"Mormonism is the truth"

[_Infymus]

Hey buddy, I thought you were on Vacation! :)

Get back to werk! LOL

Heh, I am, in fact, to my right is the Pacific Ocean. I've had to do work while on vacation this year, and so early in the morning I browse the msg boards with a cup of coffee in hand.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I think Ray has gone off the deep end, and I feel very bad about it. I've read his posts for many years and he was calm and reasonable and I had to admire his forthcomingness and honesty. His position, as I recall it, was always that he couldn't bring himself to participate in the church but he couldn't shake the belief that the Book of Mormon was true. How could that not cause guilt and conflict in anyone to some extent, but now he seems so severely conflicted as to appear just plain loony. Does anyone know if he's tried to go back to church recently?

[_beastie]

Exbelievers read the Book of Mormon over and over because the "prophet of God" told us to. We didn't realize that he was just speaking as a man.

The Book of Mormon does contain some wisdom, such as the fact that riches lead to pride, which leads to mistreatment of the poor and social dysfunction. That is not rocket science, however - while I would call it wisdom, I would call it fairly common wisdom (just too inconvenient to remember). The Book of Mormon also contains silly stories full of cartoonish, one dimensional characters that fit comic books better than real life. Nephi, The Good Guy. Laman and Lemuel, The Bad Guys. Even the faint stabs at complex characters who have fallen from grace and struggle to return are too simplistic and pat to be meaningful and sound deliberately crafted after biblical stories. No real Davids here.

But of course, as believers, we did our best to glean meaning from the book - we were told to. In the same way we were told that we could learn something new from EVERY church meeting and from EVERY temple rerun. So we tried. We did our darnedest to find that deep meaning in all of that stuff.

It's only when one no longer believes in any of it that one is free to admit that sneaking, guilty whisper that we had tried to silence all along - reading the Book of Mormon ONCE will suffice a lifetime, as far as moral stories go, and once you've seen one temple endowment, you've LITERALLY seen them all, and church meetings are normally endless, mindless reruns of prepackaged lessons. That's why people so often fall asleep in them.

Ray, really, this is an easy concept to understand and it has been explained before. If you don't get it by now, it's because you don't want to and want to pretend this all signifies more than it really does.

[_mentalgymnast]

The fact is most people who read the Book of Mormon are not convinced it is "divine." But Ray says nobody who reads it ever disputes this?

I have a son on a mission who would disagree with this statement. I've talked with him a number of times about the common denominator that he has observed in connection with those that have entered the waters of baptism and have taken root in/with the gospel. The common denominator? The Book of Mormon. Those that read it seem to have a much greater likelihood of conversion. There seems to be a power in that book that leads people towards a better understanding concerning the divinity of Christ. At least that's his perception of things as they are.

He's on the ground doing the work. Currently flooded with people that are interested in hearing the message. You're sitting in front of a computer making things up as they pop into your head.

I'll go with what I'm hearing from someone that I trust who is on the front lines.

by the way, I've been reading Ray's stuff for a number of years also. He's a bright, down to earth guy. I highly doubt he's lost it as some seem to think.

Regards,
MG

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

The fact is most people who read the Book of Mormon are not convinced it is "divine." But Ray says nobody who reads it ever disputes this?

I have a son on a mission who would disagree with this statement. I've talked with him a number of times about the common denominator that he has observed in connection with those that have entered the waters of baptism and have taken root in/with the gospel. The common denominator? The Book of Mormon. Those that read it seem to have a much greater likelihood of conversion. There seems to be a power in that book that leads people towards a better understanding concerning the divinity of Christ. At least that's his perception of things as they are.

He's on the ground doing the work. Currently flooded with people that are interested in hearing the message. You're sitting in front of a computer making things up as they pop into your head.

I'll go with what I'm hearing from someone that I trust who is on the front lines.

by the way, I've been reading Ray's stuff for a number of years also. He's a bright, down to earth guy. I highly doubt he's lost it as some seem to think.

