LDS 4000 Changes To The BOM

[Ironhold]

receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

You're reading too much into it.

The Lamanites simply had darker skin. Not "African-American".

Remember perspective when you're reading things.

 

[drstevej]

It says BLACK-NESS not DARKER-NESS.

 

[BigDaddy4]

You're reading too much into it.

The Lamanites simply had darker skin. Not "African-American".

Remember perspective when you're reading things.

That's some shoddy apologetics there.

 

[Peter1000]

That's some shoddy apologetics there.

It was a shoddy question.

 

[blackhead]

There are still some Mormon groups today that deny blacks the priesthood because they believe that they are cursed with the mark of Cain.

 

[BigDaddy4]

It was a shoddy question.

Lol. Are we not asking the right questions again?

 

[Peter1000]

There are still some Mormon groups today that deny blacks the priesthood because they believe that they are cursed with the mark of Cain.

There have been some minor groups that have broken away from the Church of Jesus Christ that may still hold on to incapatible doctrines. They do what they do, and their behavior should not be reflected upon us.

 

[Peter1000]

Lol. Are we not asking the right questions again?

Like I said, shoddy question.

 

[blackhead]

There have been some minor groups that have broken away from the Church of Jesus Christ that may still hold on to incapatible doctrines. They do what they do, and their behavior should not be reflected upon us.

They are Mormons who hold to the original teachings of your church.

 

[Peter1000]

They are Mormons who hold to the original teachings of your church.

They are not Mormons any longer. And they do not hold the teachings of our church today. That is the important point. For 40 years we have not denied any worthy man the right to hold the priesthood.

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing that we have done, to allow all worthy men the right to hold the priesthood?

Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only Christian church to deny certain rights to other races in the 1800's and early 1900's, or were we the only church in America to do that?

 

[blackhead]

They are not Mormons any longer. And they do not hold the teachings of our church today. That is the important point. For 40 years we have not denied any worthy man the right to hold the priesthood.

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing that we have done, to allow all worthy men the right to hold the priesthood?

Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only Christian church to deny certain rights to other races in the 1800's and early 1900's, or were we the only church in America to do that?

Look at the original teachings. Mormons taught that blacks were cursed with the mark of Cain.

 

[Ironhold]

They are Mormons who hold to the original teachings of your church.

Consider some of the teachings mainline Christianity held to in bygone days.

If, say, a mainline Christian group was out there conducting witch trials or selling indulgences, would you dismiss them as practicing the "original teachings"?

 

[Peter1000]

Look at the original teachings. Mormons taught that blacks were cursed with the mark of Cain.

So what?

 

[blackhead]

Look at the original teachings. Mormons taught that blacks were cursed with the mark of Cain.

So what?

It’s a pretty abominable teaching.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Like I said, shoddy question.

Lol. Shoddy response.

 

[RoseCrystal]

Consider some of the teachings mainline Christianity held to in bygone days.

If, say, a mainline Christian group was out there conducting witch trials or selling indulgences, would you dismiss them as practicing the "original teachings"?

Indulgences have been a teaching of the catholic church since 1095. The original (and current) teaching does not involve money at all, it is not something you can buy.

Selling indulgences was a gross abuse of that teaching to drum up money, and it didn't happen until the 1500s, 500 years after the teaching started (the LDS church hasn't even been around 500 years yet), so selling indulgences is not 'original christianity at all', its heresy, it was terrible and it was stamped out, so you can't claim it was a teaching of original christianity.

Witch trails were post-reformation so again you can't claim it as an original teaching of christianity, just crazy stupid people from the 1500s to the early 1700s that didn't know any better.

Very different from someone in the 1800s starting up a religion thats promotes racism, polygamy and polyamory.

History is important, how and why a religion starts and the character of the person that starts it is super important.

For example, it matters if the guy who starts a religion has a criminal record or was a known 'treasure seeker'.
Whether that person was a freemason and then introduced temple ceremonies that are extremely close to freemason rituals is important.
Whether that person claimed to translate an Egyptian papyri (brought from a guy that was touring the towns with a bunch of mummies and Egyptian stuff) because it was 'holy scripture' (and there is written evidence of him doing this) and years later it turns out it doesn't mean anything of the sort, but LDS people are still required to believe that the book of Abraham is scripture. That's important.
Whether that guy tells someone else's wife, or a very young girl, or any girl for that matter, that an angel with a flaming sword will kill people if she doesn't sleep with him is important.
Whether that guy starts a building society based on the value of land, prints his own money with his face on it, tells everyone that he had a revelation from god that they won't loss money if they use it, then the whole thing falls over because the value of land falls, and the people who believed his revelation from god lose everything. Then he just moves again because the law is chasing him over it (no extradition laws back then, so if you mess up, just move, as long as you don't go back you're all good). That's important.

