Original Book Of Mormon V 2.0

[mirkwood]

Let's try and start this again from square one.  @Blossom76 has a question.  I'm going to repost it below and let's try and start this conversation over, with some perspective on both sides of this as to how actions are being perceived by others.

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by mirkwood

[mirkwood]

Here is @Blossom76 question:

 

Quote

Hi all, as a lot of you know my very Catholic husband has agreed to read the Book of Mormon!  He ordered one and it arrived the other day (its super pretty).  He said if Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture then he will read the text that he dictated.  I didn't really understand what he meant.

Now that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is here I understand.  It is very different, the text is places is very different.  The Book of Mormon used by the LDS Church today is not the same Book of Mormon Joseph Smith translated - and its not just spelling and grammar differences, I'm talking doctrinal differences in the text.

So my question is, if the Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written by Joseph Smith a true prophet of God then why isn't the original text that Joseph Smith dictated used by the LDS Church?

 

[zil]

Here's the FairMormon link again:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes

[zil]

And here are some more useful links from the original thread:

 http://www.josephsmithpapers.org 

Quote

By the way, for serious scholars, we have the life's work of a guy named Royal Skousen, PhD in linguistics, who began a landmark work in 1988 - Compiling every single change to every single printing in existence.

http://criticaltext.byustudies.byu.edu/about

That last one is quoting @NeuroTypical.

[Guest]

I recommend the fairlds article.  My understanding is the changes are largely typographical.  Remember, the original manuscript had no punctuation - that was added by the printer, and was refined over time.

The Book of Mormon never claims to be flawless.  It is a record made by men, told from their perspective, who are by nature flawed.  (I do believe all of the doctrine and stories in the BOM to be true, but have no problem if inspired prophets changed an occasional word to clarify the meanings of scripture for an 1830s audience to better understand). The BOM DOES say you can draw closer to Christ by reading it than any other book.  This claim is actually true.

Edited December 8, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Blossom76]

Thank you, I really like and trust fairmormon.com so I will spend a lot of time on there regarding this question, and I defiantly want to read the Joseph Smith papers.  The changes do bother me and I really want to make peace with them so I can move forward in my studies.

[NeedleinA]

 

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank you, I really like and trust fairmormon.com so I will spend a lot of time on there regarding this question, and I defiantly want to read the Joseph Smith papers.  The changes do bother me and I really want to make peace with them so I can move forward in my studies.

Which Changes are currently bothering you?

[Midwest LDS]

I was thinking about your questions when these verses came to mind @Blossom76 so I decided to post them. This is in Ether 12:23-25

"23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;
            24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.
            25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words."

This particular section is Moroni speaking as he is abridging the Jaredite plates he included in the Book of Mormon. Even the ancients were worried their words weren't clear enough because of their own weaknesses. The Lord goes on to comfort him on the matter, but I've pictured the same thing happening to the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible. Imagine how difficult it is to describe the wonders of heaven in mortal words! I reccomend this chapter for a lot of reasons, but I know you've had questions about multiple translations so I thought I'd post it for you.

[Blossom76]

@estradling75 The God to Son of God ones, they are the only ones I know of, they are all I have seen in my studies.  To me is it is like the Book of Mormon supported the mainstream version of the trinity and then when the changes were made, it took that support away.  If it doesn't matter in LDS theology then I don't see why the changes were necessary, if Joseph dictated God then I don't see why it would need to be changed to Son of God, if the translation was divinely inspired then I don't think it should be changed.

There is a big difference to calling Jesus God and then calling him the Son of God, to me it changes the status and nature of Christ. 

It might not seem like a big deal to you but to me it is a really big deal.  I am trying to understand the LDS viewpoint of it as best I can and  I will continue to read the links given and pray about it.  I don't want to offend anyone but this is where I am right now.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Blossom76

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

@estradling75 The God to Son of God ones, they are the only ones I know of, they are all I have seen in my studies.  To me is it is like the Book of Mormon supported the mainstream version of the trinity and then when the changes were made, it took that support away.  If it doesn't matter in LDS theology then I don't see why the changes were necessary, if Joseph dictated God then I don't see why it would need to be changed to Son of God, if the translation was divinely inspired then I don't think it should be changed.

There is a big difference to calling Jesus God and then calling him the Son of God, to me it changes the status and nature of Christ. 

It might not seem like a big deal to you but to me it is a really big deal.  I am trying to understand the LDS viewpoint of it as best I can and  I will continue to read the links given and pray about it.  I don't want to offend anyone but this is where I am right now.

I guess I still do not understand... The context of those verses is a vision given to Nephi about the Virgin Mary.  Every Christan I know of would proclaim that May gave birth to the only Begotten Son of God.  Given this context is should be plainly clear that Nephi is talking about the Son of God.  So why does Joseph Smith correction to make this explicit bother you?  I guess I am not understanding what Trinitarian context you are trying to enforce on Joseph Smith and Nephi

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

I guess I still do not understand... The context of those verses is a vision given to Nephi about the Virgin Mary.  Every Christan I know of would proclaim that May gave birth to the only Begotten Son of God.  Given this context is should be plainly clear that Nephi is talking about the Son of God.  So why does Joseph Smith correction to make this explicit bother you?  I guess I am not understanding what Trinitarian context you are trying to enforce on Joseph Smith and Nephi

Because my understanding of the trinity/Godhead and your understanding are two very different things due to our different backgrounds, the changes bother me because before they were changed they support the mainstream christian view of the Godhead/trinity and after they are more supportive of the LDS view of the Godhead/trinity.

I language may be the same but I am very quickly discovering that the meaning of the words are very different - and it bothers me.

