Evangelical Christian has nice things to say about us


Sunday21
 Share

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, GaleG said:

Are those outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still
viewed as belonging to the church of the devil (1 Nephi 14:10)?  If no, is
there a video for that apology?

Thank you,

Gale

1 Nephi 14:10 isn't referring to the literal pew/church a person sits in.  Rather it is a symbolism for those that choose to follow Christ or the Devil-- a man can only serve one master.

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GaleG said:

Are those outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still
viewed as belonging to the church of the devil (1 Nephi 14:10)?  If no, is
there a video for that apology?

Thank you,

Gale

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GaleG said:

Are those outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still
viewed as belonging to the church of the devil (1 Nephi 14:10)?  If no, is
there a video for that apology?

Thank you,

Gale

I guess I missed it. GaleG continues to be a member of this forum—why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

1 Nephi 14:10 isn't referring to the literal pew/church a person sits in.  Rather it is a symbolism for those that choose to follow Christ or the Devil-- a man can only serve one master.

Indeed.  What does a 6th century BC Jew like Nephi know about “churches”, anyways?  It’s still debated as to whether synagogues had even been invented yet.  

The word “church” may have been the nearest 19th century AD equivalent to what Nephi saw, but it’s still probably light years away from what Nephi actually envisioned.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Indeed.  What does a 6th century BC Jew like Nephi know about “churches”, anyways?  It’s still debated as to whether synagogues had even been invented yet.  

The word “church” may have been the nearest 19th century AD equivalent to what Nephi saw, but it’s still probably light years away from what Nephi actually envisioned.  

This may explain ‘the horses’. Imagine translating complex material quickly. You envision a lama pulling a cart. You have never seen a lama so ‘horse’. Joesph Smith probably did not have an extensive vocabulary at point in his life nor much experience in deciphering complex word problems. I wonder if he owned a scrabble board or similar? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

This may explain ‘the horses’. Imagine translating complex material quickly. You envision a lama pulling a cart. You have never seen a lama so ‘horse’. Joesph Smith probably did not have an extensive vocabulary at point in his life nor much experience in deciphering complex word problems. I wonder if he owned a scrabble board or similar? 

17 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

 

But the words were given to Joseph in English. Personally, I find it probable that God talk to us according to our understanding and language as the scriptures say. If the word for the Lord happened to be quetzalcoatl for example, it probably would appear as "Jesus Christ" instead since it could confuse the modern reader (but that's just speculation)

 

Regarding church of the devil... Church is just a word for congregation or gathering of people... I doubt that any Christian would disagree with that you either belong to God or the devil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is another incredible video. Brad Wilcox and an evangelical have and incredible discussion. Though I’m not a fan of Bro. Wilcox’s bombardment of platitudes, he does explain things in an incredible way. His responses are most always incredible.

 

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Do you have a source for this? I thought that Joesph was ‘translating’ which to me means from one language to another. 

@Nordic saint      From Gospel Library, Church History Topics

The manuscript Joseph Smith dictated to Oliver Cowdery and others is known today as the original manuscript, about 28 percent of which still survives. This manuscript corroborates Joseph’s statements that he dictated the text from another language within a short time frame. For example, it includes errors that suggest the scribe heard words incorrectly rather than misread words copied from another manuscript. In addition, some grammatical constructions more characteristic of Near Eastern languages than English appear in the original manuscript, suggesting the base language of the translation was not English.

Edited by Sunday21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Do you have a source for this? I thought that Joesph was ‘translating’ which to me means from one language to another. 

Absolutely 🙂 here it is:

“The way it was done was thus: Joseph would place the seer-stone in a deep hat, and placing his face close to it, would see, not the stone, but what appeared like an oblong piece of parchment, on which the hieroglyphics would appear, and also the translation in the English language, all appearing in bright luminous letters. Joseph would then read it to Oliver, who would write it down as spoken. Sometimes Joseph could not pronounce  the words correctly, having had but little education; and if by any means a  mistake was made in the copy, the luminous writing would remain until it was corrected. It sometimes took Oliver several trials to get the right letters to spell correctly some of the more difficult words, but when he had written them correctly, the characters and the interpretation would disappear, and be replaced by other characters and their interprinterpretation" (Welch: "The Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon" from Book of Mormon Central)