A book that guy wrote by the power of god, and claims to be 'the most correct (theological or historical or scriptural) book on earth and reading it and following its teachings will bring closer to god than any other book' can't expect to be taken seriously if it is changed between 4000 and 5000 times. Especially when you take into consideration (as you should) the character and actions of the guy that wrote it. I wouldn't believe a word that guy said.

When those changes change how the nature of God is viewed, the names of certain kings in the book and whether or not God curses people with black skin or brown skin. God changing a specific group of peoples skin colour to make them known as cursed, and cut off from his presence is a very racist thing to do. Thats a big problem. It is also backed up by the fact that black people were not allowed to hold the priesthood until 'god' changed his mind in 1978 and then not long after the book of mormon is changed to try and reflect the church's new view on the matter. And prophets and apostles of the LDS church making statements like the following don't help either.. Here are a couple that I find really disturbing, as you know there are many others. But it is very clear that the teaching of the LDS church to its members was one of racism, there is no denying it.

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Elders' Journal, July 1838
Question Thirteenth. 'Are the Mormons abolitionists?' No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free.

Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855
You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham.

Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, v. 14, p. 418
For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every should of them should repent.... Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller's soap every day, they cannot wash away God's mark.

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 477, 1958
"Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them.... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned..."

Apostle N. Eldon Tanner, Seattle Magazine, Dec. 1967, p. 60
The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's a law of God.'

Elder John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 104-105, 1967
"Those who believe that the Church 'gave in' on the polygamy issue and subsequently should give in on the Negro question are not only misinformed about Church History, but are apparently unaware of Church doctrine.... Therefore, those who hope that pressure will bring about a revelation need to take a closer look at Mormon history and the order of heaven"

And when you put ALL of that together, that's a very big ask to put your faith, your life, and 10% of your money, into that religion and believe the claim thats its the 'only true and living church on the face of the earth' and accept that all these horrible things are of God, and then God changed his mind and we edited his book to match, so now its all ok and perfectly acceptable.

Mormon quotes on blacks

 

[Peter1000]

Indulgences have been a teaching of the catholic church since 1095. The original (and current) teaching does not involve money at all, it is not something you can buy.

Selling indulgences was a gross abuse of that teaching to drum up money, and it didn't happen until the 1500s, 500 years after the teaching started (the LDS church hasn't even been around 500 years yet), so selling indulgences is not 'original christianity at all', its heresy, it was terrible and it was stamped out, so you can't claim it was a teaching of original christianity.

Witch trails were post-reformation so again you can't claim it as an original teaching of christianity, just crazy stupid people from the 1500s to the early 1700s that didn't know any better.

Very different from someone in the 1800s starting up a religion thats promotes racism, polygamy and polyamory.

History is important, how and why a religion starts and the character of the person that starts it is super important.

For example, it matters if the guy who starts a religion has a criminal record or was a known 'treasure seeker'.
Whether that person was a freemason and then introduced temple ceremonies that are extremely close to freemason rituals is important.
Whether that person claimed to translate an Egyptian papyri (brought from a guy that was touring the towns with a bunch of mummies and Egyptian stuff) because it was 'holy scripture' (and there is written evidence of him doing this) and years later it turns out it doesn't mean anything of the sort, but LDS people are still required to believe that the book of Abraham is scripture. That's important.
Whether that guy tells someone else's wife, or a very young girl, or any girl for that matter, that an angel with a flaming sword will kill people if she doesn't sleep with him is important.
Whether that guy starts a building society based on the value of land, prints his own money with his face on it, tells everyone that he had a revelation from god that they won't loss money if they use it, then the whole thing falls over because the value of land falls, and the people who believed his revelation from god lose everything. Then he just moves again because the law is chasing him over it (no extradition laws back then, so if you mess up, just move, as long as you don't go back you're all good). That's important.

A book that guy wrote by the power of god, and claims to be 'the most correct (theological or historical or scriptural) book on earth and reading it and following its teachings will bring closer to god than any other book' can't expect to be taken seriously if it is changed between 4000 and 5000 times. Especially when you take into consideration (as you should) the character and actions of the guy that wrote it. I wouldn't believe a word that guy said.

When those changes change how the nature of God is viewed, the names of certain kings in the book and whether or not God curses people with black skin or brown skin. God changing a specific group of peoples skin colour to make them known as cursed, and cut off from his presence is a very racist thing to do. Thats a big problem. It is also backed up by the fact that black people were not allowed to hold the priesthood until 'god' changed his mind in 1978 and then not long after the book of mormon is changed to try and reflect the church's new view on the matter. And prophets and apostles of the LDS church making statements like the following don't help either.. Here are a couple that I find really disturbing, as you know there are many others. But it is very clear that the teaching of the LDS church to its members was one of racism, there is no denying it.

