph Smith polygamy to a separate thread.

 

Blossom, is your concern just that the Book of Mormon has changed over time? Or are you concerned with specific changes?  You had mentioned the change from "God" to "son of God". How does that change the meaning of the verse to you?

To me when it says 'God' it is strongly supporting the Trinitarian view of the God Head (not the LDS view of the Trinity But the 'every other christian' view of the trinity) so to change that to 'son of God' takes that support away.  That bothers me

[Midwest LDS]

26 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Are you really sorry?  I don't believe you after the first 6 times you posted.

By the way I didn't notice the dang thing had posted for me so many times lol

[Guest]

Just now, Blossom76 said:

By the time I logged back in Bad Karma and the others had started their personal attacks on me, I don't sit here waiting all day for people to reply, I don't see all the replies in real time. And like I said in my previous post to you I have been too busy defending myself and my husband from all the HORRIBLE INSULTING and UNACCEPTABLE things people have said to me to have had the time to go through a thread full of hateful accusations and personal attacks looking for answers to my question. 

Ok.  I guess that's understandable.  It seems we were both going through the same thing in different modes.

You felt you were being attacked rather than being answered.  I felt I was being ignored rather than actually being listened to.

And we both lashed out.  Human nature.

Can you go through the first two pages and look at my responses.  I assure you they were not snarky.  They were honest attempts to get you to look at your question from a different point of view.

[Blossom76]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Ok.  I guess that's understandable.  It seems we were both going through the same thing in different modes.

You felt you were being attacked rather than being answered.  I felt I was being ignored rather than actually being listened to.

And we both lashed out.  Human nature.

Can you go through the first two pages and look at my responses.  I assure you they were not snarky.  They were honest attempts to get you to look at your question from a different point of view.

Thank you, I will read them, I do take this very seriously.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

To me when it says 'God' it is strongly supporting the Trinitarian view of the God Head (not the LDS view of the Trinity But the 'every other christian' view of the trinity) so to change that to 'son of God' takes that support away.  That bothers me

Ok, I get how looking from the Athanasian Trinity viewpoint that would through a person.  How about looking from the LDS view of the Father/Son/Spirit?  Do the two versions seem so different from that perspective?

[Guest]

Just now, Blossom76 said:

Thank you, I will read them, I do take this very seriously.

Thank you, the main one that I wanted to get across was that there was a valid reason why that aspect was left out.  

Emma had placed such restriction on Joseph that he rarely got to spend much time with his other wives.  So, if you were to take a picture of Joseph 100 times a week, then 99 of them would only be seen with Emma.  So, in that sense, it was an accurate portrayal.

[Just_A_Guy]

13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Two disjointed thoughts-- 

1) The church recently acquired the Printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon and it putting it on-line for everyone to read, so that will be soon freely available (I think that's the oldest surveying copy, someone correct me if I'm misremembering).  

The printer’s manuscript has been on the Joseph Smith Papers website for some time now.  You probably already know this, but for @Blossom76‘s benefit—the printer’s manuscript is a copy of the original manuscript; the original manuscript is the one Joseph Smith’s scribes produced as he dictated it.  The printer’s manuscript passed (I’m pretty sure) from Oliver Cowdery to his brother-in law, David Whitmer, and eventually into the hands of the RLDS Church, which sold it to the LDS Church earlier this fall.  

Joseph Smith kept the original manuscript until the Nauvoo era.  After completing the revisions as published in the Nauvoo edition of the BoM, he included the manuscript in a box of memorabilia placed in the cornerstone of a Nauvoo hotel called the Nauvoo House.  After his death Emma remarried and her husband, Lewis Bidamon, retrieved the box.  Much of the manuscript was destroyed by water damage; and Bidamon got in the habit of distributing surviving pages of the manuscript to visitors as souvenirs.  The LDS Church has tried to buy back these pages over the years as they became available; and I think they now have maybe 25-50% of the original manuscript; with most of the rest being either lost or destroyed. 

And, @Blossom76, I wouldn’t spend much time on the Kirtland edition—much of the reason the Nauvoo edition was produced, was to remedy the errors introduced by the committee that produced the Kirtland edition.  If you want “Joseph’s own version”, stick with the 1830 edition or the Nauvoo edition.

[zil]

47 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Kirkland

Kirtland

Just FYI.

[Midwest LDS]

18 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I was joking.  Sheesh.

Yeah I see that now my connection is slow so I missed the context and I didn't mean that to sound defensive I took the question literally because of that. Not the first time in my life the joke's gone over my head?

[JohnsonJones]

32 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I don't know but you certainly don't leave it out of something the church promotes as historically accurate 

I have not seen the film yet, so I cannot actually comment from one perspective or another.  I saw that it is actually quite long, and I have to go to Youth tonight, and had to work earlier.

