Original Book Of Mormon

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Actually when I first started going to the ward I am now I quickly discovered that the majority of the women there had no idea Joseph Smith was a polygamist, they all thought it was something Brigham Young started.  So I watch what I say at LDS church now so I don't offend anyone.  That is why I ask questions here.  And I am not 'making accusations' I am asking questions - but I am allowed to have an opinion on things I find disturbing.

I don't believe this.

Joseph Smith's polygamy is ACCOUNTED IN THE D&C.  We just had an entire year of  2017 Sunday School spent on the D&C.  So, I'm trying to imagine how this went... did you go to one woman in the ward and asked her, "Do you know that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?".  And then you went to another woman and on and on until you got the majority of them?  Or did you go to Relief Society and asked the entire class if they know Joseph Smith had more than one wife?  I mean, how exactly did you come to the realization that the women in your ward don't know that Joseph Smith had more than one wife?  Do these women attend Sunday School?  Are they new to the church?  Do they read scriptures?

 

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, zil said:

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...

That's exactly what I think of whenever he says that.  What's funny is that he did this as a Sunday School teacher.  That means that he had to actually READ the spelling of the city.  But he still pronounces it that way.  Older guy who has an odd voice.  He is quite knowledgeable.  But he also knows a lot of false doctrine as well.  That's kind of bad to have in a Sunday School teacher.  I've called him on that a few times.  He didn't care to listen to me.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil said:

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...

Costco is based in Seattle's East side -- Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, Kirkland, Woodinville,  Bothell, and smaller communities in that area, which is my own stomping ground. Their headquarters are currently in Issaquah, but until some time in the 1990s, they were based out of Kirkland. This is the origin of their homebrand's name. Believe you me, it screws me up big time whenever I talk about Kirtland, Ohio. Even after many years of careful differentiation, I will say the wrong one about 30% of the time when I'm trying hard, and 90% when I'm not thinking about it.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's exactly what I think of whenever he says that.  What's funny is that he did this as a Sunday School teacher.  That means that he had to actually READ the spelling of the city.  But he still pronounces it that way.  Older guy who has an odd voice.  He is quite knowledgeable.  But he also knows a lot of false doctrine as well.  That's kind of bad to have in a Sunday School teacher.  I've called him on that a few times.  He didn't care to listen to me.

We had one of those.  Well, actually, it's not as much false doctrine as speculation taught as doctrine in Sunday School.  He got released before he made it to 6 months in the calling.  Although, we really don't know if he got released because of the things he taught or if he got released because he was needed in his new calling.

So guess what... before I even knew how to spell Mormon, I lived close to the Kirtland Temple.   We pass by it on the way to the Great Lakes Mall.  Very pretty during Christmas Season even as I'm always going into near-accidents climbing up that stupid hill in the winter.  So, years later, when I started investigating the Church, I couldn't believe they are talking about THAT Kirtland.  My mind was boggled.

[Grunt]

https://ldsmag.com/why-bother-studying-the-textual-variants-in-the-book-of-mormon/

 

Interesting topic in today’s Meridian.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Costco is based in Seattle's East side -- Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, Kirkland, Woodinville,  Bothell, and smaller communities in that area, which is my own stomping ground. Their headquarters are currently in Issaquah, but until some time in the 1990s, they were based out of Kirkland. This is the origin of their homebrand's name. Believe you me, it screws me up big time whenever I talk about Kirtland, Ohio. Even after many years of careful differentiation, I will say the wrong one about 30% of the time when I'm trying hard, and 90% when I'm not thinking about it.

A slip in pronunciation is one thing.  But I...  well, it went like this.

Studying the Kirtland Temple dedication in class and half a dozen times pronouncing it with the "k".

C: You mean Kirtland.

T: Yes, Kirkland.  (students all looking back and forth becuase they picked up on it too, but were too polite to say anything.)

C: Kirtland. (I guess, I'm just not that polite).