 

Joseph Smith wasn't doing the translating work as we understand it, rather, the seer stone (or urim and thummim depending on which ones he would use) functioned as a perfect Google translate where the English words were given on a silver plate. The "problem" with using a young uneducated farmer to bring forth this book is that it's too much to ask for to translate a dead language the way that we would do it scientifically. But as shown above, the original text was still converted to the English language by the power of God (maybe it would be more correct to say that God did the actual translation, but that's just nitpicking)

Edited by Nordic saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nordic saint said:

Absolutely 🙂 here it is:

“The way it was done was thus: Joseph would place the seer-stone in a deep hat, and placing his face close to it, would see, not the stone, but what appeared like an oblong piece of parchment, on which the hieroglyphics would appear, and also the translation in the English language, all appearing in bright luminous letters. Joseph would then read it to Oliver, who would write it down as spoken. Sometimes Joseph could not pronounce  the words correctly, having had but little education; and if by any means a  mistake was made in the copy, the luminous writing would remain until it was corrected. It sometimes took Oliver several trials to get the right letters to spell correctly some of the more difficult words, but when he had written them correctly, the characters and the interpretation would disappear, and be replaced by other characters and their interprinterpretation" (Welch: "The Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon" from Book of Mormon Central)

 

Joseph Smith wasn't doing the translating work as we understand it, rather, the seer stone (or urim and thummim depending on which ones he would use) functioned as a perfect Google translate where the English words were given on a silver plate. The "problem" with using a young uneducated farmer to bring forth this book is that it's too much to ask for to translate a dead language the way that we would do it scientifically. But as shown above, the original text was still converted to the English language by the power of God (maybe it would be more correct to say that God did the actual translation, but that's just nitpicking)

I tertiary source is normally considered inaccurate for historians...and source even further removed from the Primary source...

I'm just going to have to say...you're not the only one believing in tertiary sources these days unfortunately.  The Gospel Essays also appear to have been influenced by at least one tertiary source that is attributed to an interview with a Notable witness of the Book of Mormon...decades AFTER when it supposedly was taken...and given out by those against the Church at the time...so...you are not alone.

However, I actually will agree with the wording you gave in which you said that it was given to him regardless of which manner of translation it was done (by Urim and Thummim, Seer Stone alone, Seer Stone in a Hat, or other means).  He would not have known what a direct wording or translation was given to him as he did not actually know the original language it was written in.  It would seem most likely that many of the things he was not familiar with were either translated as homophones or things that may be spelled differently but as accurately as could be in English (such as an Onti or other things dealing with coinage that we have no parallel to in English) or as similitudes of English parallels.  An example of this MAY have been in regards to things such as Horses or Elephants or other things that we have not actually found in the Americas but the Book of Mormon indicate were here.  These are things that Joseph Smith may not have been familiar with and so something he was familiar with was given instead so he could at least understand how it was utilized or a context of it's usage given.  Unfortunately it can be nigh impossible to know when this was utilized in the translation and when it was not.

So, ironically, though I disagree somewhat in the source, I DO agree with you in opinion.

I also think that it is possible to agree both that it was a literal translation (as @Sunday21 states as well as having certain things made so that Joseph or other could more easily understand what was going on and the context). 

For example, if the text had a literal translation that they took up their stone shards for war...it is a LOT more confusing than if it simply said they took up their swords (not that this is what is what changed, it is merely an example of what MIGHT have been a more literal translation than what we have).

This type of translation is done all the time with classics.  Some try to go for a more literal translation while others go for one that translates the text but captures the feel and/or meaning of the text far more accurately for our current understanding.  It is very possible the Book of Mormon falls within the latter type of translation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I tertiary source is normally considered inaccurate for historians...and source even further removed from the Primary source...

I'm just going to have to say...you're not the only one believing in tertiary sources these days unfortunately.  The Gospel Essays also appear to have been influenced by at least one tertiary source that is attributed to an interview with a Notable witness of the Book of Mormon...decades AFTER when it supposedly was taken...and given out by those against the Church at the time...so...you are not alone.

