Help Request

[Guest Ammon]

A nonmember has asked the following questions. Input please. Thanks.

1. If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).

2. If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)

3. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.)

4. If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)

5. Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).

6. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60).

[serapha]

Yes, ammon,

Those are good questions. Now, I see the notation of one question pertains to "before a revision".... John Tvedtnes writes that the earliest text of the book of mormon had the most "evidences" according the Hebraims, interchangeable prepositions, and compound prespositions, etc.. Why revise and make a book less perfect?

Ad my question to the list of questions, okay.

~serapha~

[Jason]

"1. If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision)."

The typical understanding today is that they become "pure' in spirit? Probably something like that.

"2. If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)"

Sandra's list of changes were mostly grammatical. (You know, comma changes, period changes, etc...) There are only a few significant alterations (Pure to White to Pure again) which makes the nearly 4000 changes seem a bit exaggerated.

"3. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.)"

The angel Nephi must have helped 'em. (Have you seen his Biceps?)

"4. If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)"

He wasn't a polygamist. (See the rest of D&C 132)

"5. Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13)."

Because agriculturally speaking, things have changed a wee bit since then. Besides, that's just dumb.

"6. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60)."

Because of wickedness. (That or shoddy construction. Personally, they should have followed Solomon's model of construction...)

"Why revise and make a book less perfect?"

I've got one word for ya: "Readability."

[Guest Starsky]

1. If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).

Because it wasn't referring to skin color, but spiritual purity. Just as your 'sins maybe as scarlet, but will be white as wool'.

2. If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)

The same reason the bible was put in the NIV. As time went along, difficulties of what certain passages were trying to say, arose.....so changes were made in the phrasing to simplify and clarify the correct meaning and interpretation. And we all know Moroni stated that if there were errors, they were the errors of men.....we and they are human after all. LOL

3. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.)

1 Ne. 3: 7

7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

Okay...there are stories of modern day where men have lifted huge cars off of victims because they were pumping so much adrenaline....why couldn't JS have had such an experience...not to mention the power of God to do whatever he was commanded to do.

4. If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)

When Monroni's mission is finished, he will become a God. All in good time.

5. Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).

Who says we ignore parts of the WofW? The part about the meat is stated in such a way, (commas in strange places etc...) as to leave one unsure as to what the real intent was....I have personally had revelation helping me to see what I need to do to be healthy, both spiritually and physically. I think that is the what we all have to do with the parts of the WofW or any other scripture which isn't laid out letter by letter at our feet.

6. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60).

LOL you're kidding right? LOL.... What righteous thing has ever endured in the face of evil's full rage? The essence of that blessing was 'Let'.

'Let' is a prayer, not a promise...

Have you not noticed that there are times when 'potential' isn't always the end result? Free will, evil, and numerous other 'elements' make some 'potentials' fade as the grass in winter. Consider the promise made to JS when he asked when the Lord would come. The Lord said that if JS lived to be 81 that the He would come then. But JS was killed...because of the 'evil' that raged in the hearts of so-called Christian church members hearts against the Mormons. So...given free will....the Lord couldn't come when JS turned 81...because evil changed the outcome potential for fulfillment.

[AFDaw]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 7 2004, 07:44 PM

A nonmember has asked the following questions.  Input please.  Thanks.

1. If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).

I'm sure there are others who should answer these questions; however...

The notation refers to the darkness as spirtual blindness...not necessarily skin color.

2. If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)

What are the original verses?

3. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.)

An angel showed Smith where the plates were and the question is how were they lifted? Isn't it conceivable that a messanger of God could have made the trip and the lifting easier?

4. If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)

I have a few questions first off. How do you know that those verses are referring to Moroni? Verse 15-17 basically says that those who do not marry (implies a sealed marriage) will not gain exaltation. Was Moroni married? Also, perhaps he's an angel until the resurrection?

5. Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).

I don't think that part is ignored, I just don't think everyone follows it to the T. The Word of Wisdom is a commandment, and just like all other commandments, we have the choice to follow it or not to. Read the verses again,

"12: Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving,; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

13: And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine."