T: Yup, the Kirkland temple was a milestone in Church history because...

C: <sigh>  Maybe I'm not polite.  But I do recognize an effort in futility.

[Vort]

Not unlike myself, Carb. Right before moving to Redmond in the mid-90s, my wife and I spent five years in State College, PA, in the general vicinity of Kirtland -- about a four-hour drive, just driving west on I-80. It was a fairly common destination for things like stake youth trips and such. So when we moved here, that did not help matters.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not unlike myself, Carb.

That you are not polite?  Recognize an effort in futility?  Or that you would have continued to believe the correct pronunciation was Kirkland?

I didn't get the latter from your earlier post.  It seemed yours was just slipping the pronunciation -- very frequently.  With him, he actually believed he was pronouncing "Kirkland" correctly and everyone else was pronouncing it incorrectly.  Is that what you did/still do?  If so... KNOCKITOFF.

[Vort]

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That you are not polite?  Recognize an effort in futility?  Or that you would have continued to believe the correct pronunciation was Kirkland?

That even with prompting and correction, I could still inadvertently get it wrong. If the guy honestly couldn't tell the difference, then no, that's not my case.

[JohnsonJones]

Okay, I've now watched over much of the movie.  I had forgotten about this, but as I got further into it, it seemed familiar.  I had actually watched this at some point previously, though it probably was some time ago.  (This is what happens as one gets older, memory starts to fail, and you forget things at times).

This is definitely NOT a historical film.  It definitely does NOT talk about the life of Joseph Smith in an indepth manner.  It skims over his life and skips many things which some could consider major events in his life.  Even at the beginning of the film, where it talks about his childhood and nothing really extraordinary, skips a rather extraordinary story about Joseph Smith.

When he was a child, he had an infection or illness of the bone.  The only way to cure him, according to most doctors of the day, was to amputate the leg.  His mother (whose words they use as a narration tool in the film) knew and noted about this event.  She did not want her son to have his leg amputated and went through great effort to do anything she could to find an alternate solution.  They found a doctor who had an experimental idea, and with some askance, eventually agreed to try this operation on Joseph Smith jr.  He proceeded with the operation.  He offered Joseph Smith Whiskey to dull the pain, but for whatever reason Joseph Smith decided not to take the whiskey and endure the full pain.  This type of pain has had a psychological effect on many children who endure such types of pain at a young age, and in all cases it normally leaves a deep and indelible impression upon them.  It is very likely this had a major impact on Joseph for the rest of his life...whether this is what caused him to be as humble and honest as his father and mother would vow in why the trusted his story so much, or other things...this operation had to have had a great impact on the Young Joseph.  The operation was a success, but it was noted about the screams of pain and agony that Joseph exhibited. 

However, this movie doesn't even touch upon this event in any real manner.  Such a major event of Joseph Smith's life is completely glossed over.  Why? 

I do not believe it is because they are hiding something, but as a religious film, it's purpose is not to go into the actual details of Joseph Smith's life.  It's real purpose is to explain LDS concepts to people.  It utilizes the formation of the LDS church and it's early years as the vehicle to do so.  With Emma, the reason I think she is included is to make it so people can relate more to Joseph Smith.  By seeing that he was someone who worked hard, got married, and did other things that many of the rest of us do, they make him a relatable character that we can empathize with.  In doing this, we are more likely to listen to what he is saying and actually hear the LDS ideas that the film is presenting.

Because it is the conveyance of LDS beliefs that is the focal point of the film, most of the events of Joseph Smith's life are not even touched upon.  It may have his name in the title, but it is not the real focus of the film.  The focus of the film is to tell about the LDS church's fundamental ideas and it's gospel, but to relay that in a way that you are not completely bored.

I think the film DID grasp something that is very MUCH in the spirit of Joseph Smith, and one that people may not normally grasp.  Joseph Smith was incredibly charismatic.  He had a way of convincing people to trust him and believe in him as well as to follow him.  Some will say that this was entirely because the Holy Spirit was with him and this may be true, but I tend to think a historian would see it as a different way.

