Is the Book of Mormon Altered?

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:35 pm

It doesent matter if it was translated word for word or not, If Joseph needed to change what Moroni had written to make it easier to understand by the people of his time, it doesent matter. What Doctrines were changed? If an ancient prophet said one thing, and it is interpreted by a modern prophet for the people of his time, the message is the same. Look to the doctrines taught, not the way they are written.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:11 pm

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Gazelam wrote:Ha Ha Ha. Nort kills me.

that's the testimony shakeing evidence that the Book of Mormon isn't true? Grammer? Lets not look at the theology and profound teachings, lets look at whether or not the word "son of" was used in describeing God in the Book of Mormon, or whether to use was or were.

God taught Joseph how to translate, but it was up to a farmboy to dress it in language we could understand. Proper english and grammer arent exactly high on the list of most of the people around back then, just read some of the letters from that time. Emma spoke about how Joseph could hardly compose a proper letter to her.

God works through prophets, and prophets have faults, includeing grammatical ones.

There's some fairly interesting ones in the thing I posted Gaz, which are about word changes. Adding a "Son" to some sentences really changes things.

Edit: If the archaelogy, history, DNA, and other physical evidence (or lack thereof) doesn't mess with your testimony, I doubt a few word changes will.

The change from Mother Of God, to Mother of the Son of God seems like a pretty big change to me.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:18 pm

liz3564 wrote:If Joseph Smith was dictating the translation to Oliver Cowdry, Martin Harris, or Emma, for that matter, all of these people were educated. Why did they not make the proper grammatical corrections? That doesn't make sense.

As far as the distinction between "God" and "Son of God", I have to agree with Gaz on this one. Heavenly Father and Jesus are one in purpose. Christ is the God of this earth, so referring to him as God would be no different than any evangelical sect referring to Jesus as God.

However, if you study early LDS teaching about the Godhead through 1835 and including the Lectures on Faith, the verse as it was originally written makes sense. After 1838, when the seperatness of the Godhead was emphasized and the teaching that the Father and Son are really two beings and that God has a body the change to SON of God makes sense. The change was significant and demonstrates the early LDS theology was more "orthodox" in nature. Liz, have you ever read the Lectures? Check out Lecture Five.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:21 pm

Joseph was known to go back and make changes to revelations all the time. This is no different in the translation of the Book of Mormon. If a change can make a passage more clear, why not do it, hes the prophet! It is his responsibility to make the gospel easy to understand. If he goe sback and re-reads the text, and sees a way to make a point more clear by changeing a word or two, what does it really matter? You'll find more changes if you look at foreign language trranslation I'm sure you'll find even more changes. The fact is, there were no changes of real importance.

Yes did make lots of changes, made them retroactively, often inserting new ideas that were not originally there and yes some of them were significant.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:31 pm

The change from Mother Of God, to Mother of the Son of God seems like a pretty big change to me.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that Christ was God. How does this effect the words of Abinadi before King Noah?

Check out Lecture Five.

I'll go back a re-read this, since its been a while, and try to see what point your trying to make. Are you saying that The first Vision was made up Jason?

Yes did make lots of changes, made them retroactively, often inserting new ideas that were not originally there and yes some of them were significant.

Example please.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:47 pm

The change from Mother Of God, to Mother of the Son of God seems like a pretty big change to me.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that Christ was God. How does this effect the words of Abinadi before King Noah?[/quote]

Mormons believe God the Father and God the Son are separate. Most Mormons believe and have been taught that when we speak of God we speak of the Father. More orthodox Christians believe that the Godhead is one in a more significant way the LDS and the the Son is God incarnate. The passage Mother of God support that view more. Inserting Son changes it to the way LDS later taught that God and the Son were separate. It seems that early LDS theology did not make as great a distinction as later was made.

Check out Lecture Five.

I'll go back a re-read this, since its been a while, and try to see what point your trying to make. Are you saying that The first Vision was made up Jason?[/quote]

Did I say that? However, if you read Lecture Five you will read the teaching that God the Father is a personage of Spirit, that the Son has a body and that the Holy Ghost is the mind and will of the Father, and may not even be considered a distinct personage.

Yes did make lots of changes, made them retroactively, often inserting new ideas that were not originally there and yes some of them were significant.

Example please.[/quote]

well we started with this one.

If you would like we can start another thread on it.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:53 pm

You don't need to start another thread, as what you are saying is in line with the thread topic here. Just post an example from the Book of Mormon that changes doctrine.

The example of placeing "Son" in the Mother of God sentance does not accomplish this. Its a moot point.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:51 am

Gazelam wrote:You don't need to start another thread, as what you are saying is in line with the thread topic here. Just post an example from the Book of Mormon that changes doctrine.

The example of placeing "Son" in the Mother of God sentance does not accomplish this. Its a moot point.

It certianly does change the meaning and I pointed out why. Just because you dismiss it does not make it so. Please give and answer to my explanation of why this is significant as explained above.

The nest major change is this. The de-canonization of the Lectures on Faith. Included in the 1835 doctrine of the Doctrine and Covenants they were removed entirely, without a church vote, in 1921. Droping 75 pages or so of canon seems a pretty big change. It seems also that the reason for droping the Lectures was the confusion that they caused in light of the theological view on the Godhead that had entered the Church after they were included in the canon. Paramount to this seems to be the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead written by Elder Talmage. The Lectures, particurly Lecture Five certainly did not jive with the statement nor with D&C Section 130 that states the Father had a body of flesh and bones. Additionally the Lectures in general were much more "orthodox" in their teachings in especially about God being God frmo all eternity. The KFD caused problems about that because Joseph Smith stated that we had supposed God was God from eternity but he was going to refute that.

How do you account for this, and the intro to the D&C as to why they were dropped just does not do. In 1835 the Lectured were certainly viewed as more then just helps, nive lesson or chaticisms.

Post by **_twinkie** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:15 am

Where can one find these "lectures" you are speaking of?

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:30 am

Did you know that the Lectures on Faith were published in the forepart of the Doctrine and Covenants in all editions from 1835 until 1921? Although the lectures are not currently published as part of the standard works, it is evident that they were held in high esteem by the Prophet Joseph Smith and those that followed him. President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "These lectures are of great value and should be studied.... I consider them to be of extreme value in the study of the gospel of Jesus Christ," Bruce R. McConkie has classified the lectures as "some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all scholars."

The seven lectures in this collection deal with the following subjects:

What is faith?
What is the role of revelation in developing faith?
What are the attributes of God?
Why is it necessary to have a correct knowledge about God's attributes in order to exercise true faith?
What is the true nature of the Godhead and what is God's purpose for man?
What is the role of sacrifice in building the faith needed for eternal life?
What are the effects or results that flow from having true faith?
Republished: May 1993

$14.95 at Deseret book

It should be in every members Library. I recommend it.