D&C 68

[Onesiphorus]

If one questions the translation process of the BoM, then one can also question books of the Bible like Revelation. Because, that is exactly what it was. Revelation.

Then one also has to apply God's purpose and nature to the information being revealed. Does God reveal new things to mankind (since Jesus)? Did Revelation reveal anything new? If God does reveal new things to mankind, what about all those before the revelation? For example: What of the people who lived in the 1800 year time span between Jesus' time and the restoration? They could not go to the temple and be sealed. Do God's revelations change/add/delete His established prior revelations? (these questions are more rhetorical in nature)

 

[A New Dawn]

Then one also has to apply God's purpose and nature to the information being revealed. Does God reveal new things to mankind (since Jesus)? Did Revelation reveal anything new? If God does reveal new things to mankind, what about all those before the revelation? For example: What of the people who lived in the 1800 year time span between Jesus' time and the restoration? They could not go to the temple and be sealed. Do God's revelations change/add/delete His established prior revelations? (these questions are more rhetorical in nature)

None of those things are part of the BoM.

I do not believe that God reveals "new" things. (But then, I am not LDS.) God's word must be established through two or three witnesses.

 

[A New Dawn]

Oh, right. It's all about the translation. Please refresh my memory on that story again. And is this original translation in use today?

I think that the translation process is well-known by most of the members of this forum. And there is an edition that was restored to the original manuscript (as much as was possible since the original manuscript was partially destroyed. But the printer's manuscript is still completely intact. Both were used to create this edition.)

 

[disciple00]

BTW, I didn't know your family wrer so acquatic!


ok, i get it now, i miss spelled wales, i have no idea why i put the H there.. but at least i didn't miss spell ''were''

 

[disciple00]

I think that the translation process is well-known by most of the members of this forum. And there is an edition that was restored to the original manuscript (as much as was possible since the original manuscript was partially destroyed. But the printer's manuscript is still completely intact. Both were used to create this edition.)

but, wasn't the book of mormon translated by mr. smith using a seer stone? and that if he had made an error he would be able to go on until the error was corrected, thats the way i remember the story.... i do however find odd the thousands of changes made since it's original printing. as far as the book of mormon being only a spiritual book, why then does it cover an almost nine hundred year span of history? any prophet could have qwritten down a sermon to teach spiritual things, paul wrote many a letter that have provided a large deal of information for modern believers. why didn't moroni jot down a good last few words instead of summing up so many years of HISTORY. furthermore, the Bible is not merely a spiritual book, it contains names, dates, locations, events, and geneologies. it is spiritual, historical etc.


why hasn't anybody made another comment about quetzal coatl?

a green, flying, feathered central american god.... funny...

disciple00

 

[A New Dawn]

i do however find odd the thousands of changes made since it's original printing.

disciple00

I am sure you are already aware of this, too, but I will post it again.

When the manuscript was sent to the printer, it was not punctuated, it was not broken into paragraphs, etc. The printer inserted whatever punctuation, etc., he felt was appropriate. Sometime between the first and second printing, they decided that much of the punctuation provided by the printer was incorrect and changed it to what it should be.

That accounts for probably 98% of the changes. So your "thousands of changes" dwindles to just a few.

 

[Fit4Christ]

I am sure you are already aware of this, too, but I will post it again.

When the manuscript was sent to the printer, it was not punctuated, it was not broken into paragraphs, etc. The printer inserted whatever punctuation, etc., he felt was appropriate. Sometime between the first and second printing, they decided that much of the punctuation provided by the printer was incorrect and changed it to what it should be.

That accounts for probably 98% of the changes. So your "thousands of changes" dwindles to just a few.

So your god's revelation wasn't good enough?? "They" (whoever the "they" is that you are refering to here) had to correct god's punctuation and grammar?? The story goes, as far as I understand it, that JS couldn't move on with his translation unless it was written down exactly as was "inspired" or "revealed". That, along with no verifiable proof of anything described in the BoM, is where the problems with authenticity start.

 

[A New Dawn]

So your god's revelation wasn't good enough?? "They" (whoever the "they" is that you are refering to here) had to correct god's punctuation and grammar?? The story goes, as far as I understand it, that JS couldn't move on with his translation unless it was written down exactly as was "inspired" or "revealed".

And neither Jews nor Egyptians use punctuation. So, in reality, the original manuscript is exactly what was revealed, which was what was written on the plates.

 

[fatboys]

but, wasn't the book of mormon translated by mr. smith using a seer stone? and that if he had made an error he would be able to go on until the error was corrected, thats the way i remember the story.... i do however find odd the thousands of changes made since it's original printing. as far as the book of mormon being only a spiritual book, why then does it cover an almost nine hundred year span of history? any prophet could have qwritten down a sermon to teach spiritual things, paul wrote many a letter that have provided a large deal of information for modern believers. why didn't moroni jot down a good last few words instead of summing up so many years of HISTORY. furthermore, the Bible is not merely a spiritual book, it contains names, dates, locations, events, and geneologies. it is spiritual, historical etc.


why hasn't anybody made another comment about quetzal coatl?

a green, flying, feathered central american god.... funny...

disciple00

FB: The Book of Mormon is an abridgement of many ancient records. Mormon by whom the Book is named after was a prophet who lived about four hundred years after the death of Christ. At the time they were in the middle of a great war which would eventually lead to the killing of all known Nephites known to his Son Moroni which the Book was passed on to. Moroni had seen the slaughter of his people, and he figured he was the last living found left. The record is the dealing God had with people who lived in the Americas. There prophets had written down not just historical data, but doctrines God wanted his people to live by. As Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using the Urim and Thummin, the words would only show in the Urim and Thummin through his knowledge of the language he had. It did not have punctuation. It was just words. If the words were not correct, it would not bring more words until Joseph Smith understood in his own limited language until it was close enough for him to continue.