He was not a preacher that stood apart.  He worked right alongside those he taught and preached to.  He farmed, he would go to the poorest of the poor and do all he could to help provide for them or assist them in their time of need, and presented himself very much as the everyday common man.  He was someone people could rely on and trust.  It was THIS approach that won many people over, as they felt this was someone who KNEW what they went through, and participated in the same troubles that they endured.  He was one of them, and that made them trust him.

I think the film relates this VERY WELL. 

I actually REALLY like this film, it's much better in discussing his first vision then the recent release (made by those who I think must have forgotten everything they learned at film school with it's stilted talking and meandering dialogue...just my opinion on it).  I think it makes Joseph Smith far more relatable.

However, I will say it's definitely NOT a historical film by any reach of the imagination.  It is purely a religious film to relay religious ideas.  At least, that's my take of it.

But, the film itself, I love the film.  It's a great film.  I think it's a great way to reinforce LDS teachings and to think about them in various ways.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

That even with prompting and correction, I could still inadvertently get it wrong. If the guy honestly couldn't tell the difference, then no, that's not my case.

It sure seemed like he couldn't tell the difference.

[Bad Karma]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

That even with prompting and correction, I could still inadvertently get it wrong. If the guy honestly couldn't tell the difference, then no, that's not my case.

Fine! For you having entered a plea guilty, you are sentenced to 30 minutes of licking a 9 volt battery and 2 years of supervised probation! Correction that works, brought to you by Bad Karma.  

A violation of probation will require you to step on a lego barefoot. 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Bad Karma

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Bad Karma said:

 

 

 

[Bad Karma]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

 

 

Dang! Well, you sure fixed my wagon! What am I supposed to say to THAT stuff? In the spirit to the line "He's an ANGRY ELF", you're a MEAN MORMON! 

[Blossom76]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I don't believe this.

Joseph Smith's polygamy is ACCOUNTED IN THE D&C.  We just had an entire year of  2017 Sunday School spent on the D&C.  So, I'm trying to imagine how this went... did you go to one woman in the ward and asked her, "Do you know that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?".  And then you went to another woman and on and on until you got the majority of them?  Or did you go to Relief Society and asked the entire class if they know Joseph Smith had more than one wife?  I mean, how exactly did you come to the realization that the women in your ward don't know that Joseph Smith had more than one wife?  Do these women attend Sunday School?  Are they new to the church?  Do they read scriptures?

 

I'm sorry but it's true, I'm not lying.  Again, I am very sincere in looking at the LDS faith and I am sick of being treated like I am not and now being called a liar.  And the insinuation that I would go around church behaving like a crazy person is very insulting.  And I have already explained how the conversation went In This Thread, so I would appreciate it next time, if you could actually read first before throwing condescending accusations at me.

And no I didn't say 'did you know Joseph Smith was polygamist'  It was in the third hour of church when the male and female members split off, relief society, so all the adult females members of the ward, including the lady heading the discussion, heard it and NO ONE agreed with me or at the very least said I was speaking truth.  These are faithful mormon women, most of whom have been in the church all their lives.

The discussion was political, Australia was starting to seriously consider gay marriage and the country was voting on it, we were talking about that (its actually legal here now as off a couple of days ago).  One of the women there mentioned that gay marriage would open the door to other 'disgusting marriage practices like polygamy' all I said was 'how can you think its disgusting when the prophet himself lived plural marriage' I was sticking up for Joseph Smith!  

Anyway I don't say much in church anymore because the ladies were not happy and some even muttered under their breath (I could hear them) that it was lies and I didn't know what I was talking about, that is was Brigham Young not Jospeh.  Then the subject was quickly changed and I didn't say anything for the rest of the time. I have also been treated differently since this happened, people are stand offish with me now and don't go out of their way to speak to me anymore.  In all honesty I feel very left out at church now and previous to this I was always very welcomed.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Blossom76

[estradling75]

When it comes to the Book of Mormon versions... usually the sticking points are the claims  " the most correct of any book on earth" and "Translated by the Gift and Power of God." 