However, I actually will agree with the wording you gave in which you said that it was given to him regardless of which manner of translation it was done (by Urim and Thummim, Seer Stone alone, Seer Stone in a Hat, or other means).  He would not have known what a direct wording or translation was given to him as he did not actually know the original language it was written in.  It would seem most likely that many of the things he was not familiar with were either translated as homophones or things that may be spelled differently but as accurately as could be in English (such as an Onti or other things dealing with coinage that we have no parallel to in English) or as similitudes of English parallels.  An example of this MAY have been in regards to things such as Horses or Elephants or other things that we have not actually found in the Americas but the Book of Mormon indicate were here.  These are things that Joseph Smith may not have been familiar with and so something he was familiar with was given instead so he could at least understand how it was utilized or a context of it's usage given.  Unfortunately it can be nigh impossible to know when this was utilized in the translation and when it was not.

So, ironically, though I disagree somewhat in the source, I DO agree with you in opinion.

I also think that it is possible to agree both that it was a literal translation (as @Sunday21 states as well as having certain things made so that Joseph or other could more easily understand what was going on and the context). 

For example, if the text had a literal translation that they took up their stone shards for war...it is a LOT more confusing than if it simply said they took up their swords (not that this is what is what changed, it is merely an example of what MIGHT have been a more literal translation than what we have).

This type of translation is done all the time with classics.  Some try to go for a more literal translation while others go for one that translates the text but captures the feel and/or meaning of the text far more accurately for our current understanding.  It is very possible the Book of Mormon falls within the latter type of translation.

Actually, David Whitmer was an observer of the translation, so he would be both primary and secondary source: primary source because he's observing Olivers and Josephs translation process and secondary source because Joseph would need to explain what happened in the hat. The reliability of Whitmer as spectator is high whereas certain parts which only Joseph Smith would be able to know, like how the letters looked like inside the hat, is lower, but still pretty reliable because of his position history-wise and because he would have gotten the information from the primary source :) . This is most likely why it's used as a source why it's used as reference in "“By the Gift and Power of God”" by Neil A. Maxwell

Edited by Nordic saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Nordic saint said:

Actually, David Whitmer was an observer of the translation, so he would be both primary and secondary source: primary source because he's observing Olivers and Josephs translation process and secondary source because Joseph would need to explain what happened in the hat. The reliability of Whitmer as spectator is high whereas certain parts which only Joseph Smith would be able to know, like how the letters looked like inside the hat, is lower, but still pretty reliable because of his position history-wise and because he would have gotten the information from the primary source :) . This is most likely why it's used as a source why it's used as reference in "“By the Gift and Power of God”" by Neil A. Maxwell

So one would suppose, however, the accounts that people quote on this label him as the primary scribe of the Book of Mormon, or infer that.  

Martin Harris is another account many try to use.

Some of these accounts (though admittedly, some are used MORE than others by a great deal)  have been used by the Anti-Mormons for over a century in relation to these items.  Do we believe the Anti-Mormons today?  I suppose that could be a good question.  At the heart of it is how reliable are these accounts?  Are these actual primary sources?

How best to put it...

an exaggerated example...

If I wrote an article in a newspaper and in that paper I said I had interviewed Ronald Reagan in 1980 (though for some reason I did NOT publish it in 1980, I waited until now, 2019 to put it in print) and this is what Reagan told me...would you believe my statement?  Would you take it as basis of fact?

I then start to tell you what Ronald Reagan said in first person...he said...

"I sold the US out to the Communist and gave them the plans to our newest Nuclear Missile.  I knew that the cost of it was prohibitive to them and our analysis say that it stands a good chance eventually end up bankrupting the Soviet Union."

You also know that the paper I am writing this article in has published MANY anti-Republican, many ANTI-Reagan, and many ANTI-US articles in the past. 

Is my article and the words I claimed Reagan spoke a primary account?  Is it even a secondary account?  Is it even reliable?

(In this instance, it is not.  I never interviewed Reagan and absolutely did not in 1980...however, this is the type of situation we are led to believe in many instances of these "first hand" accounts given.  The actual sources that they are gained or copied from are rarely actually given out and instead the reader is given the illusion that this is not a secondary or even tertiary account, but actual written words directly from the hand or mouth of the individual it claims to be from).