Regards,
MG

If you'd read the last few days of his posting here, you might think Ray had lost it. There was a difference between day and night with the way he used to post. I don't know what he's writing now on that other board, but he would at least be gently censored if he were as vulgar and desperately insulting to everyone who dared say a word to him as he was here, of course. But it was very obvious that his "knowledge" was bringing him anything but joy; he was miserable and taking it out on everyone.

Yep, I don't doubt it, people who read the Book of Mormon are more likely to join the church. Nobody would read it if they didn't really want to be a Mormon at that point in their lives, for whatever reasons. The Book of Mormon is entry level spirituality and its teachings of Christ are literal and unenlightening. The church was good for me when I was 14, but I wish I had evolved out of it much more quickly. Oh, well.

I'll bet Joseph Smith wished he had a computer while he sitting in front of his hat making up things that popped into his head.

[_Roger Morrison]

I am curious about one thing Ray said though. I have noticed that very, very few people read the Book of Mormon again after leaving the LDS faith. This was my experience when dealing with inactives and critics. Have any of those here who have left the LDS Church read the whole book again after leaving? I've personally never found anyone who did.

Infymus, I have a replica of the 1830 Book of Mormon and have read it several times. I haven't found any substantive changes th
at would justify calling the current version 'sanitized'.

Yep, I did. My wife asked me to take President Hinckley's challenge to read the book before the end of 2005. I promised her I would, and I did so. I figured that if I read with real intent and prayed, I would know if I had made a mistake in leaving the church.

And I agree with your assessment of the 1981 edition. Contrary to a lot of critics' understanding, it is not so much a sanitized version (well, it is in some ways) as it is an attempt to reconcile the text with the surviving manuscripts and Joseph Smith's edits and emendations (which he did in 1837 and 1840). The famous change of "white" to "pure" was actually something Joseph Smith did. (Bold & UL added by RM)

Runtu, IF i'm reading you correctly--You are mistaken. I have my original BM given to me by our original Missionaries, (Victor Bowman & Lamar Bradly) in 1955. Loooong after Joesph Smith wrote the book. It uses the "W" word... I well remember the "change" to the "P" word, a few decades ago, and the stir it caused...

Age does have some advantages... Warm regards, Roger

[_Runtu]

Runtu, IF I'm reading you correctly--You are mistaken. I have my original BM given to me by our original Missionaries, (Victor Bowman & Lamar Bradly) in 1955. Loooong after Joesph Smith wrote the book. It uses the "W" word... I well remember the "change" to the "P" word, a few decades ago, and the stir it caused...

Age does have some advantages... Warm regards, Roger

Here's the history. Joseph Smith made that change in 1840. Oddly enough, the 1840 edition was only printed in Britain, and for some reason, subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon did not include Joseph's changes. It wasn't until the 1981 edition that Joseph's changes were reincorporated, so your 1955 edition would not have included that change.

Age may have its advantages, but so does knowing the textual history of the Book of Mormon.

Warm regards from here, too.

John

[_truth dancer]

Hi Nehor...

Have any of those here who have left the LDS Church read the whole book again after leaving? I've personally never found anyone who did.

Yep!

After hearing how the apologists alter so much of what the Book of Mormon says to try to get it to fit into something that may possibly make some sense to some folks, it takes on a whole different meaning.

For example, take 4 Nephi... which at one time was a very lovely and hopeful scripture for me.

2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

OK, well not everyone... just the few hundred folks that were in that little village... In other words, the neighborhood stopped their squabble.

3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly bgift.

Sort of like my local elementary school sharing their possessions and lunch. And I remember thinking this was a great civilization. Nope!

7 And the Lord did prosper them exceedingly in the land; yea, insomuch that they did build cities again where there had been cities burned.
8 Yea, even that great acity Zarahemla did they cause to be built again.

OK, not real cities... just a few small dwellings that were hidden from the rest of the population.

9 But there were many cities which had been sunk, and waters came up in the stead thereof; therefore these cities could not be renewed.

Well, these cities had nothing to do with the small group of folks who saw Jesus or who were descendants of Lehi.

10 And now, behold, it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast, and became an exceedingly afair and delightsome people.

In other words, there were a couple of children born in this little group.

11 And they were married, and given in marriage, and were blessed according to the multitude of the apromises which the Lord had made unto them.

A handful of marriages.