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Elders' Journal, July 1838
Question Thirteenth. 'Are the Mormons abolitionists?' No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free.

Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855
You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham.

Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, v. 14, p. 418
For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every should of them should repent.... Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller's soap every day, they cannot wash away God's mark.

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 477, 1958
"Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them.... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned..."

Apostle N. Eldon Tanner, Seattle Magazine, Dec. 1967, p. 60
The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's a law of God.'

Elder John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 104-105, 1967
"Those who believe that the Church 'gave in' on the polygamy issue and subsequently should give in on the Negro question are not only misinformed about Church History, but are apparently unaware of Church doctrine.... Therefore, those who hope that pressure will bring about a revelation need to take a closer look at Mormon history and the order of heaven"

And when you put ALL of that together, that's a very big ask to put your faith, your life, and 10% of your money, into that religion and believe the claim thats its the 'only true and living church on the face of the earth' and accept that all these horrible things are of God, and then God changed his mind and we edited his book to match, so now its all ok and perfectly acceptable.

Mormon quotes on blacks

Too many mistakes in your anti-Mormon rant. Too many. Go get educated again, only this time by a practising Mormon. Not your anti-Mormon friends who do not care if they tell the truth or not, since we are an evil cult.

Again, the current prophet of God is the one that is receiving current information from the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if it is not in lock-step with JS or BY, it is the current will of the Lord. We follow the current prophet.

Finally, you have never told me if it is 4,000 or 5,000 changes. You have never told me how many of the changes were puncuation or grammatical. And how many of those changes, actually changed the meaning of the text. And we have not even talked about the bible and its hundreds of translations and thousands of changes. IOW you are throwing rocks, and you live in a glass house. Don't throw your rocks too far or too hard, or your glass house will shatter all around you.

 

[blackhead]

You have never told me how many of the changes were puncuation or grammatical.

Does it matter?

Does God not know how to inspire scripture with proper grammar?

The Bible didn’t need 4000 changes in grammar.

 

[RoseCrystal]

Too many mistakes in your anti-Mormon rant. Too many. Go get educated again, only this time by a practising Mormon. Not your anti-Mormon friends who do not care if they tell the truth or not, since we are an evil cult.

Again, the current prophet of God is the one that is receiving current information from the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if it is not in lock-step with JS or BY, it is the current will of the Lord. We follow the current prophet.

Finally, you have never told me if it is 4,000 or 5,000 changes. You have never told me how many of the changes were puncuation or grammatical. And how many of those changes, actually changed the meaning of the text. And we have not even talked about the bible and its hundreds of translations and thousands of changes. IOW you are throwing rocks, and you live in a glass house. Don't throw your rocks too far or too hard, or your glass house will shatter all around you.

Please point out my said mistakes in my 'anti-mormon' rant? I have been studying this stuff for a while now and am pretty confident in my sources and information - 95% of them from LDS writings themselves and offical court and legal records, all available online for you to read yourself. History is history, just because it wasn't all recorded by your church doesn't mean it didn't happen, the LDS church is only a couple of hundred years old, we have REALLY good records of the last few hundred years of history.

And every prophet was the current prophet at the time he gave his information to the people of the church. So by your logic, every time a new prophet is chosen, everything the last prophet said could be thrown out and must not be believed by the members anymore if the new prophet said something contrary to old prophet. That must be exhausting and it implies that nothing any of the prophets say should really be classed as true, because the next prophet can change everything again. The LDS god changes his mind too often, so how can you trust that it really is god? God is all knowing, it doesn't make sense to believe God flip flops on his teachings every few years.

Its hard to keep up with the offical number of changes to the book of mormon because it keeps changing! I haven't personally read and counted every single change made to the book, the title of this thread was 4000 changes, I believe it is closer to 5000, but out of respect for the original poster I said 4000-5000. I focus on the most brazen changes, the ones that change the beliefs of the LDS church itself. But honestly claiming most of them are spelling or grammar doesn't wash either, God can speak every language and he can spell, so if he really was giving Jospeh word by word translation, it wouldn't need any changing.

I will link a reputable site below which claims it is closer to 5000. The main point is God doesn't mess up that bad, and how can you trust it is really of god if it needs so much changing. It is also hard to talk to LDS members about this stuff because most of them refuse to look at any other information other than what their own church says, which is obviously blindly biased and you can't really talk to someone about actual history when most refuse to look at historical evidence (lucky for those who are willing to investigate there is enough anti-mormon literature in LDS writings themselves)

And the bible is translated from the original hebrew and greek (which we have VERY early copies off) that it was written in every time a new translation is done (a reputable translation), these translations are a big job and taken very seriously. If you really think the bible is unreliable because you think its been translated over and over again from one english translation to a new english translation I suggest you actually look into how bible translations are done, because your assumptions are greatly incorrect and misinformed.