However as with most of the "issues" that people have is because they take the statement out of context and place it in an entirely different context and then point out that it make no sense in the new context that it did not belong in in the first place...  Let me use the two phrases above as an example.

The most common out of context case is that they expect the work to be "Perfect"... So lets put them in context

Is the Book of Mormon the most correct Physics Book?  No.

Is the Book of Mormon the most correct Calculus Book?  No.

Is the Book of Mormon the most correct Use of the English Language Book?  Hahahahahah No.

So what Most correct kind of Book is it... well that is found in the same sentence "man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book "  that is it... that is the bounds and limits of Most Correctness.   Its still a bold claim, but it is much less they what many seem to think it demands.  Thus there is no need for the Book of Mormon to be without edits or changes based on that phrase alone when in proper context.

 

So now on to the Translation claims.  Many seem to take it as a declaration of Sola Scriptura.  God Breathed perfection that should never be altered.  The LDS are not Sola Scriptura  not for the Bible and Not for the Book of Mormon.  In fact we recognize many possible places the error can have creeped into the process.

First place the original source. Nephi, Mormon, Moroni and the other point out in the record that they are humans with flaws and that they make mistakes and that they write according to the limit of their own understanding.  They are good men, righteous men, writing what they understand to be true, but they are still human.  If we wanted to we could point to some errors/issues they had (I can think of three examples off the top of my head)

Then there is the dictation process.  There are several different accounts and there were a few different people who took the dictation from Joseph Smith as he translated.  Then there were the copies made of the original dictation, then there was the setting of the printing type... all these processes are labor intensive and demand a great attention to detail.  The people who did so were faithful and trusted but they were by no means perfect so errors could occur.  And if you have ever seen people parse down the scripture you know that grammar and punctuation, can completely change how a passage is understood.  Thus Joseph Smith was constantly correcting and clarifying as needed.  The church continues to do so even with the very latest version.  All this does not counter the fact that it was Translated by the Gift and Power of God.

When the statements are placed in the proper context the Book of Mormon passes with no problems...  Its only when the context is distorted that it appears to fail.

[bytebear]

It's unfortunate.  A lot of Mormons are very anti-polygamy, and don't want to compare Joseph (or Brigham for that matter) with the likes of Warren Jeffs, who's version of "plural marriage" is utterly corrupt and evil.  And I think Brigham gets a pass because 1) he was open about it, 2) he had children and cohabited with some of his wives, and 3) he was boisterous and larger than life.   But there is definitely a difference between the way Smith was sealed to women and how polygamy was practiced in Utah.   And that needs to be taken into consideration. 

As to the ladies in the church, well you ruffled some feathers in the hen house, but don't worry, there will always be a few who will be there for you to smooth things over.  We are a social church as much as a spiritual one, and if they see you are serious about being part of the community, which a ward really is, they will open up more to you.   Don't be afraid to speak up and don't stop going.

[NeedleinA]

25 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Don't be afraid to speak up and don't stop going.

Yes, this. Ask away and keep going to church.

Often the response one receives really isn't related at all to the 'question' or 'the comment', it is the tactfulness/delivery of said question/comment.
If I've come across as being put off in this thread (which I have been ), it has absolutely nothing to with @Blossom76's actual questions. It is all related to the delivery, the insinuations that accompany the questions. Be sincere, ask away, but perhaps drop the whole "deception" talk for now if one wants a more receptive audience. I feel this concept equally applies for both here and Relief Society.

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by NeedleinA

[estradling75]

When it comes to History there is a difference between something that is Historically true... and something that Historically Comprehensive.

