Original Book Of Mormon V 2.0

[estradling75]

23 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

So, for a little perspective (although @Blossom76 can correct me if this is irrelevant to her specific concerns), the Catholics have already gone through this debate. In the 5th century the Council of Ephesus met to debate whether it would be better in their liturgies to refer to Mary as Christotokos (mother of the Christ) instead of Theotokos (mother of God). What shook out was that the liturgy would maintain Theotokos, and that it had nuances that addressed many of the concerns (see the Theology section in the link) raised in this thread (does that mean Mary is the mother of God the Father? That Mary is the source of the divine nature of the hypostasis?)

So when Blossom reads in The Book of Mormon that Mary is the "mother of God", it doesn't bring in the confusion that a number of protestants (which was the majority of early converts - and probably even modern English-speaking converts) might have reading it. What's more, referring to Mary as the "mother of the Son of God" - deliberately changed from "mother of God" - can subconsciously place Mormons on the wrong side of the Nestorian debate. Not only that, but the change of verbiage was not done to our ceremonies but to the Word of God!

Again, Blossom can clarify if this is irrelevant to her concerns - if it is then we can all ignore this post (I almost have already). It sounds to me like @bytebear's question has changed her perspective (and addresses this issue as well). Who can clarify the meaning of scripture? If a Council can clarify the wording in a liturgy, surely a prophet can clarify scripture. If this resolves the issue I don't see a need to seek further resolutions.

Ahhh so if this is it.... then it is a Catholic-Protestant issue.  With her in the role of Catholic (naturally given her upbringing) and the LDS in the Role of Protestant (even though the Protestants don't agree with us we draw more heavily from that side then we do Catholic)

I was reaching the point of thinking I needed to ask if there was something in the about the Trinity that discouraged saying that Mary gave birth to the "Son of God"  Apparently for Catholics there is (If I am understanding correctly) and that is good thing to understand and for being able to further the discussion.  (Hey think I learned something new today too.. awesome)

Edited December 8, 2017 by estradling75

[Blossom76]

8 hours ago, estradling75 said:

So you are saying that if I watch a total of three hours of video it will tell me if you personally believe that Jesus is the Son of God?...   That seems like awful lot of wasted time for the answer that you could give in a few words. And given the confusion that surrounds the subject I am not convinced a simple video will fix it

Lets recap...  My understanding is that the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ the Son of God.  Or to simplify Mary gave birth to the Son of God.  I considered this a foundational belief that I shared with just about every other Christian out there.  Yet you seem to be doing your best to avoid answering a question that I think should be very basic.

So let make this a simple yes or no question.  Do you @Blossom76 believe that Mary gave birth to the Son of God?  Yes Or No?

I find this offensive, I was saying that you will not understand my perspective until you understand my understanding of the Trinity, you seemed to have a hard time with that so I was just trying to help you.

[Blossom76]

7 hours ago, estradling75 said:

You are focusing on the God part of Translated by the Gift and Power of God, and expecting the said translation to be basically sola scriptura.  This is a demand you would never make of any other Translation effort.

I most certainly do not believe or agree with Sola Scriptura, I was focussed on the fact that the wording was changed form God to Son of God, to me that made a big difference, which you wouldn't understand because you don't have my background or my understanding of the Trinity - that is why I posted those videos for you to watch, so you might be able to gain that understanding.

Mary gave birth to Jesus, Jesus is both the Son of God AND God AND Man - therefore I found changing the text an attempt to change the Divine Nature of Jesus, because the Trinity/Godhead means something completely different to you then it does to me.

Anyway this thread appears to be going in the same direction as it did last time, @bytebear helped me look at it differently so I'll not be participating in this thread anymore.

[estradling75]

10 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I find this offensive, I was saying that you will not understand my perspective until you understand my understanding of the Trinity, you seemed to have a hard time with that so I was just trying to help you.

I am not trying to be offensive... I am trying to understand why you have issues with these verses.  And I am asking you to explain your understanding of the Trinity as it directly relates to the verses in question.

Now it is possible that @mordorbund got it... or at least got close.  If so then great... if not then I really want to know why you seem to get offended by being asked a simple question by someone trying to understand you

[estradling75]

51 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I most certainly do not believe or agree with Sola Scriptura, I was focussed on the fact that the wording was changed form God to Son of God, to me that made a big difference, which you wouldn't understand because you don't have my background or my understanding of the Trinity - that is why I posted those videos for you to watch, so you might be able to gain that understanding.

Mary gave birth to Jesus, Jesus is both the Son of God AND God AND Man - therefore I found changing the text an attempt to change the Divine Nature of Jesus, because the Trinity/Godhead means something completely different to you then it does to me.

Anyway this thread appears to be going in the same direction as it did last time, @bytebear helped me look at it differently so I'll not be participating in this thread anymore.

Sounds like you are getting frustrated...  Discussions on Trinity can have that effect, so lets drop trying to go into details of your understanding of the Trinity and try this from a higher level.