And the LDS church claims the bible is only correct as far as it is translated correctly, yet it never points out one verse that is supposedly incorrect, so again, you can't say something like that with absolutely no proof or example of incorrect passages in the bible and expect people to take it seriously.

I would suggest you look at an interlinear translation (direct from greek or hebrew to English) so you can see that what you are saying really isn't true. Here's a link for one that is very easy to search through and use. It has both the old testament (hebrew) and the New Testament (greek).

Online Greek Interlinear Bible

5,000 Changes to the Book of Mormon - | - Mormon Handbook

 

[Peter1000]

Please point out my said mistakes in my 'anti-mormon' rant? I have been studying this stuff for a while now and am pretty confident in my sources and information - 95% of them from LDS writings themselves and offical court and legal records, all available online for you to read yourself. History is history, just because it wasn't all recorded by your church doesn't mean it didn't happen, the LDS church is only a couple of hundred years old, we have REALLY good records of the last few hundred years of history.

And every prophet was the current prophet at the time he gave his information to the people of the church. So by your logic, every time a new prophet is chosen, everything the last prophet said could be thrown out and must not be believed by the members anymore if the new prophet said something contrary to old prophet. That must be exhausting and it implies that nothing any of the prophets say should really be classed as true, because the next prophet can change everything again. The LDS god changes his mind too often, so how can you trust that it really is god? God is all knowing, it doesn't make sense to believe God flip flops on his teachings every few years.

Its hard to keep up with the offical number of changes to the book of mormon because it keeps changing! I haven't personally read and counted every single change made to the book, the title of this thread was 4000 changes, I believe it is closer to 5000, but out of respect for the original poster I said 4000-5000. I focus on the most brazen changes, the ones that change the beliefs of the LDS church itself. But honestly claiming most of them are spelling or grammar doesn't wash either, God can speak every language and he can spell, so if he really was giving Jospeh word by word translation, it wouldn't need any changing.

I will link a reputable site below which claims it is closer to 5000. The main point is God doesn't mess up that bad, and how can you trust it is really of god if it needs so much changing. It is also hard to talk to LDS members about this stuff because most of them refuse to look at any other information other than what their own church says, which is obviously blindly biased and you can't really talk to someone about actual history when most refuse to look at historical evidence (lucky for those who are willing to investigate there is enough anti-mormon literature in LDS writings themselves)

And the bible is translated from the original hebrew and greek (which we have VERY early copies off) that it was written in every time a new translation is done (a reputable translation), these translations are a big job and taken very seriously. If you really think the bible is unreliable because you think its been translated over and over again from one english translation to a new english translation I suggest you actually look into how bible translations are done, because your assumptions are greatly incorrect and misinformed.

And the LDS church claims the bible is only correct as far as it is translated correctly, yet it never points out one verse that is supposedly incorrect, so again, you can't say something like that with absolutely no proof or example of incorrect passages in the bible and expect people to take it seriously.

I would suggest you look at an interlinear translation (direct from greek or hebrew to English) so you can see that what you are saying really isn't true. Here's a link for one that is very easy to search through and use. It has both the old testament (hebrew) and the New Testament (greek).

Online Greek Interlinear Bible

5,000 Changes to the Book of Mormon - | - Mormon Handbook

Ok, just do this: Count how many brazen changes to the text of a verse that changes the theology of the Church. If you count more than 6-10 I would be surprized.

Now take 5,000-10 and the rest must be grammatical or punctuation changes. So 5,000-10 = 4,990 of the changes were other than brazen changes to the verse's text. Are there any other types of changes that I could be missing? If not (show me if I am wrong) then your statement:
"I focus on the most brazen changes, the ones that change the beliefs of the LDS church itself. But honestly claiming most of them are spelling or grammar doesn't wash either", must be a mistake.

Or do you really think that, let's say, there are 3,000 brazen changes to verses that cause our theology to change?

So which is it: more brazen changes or vastly far more grammatical and punctuation changes. I kind of think the latter is far more than the former. But tell me what you think?

I believe, but have not done this, that when there is a new translation of the bible, I think there is at least 60% of the total verses will have changed. It may not be a mind blowing change that changes the meaning of the verse, but a change nonetheless. That could equal thousands of changes in each translation.

Also, we do not have the original manuscript for any book in the bible, so it is really impossible to know for sure anything about who is right when it comes to the text. We love the bible and work with it, and quote from it and read it for our own improvement, but we also know it has mistakes, we just work around them. You on the other hand tell us that because of the changes in the BOM, it must be a false book. If that is true, then the bible is a false book also. Since we know the bible is not a false book, then we can also say that the BOM is not false either at least with regards to changes.