Says they are to be used sparingly, and that it's pleasing unto the Lord that they're not used except winter, cold or famine. It doesn't forbid them. (at least that's my take...flame away)

6. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60)

I don't think it says that the house will stand forever and ever, just that Joseph and his seed will have a place in that house forever and ever. Is this like that Oliver Granger thing?

[AFDaw]

Man I was slow. When I replied, only Serapha had replied :)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 7 2004, 09:16 PM

1. If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).

Because it wasn't referring to skin color, but spiritual purity. Just as your 'sins maybe as scarlet, but will be white as wool'.

I think you guys need to read your Book of Mormon again. There is no doubt that the darkness or "blackness" also referred to their skin.

[AFDaw]

Originally posted by curvette+Apr 8 2004, 11:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Apr 8 2004, 11:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Starsky@Apr 7 2004, 09:16 PM

1. If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).

Because it wasn't referring to skin color, but spiritual purity. Just as your 'sins maybe as scarlet, but will be white as wool'.

I think you guys need to read your Book of Mormon again. There is no doubt that the darkness or "blackness" also referred to their skin.

Not in 2 Nephi 30:6, the darkness refers to spiritual darkness.

[Faerie]

5 And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; wherefore, they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers.

6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

How can you interpret that to mean skin color?

[Guest Ammon]

Here are the answers:

1. If the Book of Mormon is true, why do [Native Americans] fail to turn white when they become [members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).

"White" is figurative, not literal. It is synonymous with "pure." Just as the saying regarding sins being red as blood becoming white as snow means the filthy shall be made pure. It is not a reference to the actual skin color.

Except for a few technical corrections in spelling and the like, which clearly were the mistakes of men, all of the changes hark back to the original manuscripts and editing of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Such changes as the following are of special interest:

Speaking of the Lamanites, 2 Nephi 30:6 heretofore read: "Their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

Now it says: "They shall be a pure and a delightsome people." [2 Ne. 30:6]

Heretofore 1 Nephi 13:6 said: "I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the foundation of it."

Now it reads: "I saw the devil that he was the founder of it." [1 Ne. 13:6]

Second Nephi 29:4, which heretofore read, "Do they remember the travels, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews?" now reads, "Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews?" [2 Ne. 29:4] And so it goes.

(Bruce R. McConkie, "Come: Hear the Voice of the Lord," Ensign (Dec. 1985), p. 54.)

2. If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)

The changes, mostly pedantic, have been to correct the errors of men, not God or God's message. The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is true.

The History of Various Editions

Although Joseph Smith was the translator of the Book of Mormon, the spelling in the first edition was Oliver Cowdery's, and the punctuation was John H. Gilbert's.

Oliver described the time he spent as a scribe as "days never to be forgotten-to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude in this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the urim and thummim." (Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834, p. 14.)

To view the pages of the original manuscript that are still remaining is to be reassured that it is a dictated document.

The man responsible for punctuating the first edition of the Book of Mormon was John H. Gilbert, the non-Mormon typesetter who worked for E. B. Grandin, publisher of that edition. According to Gilbert, it was Hyrum Smith who brought the first twenty-four pages of the handwritten printer's manuscript to the publisher:

"He had it under his vest, and vest and coat closely buttoned over it. At night [Hyrum] came and got the manuscript, and with the same precaution carried it away. The next morning with the same watchfulness, he brought it again, and at night took it away. … On the second day-[Martin Harris] and [Hyrum] being in the office-I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with [Hyrum] a short time, and turned to me and said: 'The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written.'

"After working a few days, I said to [Hyrum] on his handing me the manuscript in the morning; 'Mr. Smith, if you would leave this manuscript with me, I would take it home with me at night and read and punctuate it.' His reply was, 'We are commanded not to leave it.' A few mornings after this, when [Hyrum] handed me the manuscript, he said to me: 'if you will give your word that this manuscript shall be returned to us when you get through with it, I will leave it with you.' … for two or three nights I took it home with me and read it, and punctuated it with a lead pencil.' " (In Wilford C. Wood, Joseph Smith Begins His Work, vol. 1, Salt Lake City: Wilford C. Wood, 1959.)

