Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Any non-Mormon academic journals??
That is a valid issue. What they are calling wordprint analysis does make sense in Biblical studies in determining, for instance, which epistles were likely written by Paul. But they go back to the original text. Anyone who tried to do this on the basis of a word usage in a translation would not likely be taken seriously in academia.
In this situation, however, we're in a chicken / egg conundrum.
Because material that defends the church largely resides in "Mormon" material, certain individuals with mental blocks against the church won't hear it. But neither will they allow it to be published in their own scholarly works... leaving it to reside in "Mormon" material.
I just don't get it. I can show you point for point that the doctrine of the Book of Mormon is the same as in the Bible. It is very clear that salvation comes throught the work of Jesus Christ. The BoM says there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. It also makes it clear that Jesus is God, even that it was through the power of Jesus that all things were created, meaning that Jesus was not a created being. I know the arguments against the BoM, but they all seem to be contrived and/or straw men. I love the Lord Jesus Christ, and I love the Book of Mormon. I am saved through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Everything I believe outside of that are non-salvation issues. Unless you are saying that a wrong belief can negate salvation I don't understand how you can say that a belief in the BoM can negate salvation.
The problem with the Book of Mormon as Mormon's present it - is that they claim it is a "test" of whether or not Joseph Smith is a prophet -- NOT because he claimed to write it -- he actually does not claim that. He claims to have "translated it" and that others are the ones that wrote it -- others are the prophets that received the messages in it.
So then the real problem with the BoM is this made-up idea that everyone can test a translation to see if the translator did a good job -- by NOT looking at what was translated from - just "reading the stories" of the end product.
I expect as far as books go it is probaby as good as any I have known some fine Morman folk. The thing is that the life is not in the letter but in the Giver. Adam and Eve feel with one word off and Im sure we are not getting back without perfection and we cant manage that ourselves.I just don't get it. I can show you point for point that the doctrine of the Book of Mormon is the same as in the Bible. It is very clear that salvation comes throught the work of Jesus Christ. The BoM says there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. It also makes it clear that Jesus is God, even that it was through the power of Jesus that all things were created, meaning that Jesus was not a created being. I know the arguments against the BoM, but they all seem to be contrived and/or straw men. I love the Lord Jesus Christ, and I love the Book of Mormon. I am saved through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Everything I believe outside of that are non-salvation issues. Unless you are saying that a wrong belief can negate salvation I don't understand how you can say that a belief in the BoM can negate salvation.
I understand that problem, but I think such a study could have been published in an academic journal if the author had access to the original text. In this case, however, that is impossible.
To be honest if I "heard" the Word of God while reading the Book of Mormon I would have seriously considered accepting Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet. All the other problems you named would have been irrelevant to me.
Nope, but Joseph claimed to require divine and supernatural assistance in finding and translating the text. The translators of Isaiah did not.
So if the translators of the book of Isaiah "Claimed to need divine guidance" as they translated from Hebrew to English then they TOO are prophets -- simply by "making that claim" and this is how the Bible defines a prophet ? -- a "translator"???
Only if I know for sure the translator doesn't know a word of Hebrew, neither I nor anyone else had access to this text except for him, and he claimed to have received it miraculously. Plus, he would have to make a claim to Prophethood. I would be judging his revelations as well.
Even though no Bible text says this is what prophets do?? There is no Bible text that ever claims that the gift of prophecy consists of the ability to translate. Not even one text for that. So is this "making stuff up"??
It isn't his ability to translate that would be persuasive. He would have to give me access to a Word of God I didn't otherwise have access to.
I've read about a third of the Book of Mormon, I didn't hear the Word of God in it. In any case, I'm not a Christian and the Bible isn't my only source of revelation, or even my main source.
In theory that is what Isaiah was doing - giving the Word of God in written form - are all his translators "also prophets"???
I think that in fact it was written by an early Baptist - Solomon Spalding as a kind of "American Pilgrim's progress".
Smith simply got the manuscript and published it under his own name and title. There is in fact no doctrine of the Mormon church in it. When Mormons come to your home step 1 is to get you messed up on the difference between prophet and translator (Not out of meanness but just because they themselves have not thought that one through) - step two is to get you to read an actual book written by Smith - such as "Pearl of Great Price" or "Doctrines and Covenants" - where you actually will find genuine Mormon unique doctrine.
In any case - many "nice sounding stories" are out there - but the Bible test of a prophet does not even once include the idea
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?