From what you describe though, as a Historian, it does not sound like it may be inaccurate.  As per some of the LDS views, it IS accurate.  He did not live with them in that view, as they were NOT his wives in this life...they were his for the next.  At least to some Mormons.  Is this the truth...well...I suppose it depends on who you talk to (history can be terrible for some people...as you find out, there is never just one point of view...there's always more...normally half a dozen to a million).  The problem is most historians are not interested in this stuff.  The few historians that study this professionally are all normally very LDS, or very ANTI-LDS.  The typical Historian really doesn't have an interest in that amount of detail into Joseph Smith's personal life.  I don't even have any professional credits in this arena as my focus is in other areas.  I only have a hobby in LDS history, nothing else.

That said, even as it is rather long, it seems that covering this idea isn't something that unusual for a Historical film of this sort...though I'd probably classify it more as a religious film rather than anything that is really all that historical...just from the little I saw.

Now, as I haven't seen it yet, the following is just my guess.

I imagine the focus of the film is religious rather than historical.  The point is probably toward the viewer in that the Gospel is the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and how Joseph Smith brought that about.  Because it is more about the how the LDS church came about and Joseph Smiths involvement, it probably isn't going to go that much in depth about his life.  Hence other things such as his military reserve/guard service, his political involvement at various times of his life, or his involvement in economic and banking arenas (which I've seen are very troublesome for many who have no troubles with polygamy) are probably glossed over or not even mentioned.  This is because these would detract from what the film is trying to convey.  Instead of addressing these types of issues, it's focus is on something different.

I'm not sure, as I haven't seen the film, but that would be my guess as to why it's not really mentioned.  It's not part of the point (as a religious film, as I said, from what I saw, it's more a religious film rather than a purely historical film) of the film in the first place.

I'll try to watch it when I get the time though, then I could probably give you a much more accurate idea of what I think.  It could be I'll see exactly why it disturbed you, or it may be that I'll have a better understanding of why they didn't mention anything.  I won't know until I actually watch it though.

Edited December 7, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[bytebear]

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

To me when it says 'God' it is strongly supporting the Trinitarian view of the God Head (not the LDS view of the Trinity But the 'every other christian' view of the trinity) so to change that to 'son of God' takes that support away.  That bothers me

I can see that.  From an LDS perspective I think we do think of God the Father and Jesus as separate enough to distinguish them in scripture.  I think this example shows a NT perspective on God being applied to an OT author.  Let me explain.  Nephi lived in 600 BC.  He knew about a coming messiah, but didn't really have the concept of the Trinity as we think of it.  Neither did the OT prophets. Isaiah prophecies of the coming savior, but he never quite equates him with God incarnate, or the Godhead/Trinity.  Nephi had the writings of Isaiah, so he would be familiar with the prophecies.   Now, remember that Mormon/Moroni/Joseph Smith all had a role in editing the text of Nephi, and we really don't know if the original text had "son of God", but for the sake of argument, let's assume it did not.  So, as far as we know, Joseph Smith went through the manuscript and the first printed 1830 edition, and saw things that he considered either in error, or at least in need of clarification.  So, from his perspective, particularly as he learned more about the nature of the trinity and maybe particularly the identity of Jehovah (from an LDS perspective) he perhaps, chose to clarify the verses.  I think it makes more sense if we read it as a NT book, but the original fits more with the OT style.  It's almost like how Jehovah (at least in the KJV) is translated as LORD, but Eloheim is translated as God or LORD God.  What if your transation of the Bible had "God" everywhere, but someone decided to change all the Jehovah instances into LORD.  We'd have a slightly nuanced change, that many people might consider degrading, changing God to merely a Lord.

[bytebear]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

Kirtland

Just FYI.

Ugh, I hate that.   One of my best friends is named Kirk, and it all just screws with my head.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

I can see that.  From an LDS perspective I think we do think of God the Father and Jesus as separate enough to distinguish them in scripture.  I think this example shows a NT perspective on God being applied to an OT author.  Let me explain.  Nephi lived in 600 BC.  He knew about a coming messiah, but didn't really have the concept of the Trinity as we think of it.  Neither did the OT prophets. Isaiah prophecies of the coming savior, but he never quite equates him with God incarnate, or the Godhead/Trinity.  Nephi had the writings of Isaiah, so he would be familiar with the prophecies.   Now, remember that Mormon/Moroni/Joseph Smith all had a role in editing the text of Nephi, and we really don't know if the original text had "son of God", but for the sake of argument, let's assume it did not.  So, as far as we know, Joseph Smith went through the manuscript and the first printed 1830 edition, and saw things that he considered either in error, or at least in need of clarification.  So, from his perspective, particularly as he learned more about the nature of the trinity and maybe particularly the identity of Jehovah (from an LDS perspective) he perhaps, chose to clarify the verses.  I think it makes more sense if we read it as a NT book, but the original fits more with the OT style.  It's almost like how Jehovah (at least in the KJV) is translated as LORD, but Eloheim is translated as God or LORD God.  What if your transation of the Bible had "God" everywhere, but someone decided to change all the Jehovah instances into LORD.  We'd have a slightly nuanced change, that many people might consider degrading, changing God to merely a Lord.