His effort resulted in somewhere between 30,000-35,000 additional punctuation marks.

Typesetting from the printer's manuscript (which was Oliver Cowdery's handwritten copy of the original manuscript) started in August of 1829. By March of 1830 the book was completed. But Joseph Smith had had little to do with the supervision of the printing for the first edition. In fact, he was reportedly in Grandin's shop only once for about fifteen or twenty minutes during that printing.

As soon as the first edition was out, readers began finding typographical, spelling, and grammatical errors. On 25 June 1833, Joseph wrote to printer W. W. Phelps, "As soon as we can get time, we will review the manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, after which they will be forwarded to you." (History of the Church, 1:363.)

With the help of Oliver Cowdery, the Prophet prepared the second (1837) edition. At this point, they made over one thousand corrections-most of them grammatical and added some minor clarifications. By this time, the Prophet, who had limited formal schooling, was learning the rudiments of Hebrew, and English grammar. (See History of the Church, 2:390, 474; 3:26.)

Both the 1840 and 1842 editions were carefully revised by Joseph Smith. By now, however, Oliver Cowdery had left the Church, taking the printer's manuscript with him.

As late as 15 January 1842 Joseph Smith was still making corrections himself. He recorded: "I commenced reading the Book of Mormon, at page 54, … (the previous pages having been corrected), for the purpose of correcting the stereotype plates of some errors which escaped notice in the first edition." (History of the Church, 4:494.)

Because the first European edition in English followed the 1837 edition, it did not contain some of these changes made by Joseph Smith. So later American editions, which were taken from the first European edition, perpetuated these omissions.

John Taylor assigned Orson Pratt to prepare a new edition of the book in 1879. Elder Pratt redivided the chapters (increasing them from 114 to 239)-and added verse numbers and references.

After the turn of the century, President Heber J. Grant called James E. Talmage to prepare a new edition. The 1920 edition included double-column pages, revised references, a pronouncing vocabulary, an index, and many grammatical improvements.

And, most recently, the 1981 edition was prepared under the supervision of the Scriptures Publication Committee, under direction of the First Presidency.

American English Grammar and Spelling in 1829

Before we can understand why many of these corrections have been necessary, we must know that American English spelling in 1829 was not yet standardized.

Interestingly, the spelling problems in the Book of Mormon paralleled earlier kinds of spelling changes in the English Bible. For example, consider the word sins, which had been spelled synnes and became sinnes in the 1611 King James Version; or majesty, which had been maiestye and became maiestie, in that same first edition; or spirits, which had earlier been spretes and spirites.

The first nine verses of Hebrews chapter one in the 1611 edition include such spellings as diuers, dayes, sonne, heire, brightnesse, R and oyle.

As late as 1828, American lexicographer Noah Webster noted that five dictionaries were available to him. Examples from four of those dictionaries show the variations in spellings commonly accepted at the time Oliver was taking dictation from the Prophet:

Webster's own American Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1828; and, if it was available to Oliver Cowdery, that would add one more to the other five. Small wonder, then, that Oliver's spelling would seem creative to the modern reader.

About this time, many people in the United States were pressing for a variety of English that would be uniquely American.

Noah Webster led this movement, proposing many new rules for American spellings, seven of which are still in use. As a result of Webster's innovations, for example, Americans changed the British spelling of theatre to theater. Not all of the spellings he suggested were accepted, however (for example, ake, beleeve, iz, hed, and iland). But Webster's recommendations reveal a tendency common at the time to spell words phonetically, or as they sound.

Some of Oliver's more famous contemporaries spelled phonetically. Writer Nathaniel Hawthorne, for example, wrote: ancles, cieling, cloathing, and musquito. And President Andrew Johnson's spelling included whent, allways, desid, anxus, and immaganable. It is not surprising, then, that many words in the Book of Mormon would need to be corrected as American English spelling became more uniform later in the nineteenth century.