[Midwest LDS]

I think I understand where you are coming from @Blossom76. If you just look at the Book of Mormon without anything else, I can see why you would see some Trinitarian notions. We always look at these verses through the lens of Joseph Smith's first vision though. We know that God the Father and Jesus Christ are seperate beings due to that vision and, since the Book of Mormon was translated after the First Vision, that verse would have been understood by Latter Day Saints to refer specifically to the Son of God at the time, and Joseph Smith was inspired to clarify that at a later date, hence why the difference is unimportant to us.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Because my understanding of the trinity/Godhead and your understanding are two very different things due to our different backgrounds, the changes bother me because before they were changed they support the mainstream christian view of the Godhead/trinity and after they are more supportive of the LDS view of the Godhead/trinity.

I language may be the same but I am very quickly discovering that the meaning of the words are very different - and it bothers me.

Wait wait..  You are saying that the Mainstream Christian view is that the virgin Mary gave birth to God the Father?  I am getting more and more confused

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

Wait wait..  You are saying that the Mainstream Christian view is that the virgin Mary gave birth to God the Father?  I am getting more and more confused

I am saying that the trinity means something completely different to mainstream christians than it does to an LDS member,  and the changes that were made to the Book of Mormon bother me because of MY understanding of the trinity.

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

I am saying that the trinity means something completely different to mainstream christians than it does to an LDS member,  and the changes that were made to the Book of Mormon bother me because of MY understanding of the trinity.

So lets be very clear... Who do you think the Virgin Mary gave birth too?

[NeedleinA]

7 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

We always look at these verses through the lens of Joseph Smith's first vision though.

@Midwest LDS beat me to it, but yes, ^^^^ this. The First Vision helps in understanding this.

[Jane_Doe]

29 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

@estradling75 The God to Son of God ones, they are the only ones I know of, they are all I have seen in my studies.  To me is it is like the Book of Mormon supported the mainstream version of the trinity and then when the changes were made, it took that support away.  If it doesn't matter in LDS theology then I don't see why the changes were necessary, if Joseph dictated God then I don't see why it would need to be changed to Son of God, if the translation was divinely inspired then I don't think it should be changed.

There is a big difference to calling Jesus God and then calling him the Son of God, to me it changes the status and nature of Christ. 

It might not seem like a big deal to you but to me it is a really big deal.  I am trying to understand the LDS viewpoint of it as best I can and  I will continue to read the links given and pray about it.  I don't want to offend anyone but this is where I am right now.

God (through His prophets) helps clarify out understanding of the Gospel.  Sometimes things can be are confusing (such as the confusion you're feeling right now), and a little clarification from God eliminates the confusion.  That's the purpose of why God clarifies- to help us humans understand.  The theology (properly understood) is always the same. 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[bytebear]

I will repeat my statements from the other thread.  The change reflects a change from an Old Testament understanding of God, to a New Testament understanding of God/Trinity.

[bytebear]

And, you are right, the LDS view of the Godhead and the very nature of God is different than the Trinity, and traditional Christianity.   That doesn't make the LDS view wrong, however.

[Blossom76]

13 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So lets be very clear... Who do you think the Virgin Mary gave birth too?

She gave birth to Jesus, it is the NATURE of Jesus that is the issue here, you will not understand if you do not understand MY understanding of the Trinity, here are a couple of videos so you can get an idea of where I am coming from when I say Trinity.

 

[Blossom76]

5 minutes ago, bytebear said:

And, you are right, the LDS view of the Godhead and the very nature of God is different than the Trinity, and traditional Christianity.   That doesn't make the LDS view wrong, however.

I am not saying that it does, I am having difficulty making it fit in my head and the changes made to the Book of Mormon do not help that at all.

[zil]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

The BOM DOES say you can draw closer to Christ by reading it than any other book.

Actually, it's by abiding by its precepts, not just reading.

39 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

@estradling75 The God to Son of God ones, they are the only ones I know of, they are all I have seen in my studies.  To me is it is like the Book of Mormon supported the mainstream version of the trinity and then when the changes were made, it took that support away.

As mentioned above, Joseph Smith's experience which started everything "Mormon" was a vision in which he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate beings, exalted men, as depicted in the picture someone posted.  Before Joseph Smith ever heard of the Book of Mormon, he knew that the members of the Godhead were three distinct beings.  There never was any support for the trinity by Joseph Smith nor by the Book of Mormon nor by the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I recognize that this may make learning about and understanding the Church harder, but it will be easier if you simply accept that these are facts, regardless of whether they're uncomfortable facts, and don't look for something that isn't there.

39 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

If it doesn't matter in LDS theology then I don't see why the changes were necessary, if Joseph dictated God then I don't see why it would need to be changed to Son of God, if the translation was divinely inspired then I don't think it should be changed.

Joseph Smith understood all along that the word he translated as "God" (which was probably the word used by the Nephites who wrote the record) meant Jesus Christ (ETA: This is assumption on my part, but I'm 99.99% certain it is a correct assumption).  He probably changed it because others around him were mistaking the word to mean God the Father, and he didn't want them to make that mistake.  The FairMormon site has articles about the translation process - I think the Joseph Smith Papers project does too - please review them.  People have their own ideas about how the translation ought to have been (as you clearly do - pretty much everyone does - the mind automatically fills in gaps with assumption), but that doesn't mean our ideas are right, nor that some other process cannot be just as divine as what we imagine.

Edited December 8, 2017 by zil

[Blossom76]

7 minutes ago, bytebear said:

I will repeat my statements from the other thread.  The change reflects a change from an Old Testament understanding of God, to a New Testament understanding of God/Trinity.

Thank you I feel like I am having to repeat myself too  

[bytebear]

These are all new concepts.  The missionaries job is to teach investigators how to find answers through the spirit.