And yet, this is how many of the things that the Anti-Mormons (and now days, apparently the church) utilized in the past to say that certain individuals said certain things. 

The REASONS in many instances these were not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was that the General Authorities of the Past KNEW these people who wrote these things personally in many instances.  They KNEW the story that THEY had been told and it did not agree with what others had written.  They were NOT ignorant of these stories by any means, and in some of their journals even reference to those spreading these stories in their anti-Mormon campaigns and aggressions.

It is only after the passing of that generation and their children that we are finally seeing the acceptance of these stories by the Church, which is ironic as many of these stories would have gotten one excommunicated previously for broadcasting it, but now, we try to integrate it into our "new" histories and essays of the church. 

The expectation of the Anti-Mormons was always that people would not look any further than what they said, that the people would not have training to be able to actually LOOK UP the resources and trace back to the original documents from whence some of these stories came, as well as cross reference them directly to what General Authorities said at the time pertaining to those who wrote the articles as well as the papers that published them.

Sadly, it looks as if in many cases, those ideas have come true in the long run.  As memories have died and those who knew the origins and said contrary items to them have passed away, so apparently has our resolve to stick with the story and true to the faith of our fathers who held it. 

However, fortunately, the gospel goes on, and I suppose the church has turned to another method to try to inoculate members against leaving the gospel message.  Whether or not it will be successful, I do not know.  Thus far, baptisms seem to be down so I'm not sure acquiescing to the enemies of the Mormons stories for so long is actually working...but then, who knows what may have happened if we held onto our accounts instead (though I do hear those that have held strong in their faith are doing better at retention than those that change in relation to Christian religions overall).

A prime example is Joseph F. Smith.  He never witnessed the translation of the Book of Mormon, but he had his Father (and yes, his father passed away when he was quite young, but he seemed to have pretty good memory in relation to what he heard and knew from his father), and his Mother who had quite a close relation to someone who was there, who saw the events from the Beginning, and a direct relation to many of those who participated in the events of the restoration.  He, along with his sons claimed that the seer stone was NOT USED in the translation of the Book of Mormon.  Most famously, his son made some very strong statements of this fact while ALSO exhibiting that they were ALSO aware of the seer stone and that it was possessed by the Church (something that Joseph Fielding Smith made known, not specifically aware that his father, Joseph F. made as clear annunciations in relation to the seer stone itself and it's use, though the Urim and Thummim story can be more traced to Joseph F.).  This is VERY Contrary to the stories that the Church is running today.  In addition, when one looks up miscellaneous commentary on the origins of some of the seer stone translation stories made by those in the General Authorities at the time, and the fact that you could be excommunicated for trying to spread such things...it paints an interesting picture about the sources that people are using today (sources that have existed for a LOOONG TIME, and which they actually ALSO knew about and were aware of, these sources are NOT new things and have been used by those who fought against the church for literally over a century).

Anyways, it's a moot point overall today. The church will do as the church desires.  It can put one in a paradoxical situation in relation to historical statements relating to doctrine vs. what today would be called more of a policy of teaching (not actually doctrine as the gospel essays and other materials are normally considered aids of study, not actual doctrine in and of themselves) in discussions with others.

However, that said, the main point of translation, regardless of how we view it, seems to have an agreement between us in regards to the form of translation and in some ways how it was given and received (given in English, though more of a translation for context and understanding rather than one that is a literal word to word match in some instances).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2019 at 2:33 PM, GaleG said:

Are those outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still
viewed as belonging to the church of the devil (1 Nephi 14:10)?  If no, is
there a video for that apology?

Thank you,

Gale

First, that is not what Nephi said.  So, what exactly are we supposed to apologize for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

So one would suppose, however, the accounts that people quote on this label him as the primary scribe of the Book of Mormon, or infer that.  

Martin Harris is another account many try to use.

Some of these accounts (though admittedly, some are used MORE than others by a great deal)  have been used by the Anti-Mormons for over a century in relation to these items.  Do we believe the Anti-Mormons today?  I suppose that could be a good question.  At the heart of it is how reliable are these accounts?  Are these actual primary sources?