Major Changes in the Various Editions

We also need to remember that Oliver Cowdery wrote what he heard. Many of the words-Nephite and Lamanite names, for example-would have been unfamiliar to Oliver. Joseph apparently had to correct some of these proper nouns. Consider, too, that the two distinct words strait and straight would sound exactly the same as Joseph dictated it. But Oliver spelled both words straight every time. In ten places, straight had to be corrected to read strait.

Oliver's handwriting also presented a special challenge to the typesetter, His R (which looks like a 'Palmer' R) and his N are difficult to distinguish, as are his B and L. So in the first edition, Gadianton was mislabeled "the nobler," rather than "the robber." In a similar way, the typesetter apparently mistook Oliver's RM as UN. So in 1 Nephi 13 [1 Ne. 13], where the original manuscript read formation, the typesetter misread founation. Then, thinking the letter d had been left out, he supplied it. In the 1981 edition, foundation has been corrected back to read formation, as originally intended.

Many other spelling errors appear to have been strictly typographical for example, aaswer, amog, bacause, daghter, mnltitude, theit, and uttered.

Another kind of common copying error occurred when the typesetter's eye momentarily left the page. Then, when he looked back, he would pick up the text at a different spot where the wording was very similar. The most significant example of this is the dropping of thirty-five words in Alma 32:30, where the words seed, good, sprouteth, beginneth, and grow are common to two parts of the verse.

Some of the words we thought Oliver Cowdery misspelled are actually legitimate variants found in the venerable Oxford English Dictionary. Consider these: adhear, adultry, babtized, befal, burthensome, centre, condescention, devlish, fraid, phrensied, and sepulcher.

But the most common changes have not been in spelling, but in grammar. For example, there have been 891 changes of which to who, 177 changes of exceeding to exceedingly. Many changes involve a change in number or tense of verbs. Was was changed to were 162 times, is to are 74 times, and done to did 10 times.

A few other changes involving meaning appear to be more significant. In 2 Nephi 30:6 [2 Ne. 30:6], white appeared in the 1830 and 1837 editions. Joseph changed this word to pure in the 1840 edition. But later American editions did not show this change because they had followed the first European and 1837 editions. This correction by the Prophet has finally been restored in the 1981 edition.

In Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1, the first edition had "Benjamin" where the name of Mosiah now appears. In fact, King Benjamin would not likely have still been living in the historical period described by these verses. In the 1837 edition, the Prophet Joseph made this correction.

We can only speculate about the cause of this error. Book of Mormon scholar Sidney B. Sperry has posed this interesting question: "Was it an inadvertent slip of the tongue on the part of Joseph Smith as he dictated his translation to Oliver Cowdery, or did he translate correctly an original error on the part of Mormon, the abridger of the Book of Mormon? (The Problems of the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964, p. 203.)

Over the years, a few hundred deletions have also been made, primarily to improve the book grammatically. The most commonly eliminated have been the words that (188 times), the (48 times), it came to pass (46 times), a and and (40 times), and had (29 times).

Additions have been less numerous, probably less than one hundred. For example, of was added 12 times, and, is, and the 7 times. Some additions simply result from rearranging parts of a sentence or returning words inadvertently dropped in earlier editions. These are not "true" additions.

In a few places, however, Joseph Smith did intentionally add to the text to clarify a point. An illustration of this is the added words the son of in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32 [1 Ne. 11:21, 32], and 13:40 [1 Ne. 13:40]. The text would be correct with or without the additional words, but the addition helps the reader avoid misunderstanding.

The Concept of Correctness

Understanding the nature of the thousands of small changes in the Book of Mormon may be helpful and interesting. In reality, though, the kind of stylistic accuracy achieved by these changes has little to do with what Joseph meant when he called the Book of Mormon the "most correct of any book on earth." (History of the Church, 4:461.) His concept of correctness had nothing to do with accepted standards of grammar, spelling, or punctuation.

Looking at one definition of the word correct as accepted during Joseph Smith's day may be enlightening. Webster's 1828 dictionary defines correct as being, "literally, set right, or made straight. Hence, right: conformable to truth, rectitude or propriety, or conformable to a just standard. … Correct manners correspond with the rules of morality and received notions of decorum … correct principles coincide with the truth."