You have repeatedly stated words have meaning this is of course correct.  But the meaning of words (like for Trinity) are given their meaning by the authority of the Respective Church. Thus the Catholic meanings apply and have value for Catholic... However other churches might have different meaning for such terms.  Each of these organizations of course claim that their meanings are correct and of God.  The LDS church is part of this group... we have words... and those words have meaning... and we think these meanings are correct and of God.

With these verses you appear to me trying to verify the claims of the LDS church... by forcing the LDS use of terms into Catholic definitions.   That is not ever going to work.  You have to vet the claims of truthfulness and then alter your understanding of the meaning to match those of organization you determine to be true

 

[bytebear]

It's one thing to ask for understanding on the changed wording of the Book of Mormon.  It's another to try to convince someone who's entire religious understanding of the Trinity is being challenged.  I don't think Blossom is trying to argue the point.  It's just a lot for someone new to the LDS doctrine of the Godhead to grasp.  Just as I have a hard time understanding the Trinity.   So, let's stop trying to prove the point.  I think the point is made, and it will take time, study and the Holy Ghost to really understand the nuances.   In other words, give Blossom some room to study and understanding without chastising her for defending a position which is perfectly natural for her to have.

[askandanswer]

@Blossom76 you know from some of my previous posts that I respect what you are trying to do and admire you for it, and I continue to feel that way. I hope you will take the following comment in the spirit of care and concern with which it is given. I'm concerned that the concerns of you and your husband over some relatively minor differences between different editions of the Book of Mormon have some similarity to the behaviour that Christ condemned in Matthew 23:24

24  Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Are you not straining at a gnat? The bigger question is whether the Book of Mormon is true, and the most reliable answer to that question will come as a result of study, faith and prayer, and by a spiritual conviction rather than intellectual assent. 

I think there are only three questions that an investigator really needs to know the answer to before they get baptised. They are:

1. Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints God's one and only true church on the Earth?

2. Should I become a member of this church through baptism?

3. Do I understand that, and will I keep, the covenants and committments that will be expected of me?

If one receives an affirmative answer to the first two questions, then it makes no difference at all if one later finds out that according to the doctrine of the church, that squares are actually round, or 2+2=5, because you already know that it is the true church and the one that God wants you to join.

 

[SilentOne]

On 12/9/2017 at 1:41 PM, askandanswer said:

that squares are actually round,

 

 

[the Ogre]

I'm going to try something from a different angle other than to say I am not too concerned about the changes to the BoM text. It was something we discussed when I went to the Y in the early 90s and people are still getting hung up on it now. Especially people who are investigating, members who have doubts, or people who hate the church. Like everyone, I get doubts about hard questions. When I was a kid, I didn't understand the G-dhead v trinity stuff, but I decided to not panic and just kept working away at the problem and now that I'm older and much more educated about the subject of G-dhead v trinity, I don't get confused.

So. Textual errors. I don't get hung up on it, especially when they are corrections made by Joseph Smith himself. Why? JS was the original translator. A dictator of text is a bad understanding of what happened. Okay: I lived in Seoul for eight years and I was part of translation team for business and legal text from Korean into English. There were three of us: two very expert speakers of Korean and a copy editor who spoke sufficient Korean. I was the copy editor who toiled over the English texts to make sure they would work in English while ensuring the intent and meaning of the original Korean text remained intact.

The process took for ever and even when we declared a text to be as good as it could be, we often wished as a team we could go back to clarify problematic phrases or cultural inconsistencies as our experience and skill with Korean, English, and the subject matter improved. However none of us were prophets who received inspiration and regular updates from heaven regarding the texts we labored over. JS was. He translated the text at a time in his life when he was still a learner of the gospel and if he went back later to clarify a few points here and there, so what? I also keep in mind when Moroni says "And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire" (Moroni 8:17). Moroni was specifically discussing the translation of his and his father's life's work. Moroni was also very clear when he said "a man" and to me that man was Joseph Smith. The translation work of JS was amazing and a miracle considering his age, naivete, and educational lack. I am not about to condemn JS, but then I am not one of the three types of people I mention above: an investigator, a doubter, or an enemy of the church. I think, @blossom76 and all sincere investigators (and most doubters, too), are innocent of any crime against G-d and His prophet. 

I also think we can cut JS some slack and also cut the church some slack when the church went back in the eighties and corrected printer's errors and the occasional spelling error. The book is a translation after all. Not only is it a translation, it was translated into the most imperfect of ridiculous languages, English.

Don't get hung up, be patient, pray, meditate, research, ask questions, but absolutely do not jump to conclusions.

[warnerfranklin]

For a better understanding of “changes” to the Book of Mormon I highly recommend that you check out the Joseph Smith Papers. In one episode they spend a great deal of time talking about alleged changes.  They go very in-depth, more so than I can simply explain here. I listened to it on the Mormon Channel app under audio programs. There are about 100 episodes that covers church history from Joseph’s birth to the migration to Utah. It addresses many of the concerns, misunderstandings that people who aren’t LDS have about our faith. If your husband likes history I think he will find this program enlightening and entertaining?

[Suzie]

Blossom76, the following link deals specifically with your questions. Hope you find the link useful to your studies.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/13/2/S00012-51ba01c7722d112Bruening.pdf