23 And now I, Mormon, would that ye should know that the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly arich, because of their prosperity in Christ.

That is... spread across a couple of acres. but they were hidden from the rest of the population and society.

(sigh)


I remember Brant stating that fourth Nephi was a book that used a lot of "interpretive" license...

Jesus Christ came down from the heavens but only this small little group saw him. This group discussed in the Book of Mormon was just a little hidden community somewhere immersed into the larger culture. Several hundred folks ... maybe a thousand at the most.

You know... reading the Book of Mormon today just isn't the same!

:-)

~dancer~

[_Roger Morrison]

Runtu, IF I'm reading you correctly--You are mistaken. I have my original BM given to me by our original Missionaries, (Victor Bowman & Lamar Bradly) in 1955. Loooong after Joesph Smith wrote the book. It uses the "W" word... I well remember the "change" to the "P" word, a few decades ago, and the stir it caused...

Age does have some advantages... Warm regards, Roger

Here's the history. Joseph Smith made that change in 1840. Oddly enough, the 1840 edition was only printed in Britain, and for some reason, subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon did not include Joseph's changes. It wasn't until the 1981 edition that Joseph's changes were reincorporated, so your 1955 edition would not have included that change.

Age may have its advantages, but so does knowing the textual history of the Book of Mormon.

Warm regards from here, too.

John

John, thanks for your informative response. The more informed one becomes, the more questions to be asked :-)

"...textual history of the BM..." Was that ever on a SS, PH, Relief Society course of study?

"...for some reason..."??? What could one attribute this "slip-up" to??? Incompetance, indifference, ignorance, lacking-the-Spirit? Or, simply an honest mistake???

Might Britain have been the less prejudiced nation at the time in which such a change could be easily accepted? The USA, at that time, and long there after, was barely tolerant of Native Americans...

IS your source reliable? Not just another bit of Apologetics? Not meaning to be skeptical, but Joseph Smith did originally 'dictate' that didn't he? Warm regards, Roger

[_Runtu]

Here's how it happened:

In 1841, the LDS apostles doing mission work in England published another edition of 4050 copies (the printer had shorted some of the signatures so that the order of 5000 was not filled). This edition did not sell out for some years. It was based on the 1837 edition since word of the 1840 edition reached England too late to serve as a basis for this British edition. In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith reprinted the 1840 edition in August 1842. In 1849 Orson Pratt published a new edition in England, making various changes to the text, but for some reason he did not use the 1840 edition as the basis of the text. The LDS 1852 edition published by Franklin D. Richards, used the 1849 edition making some further changes in the text and adding numbers to the paragraphs creating a primitive verse structure. British spellings were used in the editions published in England.

It's essentially Orson Pratt's use of the 1841 British edition as the source for the 1849 version that lost the 1840 changes. Here's Royal Skousen's explanation of what was done for the 1981 edition:

1981: Edited by a committee headed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve. This edition is a major reworking of the 1920 edition: The text appears again in double columns, but new introductory material, chapter summaries, and footnotes are provided. About twenty significant textual errors that had entered the printer's manuscript are corrected by reference to the original manuscript. Other corrections were made from comparison with the printer's manuscript and the 1840 Nauvoo edition.

Thus, in the 1840 edition 2 Nephi 30:6 reads that the Lamanites became “a pure and delightsome people” rather than “a white and delightsome people.” That change was lost as of the 1849 version.

Hope that helps.

Edit: Why I know this is on the level. When I worked for the church, I worked for a time on the "Translator's Edition" of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. A guy in our department was given a large-print Book of Mormon and read every edition from 1830 on, including extant portions of the OM and the PM. He marked the changes in the margins of the big book in different colored pencil. At the same time, Royal Skousen was working on his "Critical Edition" of the Book of Mormon and came and spoke to our staff for a couple of hours. The things Skousen said verified what my colleague had shown me. The 1840 edition does indeed contain the change from "white" to "pure" and other changes you would be familiar with.

I have no idea how the mistake happened. Incompetence? Ignorance? I don't know. Maybe Orson Pratt wasn't aware that the 1840 Nauvoo edition differed from the 1841 British edition.