According to this concept, the Book of Mormon certainly meets the test of correctness, for its principles coincide with truth. And, as Joseph Smith himself explained, the ultimate test of its correctness is in the lives of those who use its principles in their lives. Indeed, he promised that we can "get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, 4:461.)

(George Horton, "Understanding Textual Changes in The Book of Mormon," Ensign (Dec. 1983), p. 25.)

3. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". (See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.)

I don't know that the witnesses lifted them "so easily." They handled and viewed them. Further, assuming your facts are accurate, assuming that it was pure gold and not a lighter gold alloy, I am 5'11", 240lbs., and very out of shape, but I can lift 230 lbs. In fact, in a fireman's carry, I can move man at that weight for quite some distance. Joseph Smith was something like 6'4" and in top shape. No problem.

4. If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)

We've been through this before, many times. First, the official doctrine does not state that we are going to become Gods with our own planets, as I've repeatedly noted. It says we have the chance to one day become like God. That one day is likely millions of years away… to be like God! Moroni died just 1,600 years ago. Give him time.

5. Why do [members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).

Members should abide by these scriptures, however, the scriptures do not FORBID as you indicate; the Lord says it is pleasing to Him for us to do the above; such is not a commandment, but an advisement. Members have their agency.

6. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60).

God tells us that when we obey His commandments, He is bound to follow through with His promises to us, but when we do not obey, we have no promise. Joseph Smith died, perhaps after having done something wrong such as Moses did in breaking open the rock, and Joseph's seed, to which the building was promised, feel into rebellion against The Church, eliminating the promise.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

A note on corrections to the Book of Mormon: Interestingly, the Book of Mormon still preserves the archaic spelling "cimeter" for a curved sword or knife. The spelling "scimitar" has almost entirely replaced the old spelling. (Its last holdout seems to be in table cutlery, where a curved carving knife is called a cimeter.)

[Guest Starsky]

So.....you really didn't need our help? Whats the deal...and ego trip? I'm glad I could help pay for such an important trip...LOL

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 8 2004, 02:25 PM

So.....you really didn't need our help? Whats the deal...and ego trip? I'm glad I could help pay for such an important trip...LOL

No. I needed it, but you guys, for the most part, let me down... so I did a ton of research instead of working.

[Faerie]

[Jason]

"No. I needed it, but you guys, for the most part, let me down... so I did a ton of research instead of working."

A real class act, ammon.

[srm]

Ammon said,

3. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.)

Then replied to his own question,

I don't know that the witnesses lifted them "so easily." They handled and viewed them. Further, assuming your facts are accurate, assuming that it was pure gold and not a lighter gold alloy, I am 5'11", 240lbs., and very out of shape, but I can lift 230 lbs. In fact, in a fireman's carry, I can move man at that weight for quite some distance. Joseph Smith was something like 6'4" and in top shape. No problem.

The anti-mormons are incorrect about the about the weight. The estimates of 230 lbs are of a solid block of gold. it seems that the plates were neither a solid block...nor (probably) solid gold. It most likely was an alloy. The estimated weight of the plates was about 60 lbs. I've not seen anywhere where it says that they were easily lifted. Btw...although Joseoph was big and strong...he was not 6'4" (William was, if I recall)...but was 6 foot.

[AFDaw]

I was talking to my dad about that (the weight of the plates) and he said that they were about 70lbs. Then he jogged my memory of one day at a Super Saturday, our Stake's CES had a replica of the Gold Plates (the entire thing) and asked a guy to carry them around the church bldg on the outside. So a 17yr old boy carried them around the outside of the Stake Center. Granted he didn't do it with the greatest of ease, but he still did it.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Faerie@Apr 8 2004, 12:08 PM

How can you interpret that to mean skin color?

I'm not interpreting that particular scripture. They didn't change all of the "white and delightsome" passages to "pure and delightsome."

2 Nephi 5: 21, 22:

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a SKIN of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

[Guest Starsky]

It is both. Just as Cain was given a 'mark' so has many people been given marks.....but I have yet to see any of these marks be removed for any cause....including repentence and baptism...

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 7 2004, 07:44 PM

A nonmember has asked the following questions.  Input please.  Thanks.