For example the Book of Mormon claims to be Historically true, but it is not and does not claim to be Historically Comprehensive.  There is a lot of details and things that clearly must have happened in the 1000 or so years the Book of Mormon covers in 526 pages.  Clearly there was a lot of things that were Historically true that happened to the Nephites but since it did not fit the vision and purpose of the creation of the Book of Mormon they were not covered.  This does not mean that the Book of Mormon is lying about being Historically true... it does not mean that the Book of Mormon is being deceptive about its history by what it omits.  It simply means it did not fit to the message they were trying to convey.

No reason to think a church produced video is any different even when it claims to be historically true 

[Blossom76]

50 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Yes, this. Ask away and keep going to church.

Often the response one receives really isn't related at all to the 'question' or 'the comment', it is the tactfulness/delivery of said question/comment.
If I've come across as being put off in this thread (which I have been ), it has absolutely nothing to with @Blossom76's actual questions. It is all related to the delivery, the insinuations that accompany the questions. Be sincere, ask away, but perhaps drop the whole "deception" talk for now if one wants a more receptive audience. I feel this concept equally applies for both here and Relief Society.

 

Please believe me when I say that I mean absolutely NO offence at all to you @NeedleinA - but just to be clear I NEVER used the word deception in church to anyone, and I didn't use it in this thread until after I was insulted, attacked (both myself AND my husband) and basically called a liar.  I am not going to remain 'tactful' to an audience who is horrible towards me, rude and downright nasty.

This is the discussion that took place in relief society, which I have already posted in this thread, twice - not that I have to justify myself to anyone here.

"The discussion was political, Australia was starting to seriously consider gay marriage and the country was voting on it, we were talking about that (its actually legal here now as off a couple of days ago).  One of the women there mentioned that gay marriage would open the door to other 'disgusting marriage practices like polygamy' all I said was 'how can you think its disgusting when the prophet himself lived plural marriage' I was sticking up for Joseph Smith!  

Anyway I don't say much in church anymore because the ladies were not happy and some even muttered under their breath (I could hear them) that it was lies and I didn't know what I was talking about, that is was Brigham Young not Jospeh.  Then the subject was quickly changed and I didn't say anything for the rest of the time. I have also been treated differently since this happened, people are stand offish with me now and don't go out of their way to speak to me anymore.  In all honesty I feel very left out at church now and previous to this I was always very welcomed.

[Grunt]

4 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

  I am not going to remain 'tactful' to an audience who is horrible towards me, rude and downright nasty.

 

 

Those are the times I try hardest to be "tactful".  It's not easy and I fail often.

[Blossom76]

12 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Those are the times I try hardest to be "tactful".  It's not easy and I fail often.

I can relate Grunt, but in all honesty there is no excuse for the way I have been treated here.

[Grunt]

6 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I can relate Grunt, but in all honesty there is no excuse for the way I have been treated here.

I agree.  I just see both sides.  

[Blossom76]

22 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I agree.  I just see both sides.  

Their side appears to be - assume the worst, get super defensive and personally attack people for asking valid questions.  

The worst thing is I am only seeking God and truth.  I started questioning my own faith, was given a Book of Mormon and started seriously considering that maybe the LDS church is the church acting with the authority of Jesus and not the Catholic Church as I was raised to believe.  I can tell you right now, if this is an indication of how faithful active LDS members behave, then I seriously doubt I will want anything to do with it.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Their side appears to be - assume the worst, get super defensive and personally attack people for asking valid questions.  

The worst thing is I am only seeking God and truth.  I started questioning my own faith, was given a Book of Mormon and started seriously considering that maybe the LDS church is the church acting with the authority of Jesus and not the Catholic Church as I was raised to believe.  I can tell you right now, if this is an indication of how faithful active LDS members behave, then I seriously doubt I will want anything to do with it.

Sure, but to be perfectly honest I initially took a few of your posts the wrong way myself.  Maybe, as I suggested in an earlier post, step back and put yourself in their shoes for a minute.  Then everyone can take a deep breath and start again.