How best to put it...

an exaggerated example...

If I wrote an article in a newspaper and in that paper I said I had interviewed Ronald Reagan in 1980 (though for some reason I did NOT publish it in 1980, I waited until now, 2019 to put it in print) and this is what Reagan told me...would you believe my statement?  Would you take it as basis of fact?

I then start to tell you what Ronald Reagan said in first person...he said...

"I sold the US out to the Communist and gave them the plans to our newest Nuclear Missile.  I knew that the cost of it was prohibitive to them and our analysis say that it stands a good chance eventually end up bankrupting the Soviet Union."

You also know that the paper I am writing this article in has published MANY anti-Republican, many ANTI-Reagan, and many ANTI-US articles in the past. 

Is my article and the words I claimed Reagan spoke a primary account?  Is it even a secondary account?  Is it even reliable?

(In this instance, it is not.  I never interviewed Reagan and absolutely did not in 1980...however, this is the type of situation we are led to believe in many instances of these "first hand" accounts given.  The actual sources that they are gained or copied from are rarely actually given out and instead the reader is given the illusion that this is not a secondary or even tertiary account, but actual written words directly from the hand or mouth of the individual it claims to be from).

And yet, this is how many of the things that the Anti-Mormons (and now days, apparently the church) utilized in the past to say that certain individuals said certain things. 

The REASONS in many instances these were not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was that the General Authorities of the Past KNEW these people who wrote these things personally in many instances.  They KNEW the story that THEY had been told and it did not agree with what others had written.  They were NOT ignorant of these stories by any means, and in some of their journals even reference to those spreading these stories in their anti-Mormon campaigns and aggressions.

It is only after the passing of that generation and their children that we are finally seeing the acceptance of these stories by the Church, which is ironic as many of these stories would have gotten one excommunicated previously for broadcasting it, but now, we try to integrate it into our "new" histories and essays of the church. 

The expectation of the Anti-Mormons was always that people would not look any further than what they said, that the people would not have training to be able to actually LOOK UP the resources and trace back to the original documents from whence some of these stories came, as well as cross reference them directly to what General Authorities said at the time pertaining to those who wrote the articles as well as the papers that published them.

Sadly, it looks as if in many cases, those ideas have come true in the long run.  As memories have died and those who knew the origins and said contrary items to them have passed away, so apparently has our resolve to stick with the story and true to the faith of our fathers who held it. 

However, fortunately, the gospel goes on, and I suppose the church has turned to another method to try to inoculate members against leaving the gospel message.  Whether or not it will be successful, I do not know.  Thus far, baptisms seem to be down so I'm not sure acquiescing to the enemies of the Mormons stories for so long is actually working...but then, who knows what may have happened if we held onto our accounts instead (though I do hear those that have held strong in their faith are doing better at retention than those that change in relation to Christian religions overall).

A prime example is Joseph F. Smith.  He never witnessed the translation of the Book of Mormon, but he had his Father (and yes, his father passed away when he was quite young, but he seemed to have pretty good memory in relation to what he heard and knew from his father), and his Mother who had quite a close relation to someone who was there, who saw the events from the Beginning, and a direct relation to many of those who participated in the events of the restoration.  He, along with his sons claimed that the seer stone was NOT USED in the translation of the Book of Mormon.  Most famously, his son made some very strong statements of this fact while ALSO exhibiting that they were ALSO aware of the seer stone and that it was possessed by the Church (something that Joseph Fielding Smith made known, not specifically aware that his father, Joseph F. made as clear annunciations in relation to the seer stone itself and it's use, though the Urim and Thummim story can be more traced to Joseph F.).  This is VERY Contrary to the stories that the Church is running today.  In addition, when one looks up miscellaneous commentary on the origins of some of the seer stone translation stories made by those in the General Authorities at the time, and the fact that you could be excommunicated for trying to spread such things...it paints an interesting picture about the sources that people are using today (sources that have existed for a LOOONG TIME, and which they actually ALSO knew about and were aware of, these sources are NOT new things and have been used by those who fought against the church for literally over a century).