Indeed  take a religious Jew today they have one God JEHOVAH who on occasion does things by his spirit.  They generally see all this Christan Father, Son, and Spirit as polytheistic and anti scriptural.  It wasn't until Christ and his claims to have a Father that the   Christan understanding of God takes shape.(Father, Son, and Holy Spirit )

Therefor to expect an pre-Christ Jew to express God in terms like "Son of God" would be signs of false-hood, such an experience would be so far from their scriptural and cultural norms as to require a profound explanation.  From appearance Nephi did not use the term Son of God.  Which is exactly what we would expect from him.  Joseph Smith as post Christ Christan would though.  And as he looks over the translation work looking to clarify and correct mistakes could easily tell which one Nephi was talking from context and could add the correct clarification to the text to not confuse the Christians reading the Jewish work

Edited December 7, 2017 by estradling75

[person0]

Now that I have 5 children, I am half hoping polygamy comes back at the next General Conference.    I've even almost got my wife on board given how much easier it would be!  And just think of the families that have 8+ children!  

Edited December 7, 2017 by person0

[askandanswer]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

It had a happy ending in my case! 

happy for you, not so much for your ward

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

happy for you, not so much for your ward

That's awesome. lol 

[NeuroTypical]

BTW, anyone seriously interested in having a serious opinion about what the church seriously has to say about the history of our church, should look here:

http://beta.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/about-the-project

We're off energetically and dutifully gathering, digitizing, and publishing every single scrap of paper we can humanly find that came from Joseph Smith, his scribes, the church, etc.  Including:

contemporary reports of discourses, minutes, business and legal records, editorials, and notices. The project also includes papers received and “owned” by his office, such as incoming correspondence.

The old, old criticism that Mormons hide their history, or lie, or change it, or try to bury it, has never been more transparently false.

[bytebear]

It's always been that way.  Most of the really off the wall criticism were from the Journal of Discourses, which were basically recorded sermons and meeting minutes, much of which is not particularly doctrinal relevant, let along sound.  Trust it as much as you trust Fast and Testimony meeting.

[lostinwater]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

happy for you, not so much for your ward

of course, i am certain your comment about @MormonGator was completely in jest, and that the only reason for not stating so was it was so blatantly obvious, it didn't feel like it needed to be said.

i think there could be widespread agreement he is one of the kindest people on this forum, and no doubt an equal gem to his ward.

Edited December 7, 2017 by lostinwater

[Blossom76]

4 hours ago, bytebear said:

I can see that.  From an LDS perspective I think we do think of God the Father and Jesus as separate enough to distinguish them in scripture.  I think this example shows a NT perspective on God being applied to an OT author.  Let me explain.  Nephi lived in 600 BC.  He knew about a coming messiah, but didn't really have the concept of the Trinity as we think of it.  Neither did the OT prophets. Isaiah prophecies of the coming savior, but he never quite equates him with God incarnate, or the Godhead/Trinity.  Nephi had the writings of Isaiah, so he would be familiar with the prophecies.   Now, remember that Mormon/Moroni/Joseph Smith all had a role in editing the text of Nephi, and we really don't know if the original text had "son of God", but for the sake of argument, let's assume it did not.  So, as far as we know, Joseph Smith went through the manuscript and the first printed 1830 edition, and saw things that he considered either in error, or at least in need of clarification.  So, from his perspective, particularly as he learned more about the nature of the trinity and maybe particularly the identity of Jehovah (from an LDS perspective) he perhaps, chose to clarify the verses.  I think it makes more sense if we read it as a NT book, but the original fits more with the OT style.  It's almost like how Jehovah (at least in the KJV) is translated as LORD, but Eloheim is translated as God or LORD God.  What if your transation of the Bible had "God" everywhere, but someone decided to change all the Jehovah instances into LORD.  We'd have a slightly nuanced change, that many people might consider degrading, changing God to merely a Lord.

Thank you, this makes the most sense to me, and thank you everyone who gave links and serious answers, I do appreciate it and I will read them all

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, lostinwater said:

of course, i am certain your comment about @MormonGator was completely in jest, and that the only reason for not stating so was it was so blatantly obvious, it didn't feel like it needed to be said.

i think there could be widespread agreement he is one of the kindest people on this forum, and no doubt an equal gem to his ward.

Agreed

[Guest]

10 hours ago, zil said:

Kirtland

Just FYI.

There's a man in my ward who always says "Kirkland, Ohio" when talking about Church history.  Talk about average members of the Church not knowing Church history...

[zil]

52 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There's a man in my ward who always says "Kirkland, Ohio" when talking about Church history.  Talk about average members of the Church not knowing Church history...

Blame these people:

And my brother pronounces "available" as if it were spelled "avaidable" - drives me nuts.  It seems logical to assume everyone has a problem of some sort...