1. If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).

2. If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)

3. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.)

4. If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)

5. Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).

6. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60).

Ammon--you will notice that the answer to most of these is the old standby "It doesn't mean what it said" . IOW, if it creates a problem or contradiction, then it wasn't "meant to be taken literally". If a literal meaning supports our beliefs, it stays literal. If a literal interpretations causes us problems, we then change the literal to poetic or figurative.

Try to get it through your head, there is NO question, problem or even blatant contradiction that can not be smoothed over with either the "it's doesn't mean what it says" OR the old and reliable "God can do anything he wants". That last one will win ALL arguments at ALL times. Afterall, we can't prove or know what God REALLY wants, so who can contradict that one?

Opps, I forgot one more: If our beliefs are supported by modern science, then "look how inspired we are". If our beliefs are contradicted by science, then "well, what does science know?They have been wrong in the past"

You see, WE can NEVER lose a religious argument. Our beliefs can NEVER be proven wrong. We are RIGHT, ALWAYS.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 9 2004, 03:36 PM

It is both. Just as Cain was given a 'mark' so has many people been given marks.....but I have yet to see any of these marks be removed for any cause....including repentence and baptism...

Starsky--given a mark by whom? You actually take this stuff literally? You actually believe in a God that goes around "spitting" on people he doesn't somehow approve of by splashing some extra melanin on them?

You know we all have the SAME exact skin pigment in our skins. It's the SAME protein, just a few different genes governing how MUCH our skin will produce. Those people whose ancestors lived near the equator evolved genes that enhanced the production of melanin in a natural selective process which favored the survival of people who could resist getting SKIN CANCER. No need for this convoluted and full-of-contradictions religious explanation.

Save theological doctrine for the atonement--leave skin color to the scientists.

Whoever was writing Genesis was clearly unacquainted with what we know about the actual BENEFIT of larger amounts of melanin. By the way, do you know who even WROTE Genesis? That's right, now one knows. So how do you justify such a literal reading of it (God marked Cain)---just an old Jewish fairy tale, sister! Do we really need it?

I think the Church could survive just fine without taking much of Genesis literally, and we wouldn't look like such scientific neanderthals.

[serapha]

Ammon--you will notice that the answer to most of these is the old standby "It doesn't mean what it said" . IOW, if it creates a problem or contradiction, then it wasn't "meant to be taken literally". If a literal meaning supports our beliefs, it stays literal. If a literal interpretations causes us problems, we then change the literal to poetic or figurative.

Try to get it through your head, there is NO question, problem or even blatant contradiction that can not be smoothed over with either the "it's doesn't mean what it says"  OR the old and reliable "God can do anything he wants". That last one will win ALL arguments at ALL times. Afterall, we can't prove or know what God REALLY wants, so who can contradict that one?

Opps, I forgot one more:  If our beliefs are supported by modern science, then "look how inspired we are".  If our beliefs are contradicted by science, then "well, what does science know?They have been wrong in the past"

You see, WE can NEVER lose a religious argument. Our beliefs can NEVER be proven wrong. We are RIGHT, ALWAYS.

Hi there!

Concise is always good, paraphrased in four words.

"pick and choose method"

~serapha~

[Outshined]

These questions are from the old "42 questions" list anti's pose to stump members. Also published verbatim by CARM, and in an old booklet called "Ask Your Bishop".

SHIELDS has posted answers to some of these HERE

AND.....

I found a more focused answer page for these very questions HERE

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Apr 9 2004, 04:00 PM

I think the Church could survive just fine without taking much of Genesis literally, and we wouldn't look like such scientific neanderthals.

Thank you Cal. As far as I know, LDS are the main ones who believe (or believed) that the mark of Cain was a black skin. The Bible never describes it as such. Some theologians even thought it might have been horns (real scientific, huh?)

And I completely agree with you. Skin color is a complete non issue. Culture is the main thing that divides human beings (religion being a primary barrier.) All humans, in every inch of the planet, are remarkably similar. Whether we like it or not, we are truly one family.

[Outshined]

I was raised Baptist, and was taught that the mark was black skin.