Anyways, it's a moot point overall today. The church will do as the church desires.  It can put one in a paradoxical situation in relation to historical statements relating to doctrine vs. what today would be called more of a policy of teaching (not actually doctrine as the gospel essays and other materials are normally considered aids of study, not actual doctrine in and of themselves) in discussions with others.

However, that said, the main point of translation, regardless of how we view it, seems to have an agreement between us in regards to the form of translation and in some ways how it was given and received (given in English, though more of a translation for context and understanding rather than one that is a literal word to word match in some instances).

There are some things that I don't fully agree with concerning sources. BUT at the end of the day, we quite agree on the answer to the main question anyway, so there's not any reason for me to waste your time with that :)

 

On topic: I find the apology quite interesting. It's not that often that I have heard that from someone who (sometimes quite hardly) have criticized the church, especially on a greater scale like on the media.... it's kinda refreshing and is a praiseworthy attitude

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished the whole thing.  In general, I liked it and felt joy about the fact that there were no veiled jabs.  I did take note of at least one thin in particular that was inaccurate.  The female host presented the idea of modern revelation changing doctrine and presented two examples as evidence, the priesthood and plural marriage.  I would contend that there was no doctrinal change implemented, but merely a policy change; revelation was needed in both cases because, in regards to plural marriage, it was the implementation of a policy to no longer directly practice the doctrine.  In regards to blacks and the priesthood, it was a policy reversal; there was never an official doctrine to bar them from the priesthood.  In fact, I can't think of a single actual doctrine that has changed over the history of the Church.  That said, I can see why someone lacking the worldview of ongoing revelation would consider any revelation based change to be doctrinal, whether it is or isn't.

Another thing I noticed is that the male guest was inaccurately under the impression that the Church recently started emphasizing Christ.  I think this once again just goes back to public perception and lack of knowledge/understanding of the doctrine.

In general, it was a very positive and inviting video.  I can easily imagine someone who is not LDS viewing that video and then having the desire to learn and understand more about the Church and the doctrines of the Restored Gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, person0 said:

Just finished the whole thing.  In general, I liked it and felt joy about the fact that there were no veiled jabs.  I did take note of at least one thin in particular that was inaccurate.  The female host presented the idea of modern revelation changing doctrine and presented two examples as evidence, the priesthood and plural marriage.  I would contend that there was no doctrinal change implemented, but merely a policy change; revelation was needed in both cases because, in regards to plural marriage, it was the implementation of a policy to no longer directly practice the doctrine.  In regards to blacks and the priesthood, it was a policy reversal; there was never an official doctrine to bar them from the priesthood.  In fact, I can't think of a single actual doctrine that has changed over the history of the Church.  That said, I can see why someone lacking the worldview of ongoing revelation would consider any revelation based change to be doctrinal, whether it is or isn't.

Another thing I noticed is that the male guest was inaccurately under the impression that the Church recently started emphasizing Christ.  I think this once again just goes back to public perception and lack of knowledge/understanding of the doctrine.

In general, it was a very positive and inviting video.  I can easily imagine someone who is not LDS viewing that video and then having the desire to learn and understand more about the Church and the doctrines of the Restored Gospel.

Going back to the doctrine of polygamy and racial limitations for those receiving the priesthood.  Both doctrines were taught Biblically in past generations.  This was almost touched on when it was discussed in the video that we believe in a restoration of all things.  My question to my evangelical friends - without specific revelation to change the doctrine why do they not practice what the Bible teaches?  Why are women allowed to speak at church?  Why was a woman asking the questions?

I was impressed that they talked about looking to similarities rather than what and why there are differences.  Even though they could not resist the temptation when it suited them to point out differences.

Most realize that differences are what makes anything interesting.  For me - it is not just a difference but why.  If someone cannot consistently explain differences - I personally believe they do themselves a disservice.    The guy touched on this idea when he stated he was a Calvinists but in so declaring was forced to admit that there are flaws in Calvinist thinking.  But then the reasons for polygamy and priesthood limitations changes are also likely because of flaws and misunderstanding of the truth of such ordinances.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I thought that Joesph was ‘translating’ which to me means from one language to another. 