 

[Swart]

ok, i get it now, i miss spelled wales, i have no idea why i put the H there.. but at least i didn't miss spell ''were''

Ahh, my right finger gets ahead of its left couterpart sometimes. Part of the downside of being a fsat tow-figner tpysit.

 

[skylark1]

Way back in this discussion it was said that "Lamanite" is not a term to describe genetic or racial lineage, but a political term. If that is true, then why do Polynesian LDS refer to themselves as Lamanites? Their countries are not near North or South America, where LDS believe that most of the events in the BoM occurred.

 

[Doc T]

Way back in this discussion it was said that "Lamanite" is not a term to describe genetic or racial lineage, but a political term.

Perhaps a bit of a clairification. Lamanite is not just a political term, but it was used as a genetic/racial lineage or political term. Sometimes it was a term used to describe the "non-believers" while at other times it did not.

If that is true, then why do Polynesian LDS refer to themselves as Lamanites? Their countries are not near North or South America, where LDS believe that most of the events in the BoM occurred.

That stems from the LDS tradition that Hagoth (Alma 63:5-8) was the forefather of these people. While these people share many similarities with native Americans, most of the evidence either for or against this idea is weak.

Doc

~

 

[disciple00]

And neither Jews nor Egyptians use punctuation. So, in reality, the original manuscript is exactly what was revealed, which was what was written on the plates.

actually, the way hebrew scripture was written it was supposed to be sung, it had jots and tittles which dictated how it was to be sung and therefore served as punctuation. as far as egyptian goes, who cares, they were heathens and devil worshipers, some civilizations are best when burried under a few meters of sand....

disciple00

 

[disciple00]

I am sure you are already aware of this, too, but I will post it again.

When the manuscript was sent to the printer, it was not punctuated, it was not broken into paragraphs, etc. The printer inserted whatever punctuation, etc., he felt was appropriate. Sometime between the first and second printing, they decided that much of the punctuation provided by the printer was incorrect and changed it to what it should be.

That accounts for probably 98% of the changes. So your "thousands of changes" dwindles to just a few.

well, to me discussing a few changes in a book that is completely bogus seems vain, but just to know what you have to say, what were the other 2% of the changes?

disciple00

 

[disciple00]

FB: The Book of Mormon is an abridgement of many ancient records. Mormon by whom the Book is named after was a prophet who lived about four hundred years after the death of Christ. At the time they were in the middle of a great war which would eventually lead to the killing of all known Nephites known to his Son Moroni which the Book was passed on to. Moroni had seen the slaughter of his people, and he figured he was the last living found left. The record is the dealing God had with people who lived in the Americas. There prophets had written down not just historical data, but doctrines God wanted his people to live by. As Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using the Urim and Thummin, the words would only show in the Urim and Thummin through his knowledge of the language he had. It did not have punctuation. It was just words. If the words were not correct, it would not bring more words until Joseph Smith understood in his own limited language until it was close enough for him to continue.

hey man, i am well versed in all the hype, i read the book more than once and i even told other people about how great it was.
however, i never once heard that mr. smith got it without any punctuation. is that a recent addition to LDS beliefs? the way i was told is that it was the most pure and true word of God on earth because mr. smith couldn't move on to the next word until he had it right, not ''close enough''.

now, i do have a few questions for you. why has there never been any nephite artifacts unearthed? swords, armor, potery, buildings. you know, stuff that other destroyed civilizations tend to leave behind and eventualy get dug up by the folks who like to dig stuff like that. anyhow.. cheers man.. disciple00

 

[A New Dawn]

hey man, i am well versed in all the hype, i read the book more than once and i even told other people about how great it was.
however, i never once heard that mr. smith got it without any punctuation. is that a recent addition to LDS beliefs? the way i was told is that it was the most pure and true word of God on earth because mr. smith couldn't move on to the next word until he had it right, not ''close enough''.
disciple00

No, it is not new. And I'm sure that if you googled, you could find that out for yourself.

 

[Tawhano]

disciple00 said:
actually, the way hebrew scripture was written it was supposed to be sung, it had jots and tittles which dictated how it was to be sung and therefore served as punctuation.

Actually the jots and tittles were a later invention as the original Hebrew only had constantans (no vowels) and no spaces between each letter.

Jenda said:
When the manuscript was sent to the printer, it was not punctuated, it was not broken into paragraphs, etc. The printer inserted whatever punctuation, etc., he felt was appropriate.

What was the purpose of having a scribe than? I didn’t know this bit of information before, I’ll have to look it up.

 

[Tawhano]

Jenda said:
No, it is not new. And I'm sure that if you googled, you could find that out for yourself.

I googled and found only one reference to this, well actually there were many but they all were quoted from the same source; Jeff Lindsay. I can not find any reliable source that would indicate this is in fact true. Perhaps you can supply an official site which backs this claim up? I'm being serious here by the way.

 

[A New Dawn]

I googled and found only one reference to this, well actually there were many but they all were quoted from the same source; Jeff Lindsay. I can not find any reliable source that would indicate this is in fact true. Perhaps you can supply an official site which backs this claim up? I'm being serious here by the way.

I will post some links, but be aware that they could be deleted at any time. So hang around for a little while.

 

[A New Dawn]

I googled and found only one reference to this, well actually there were many but they all were quoted from the same source; Jeff Lindsay. I can not find any reliable source that would indicate this is in fact true. Perhaps you can supply an official site which backs this claim up? I'm being serious here by the way.

Just out of curiosity, why do people directly ask for links to "proof", when they are going to report it when it is given?

I will refrain from my sarcastic supposition just so I don't get reported. Again.