On 10/13/2019 at 12:34 PM, Nordic saint said:

But the words were given to Joseph in English. Personally, I find it probable that God talk to us according to our understanding and language as the scriptures say. If the word for the Lord happened to be quetzalcoatl for example, it probably would appear as "Jesus Christ" instead since it could confuse the modern reader (but that's just speculation)

It is not as easy as that...

Where there was a 19th century English translation available, one was given.  Otherwise, a word was given to Joseph that was either "close" or a completely unknown word.

"cureloms & cummoms" are still as yet unknown creatures.  This could have been some now extinct species that we have no comparison to... or it could have been a llama and an alpaca (respectively or vice versa) which were unknown to English speakers in 19th century America. Thus a transliteration of the Nephite words would have been used.

We have "horse" in the BoM.  This could have meant an actual horse, or it could have meant some creature so similar to a horse that it may as well have been.  But technically speaking, it could have been some other animal.

The word "cimeter" is worth some commentary.  Today's spelling of the curved, crescent bladed, sword is "scimitar".  This has been the accepted spelling.  But prior to 1800, the alternate spelling of "cimeter" was also an accepted spelling.  It fell out of favor throughout the 18th century.  By the time of the BoM translation, it was considered a less common spelling.  However, Webster's 1828 dictionary has it as the primary spelling.  So, we have the dictionary saying it is "preferred", while written records say that "scimitar" was the more "common" spelling.

That raises the question:  Was this intended to mean what we call a "scimitar"?  Linguistically, that wouldn't have made sense since "scimitar" was the more common spelling.  But it would make more sense if it were some scimitar/sword-like weapon of war that needed some differentiation for the parallel structure that the Nephite author used.

Again, if it is simply a matter of spelling, then an easy answer would have been that Joseph read what he read, and the scribe of the time used the spelling he, himself, often used.

However, Joseph was known to have gone through the manuscript and corrected spelling errors -- particularly of proper nouns.  But he would not have been the one to correct the spelling of common words, since he was the least educated on such matters compared with any of his scribes, including Emma.

Then we have the incomparable Hugh Nibley who theorized that this may have referred to the hardwood + obsidian bladed weapon that the Native Americans were known to use against European invaders during the conquest of this continent.  He was obviously of the opinion that the BoM "cimeter" and our concept of "scimitar" were in fact two different weapons.

I suppose if it were important to know, then we'll find out at some point.  Until then, it is just a curiosity.  Nothing more.

Back to the topic at hand:  What does this mean for the translation of the word "Church".  Well, since our modern meaning tends to mean a) an organization or b) the building where we meet for worship services, we have to ask if either of these existed at the time Nephi wrote the words.  Second, we need to ask if there are other more meaningful definitions that would probably be more applicable.

Obviously, the context says that "the building" was not what Nephi was talking about.  Could it mean the "organization"?  Context of that verse alone says that it could be.  But the meaning of it in the overall history makes it an impossibility.  There was no "formal ogranization" at the time Nephi wrote those words.  And the vision Nephi was relating was not just a single moment in time, nor was it just for the latter days.  It appeared to be worldwide and over many generations.

So, I find the following definition from Dictionary.com to be most applicable.

Quote

the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.

Still not precise.  But when the angel says there are only two churches (of the Lord, and of the devil) I'm led to believe this is pretty close to the meaning intended by the angel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mores said:

I suppose if it were important to know, then we'll find out at some point. 

Just a little thought.  Isaiah suggested we learn line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  Many times when we think of translations we think of words but the reality is that we ought to think about concepts - or even the entire context of concept.   It is my theory that divine revelation (including translations) transcends even words and phrases (text).  Therefore the words and phrases by themselves are insufficient as Jesus perhaps referenced in his parable of the sower.   For me personally, I have discovered solutions to very complex engineering problems while reading scripture that seemingly had nothing to do with the problem.  I could give a specific example but I am concerned that in so doing it would create such a tangent that the intended "understanding" would be obscured.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Mores said:

...church...

There was no "formal ogranization" at the time Nephi wrote those words.  

 

I'm not so sure about that. 

 

 

1 Nephi 4:24 And I also spake unto him that I should carry the engravings, which were upon the plates of brass, to my elder brethren, who were without the walls.

25 And I also bade him that he should follow me.

26 And he, supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share