Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Lemmie]

MG -

Why did you ever feel that you needed to put the Book of Mormon 'on the shelf'? What was it about the Book that made you consider that it might not be 100% factually true and historical?

As I understand it, mg accepts there are parts of the KJV in the Book of Mormon and that they got in there other than because they were translated from plates. That in and of itself is an admission that the Book of Mormon is not what the Church purports it to be. Recognising that, mg has to put it on the shelf or invalidate his life as a Mormon.

Especially given the official stance in the LDS essay on Book of Mormon translation. There is no room in the essay for anything but a direct translation from plates, word for word. In that sense, this may be the only place a NOMish person can entertain these ideas, which to me gives a very sad meaning to keeping things on a shelf. It's a separation of who one is and who one has to pretend to be to maintain a connection with a church one does not agree with or totally believe in. What a miserable existence.

[_Brackite]

For those that haven't read Royal Skousen's introduction to the The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content ... liest-text

Thanks for the link, mentalgymnast!!! Ether 1:41 does read differently from that early Book of Mormon text.

[41] Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind; and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.

Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind,
and also of the seed of the earth, of every kind,
and thy family, and also Jared thy brother and his family,
and also thy friends and their families,
and the friends of Jared and their families.


Some LDS Leaders within the late 19th Century used the Passage of Ether Chapter One, Verse 41 to justify their Practice of Plural Marriage unaware that the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon states, 'and thy family' from that Passage.
The 1908 RLDS Edition of that Passage agrees with the Printer's Manuscript of that Passage.

16 And it came to pass that the Lord did hear the Brother of Jared, and had compassion upon him, and said unto him, Go to and gather together thy flocks, both male and female, of every kind; and also of the seed of the earth of every kind, and thy family; and also Jared thy brother and his family; and also thy friends and their families, and the friends of Jared and their families.

http://www.centerplace.org/hs/Book of Mormon/ether.htm

[_Brackite]

Mormon 7:7:

Modern Text: 'unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.'

Early Text: 'unto the Father and unto the Son and until the Holy Ghost, which is one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.'



Alma 31:35:

Modern Text: 'their souls are precious; and many of them are our brethren;'

Early Text: 'their souls are precious, and many of them are our near brethren.'


Click here about the significance of the change of that Alma passage.

[_grindael]

Brackite what is the significance of "near brethren"? I read the post you linked to, but it still doesn't quite make sense to me. (Not YOUR argument with the manuscripts, that makes perfect sense). Sorenson's reasoning is just gobbledygook to me. If the Zoramites were dissenters from the Nephites, how could they be "others"? I just don't get what point he is trying to make.

[_Brackite]

Brackite what is the significance of "near brethren"? I read the post you linked to, but it still doesn't quite make sense to me. (Not YOUR argument with the manuscripts, that makes perfect sense). Sorenson's reasoning is just gobbledygook to me. If the Zoramites were dissenters from the Nephites, how could they be "others"? I just don't get what point he is trying to make.

Sorenson is trying to argue from Alma 31:35 that not all of the Zoramites are fellow Israelites since the modern text of that passage reads that, 'many of them are our brethren' that while many are related to them (Alma and his seven companions), not all of them are. However, Alma 31:35 from the Printer's manuscript and the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon instead reads, “. . . and many of them are our near brethren.” The basic meaning from that text is that many of the Zoramites are closely related to them. (Sorenson's argument completely falls apart from the Printer's manuscript and the 1830 edition of that passage.) In Alma 10:7, Amulek is recalling a journal to see a very close kindred of his.

Alma 10:7:

[7] As I was journeying to see a very near kindred, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto me and said: Amulek, return to thine own house, for thou shalt feed a prophet of the Lord; yea, a holy man, who is a chosen man of God; for he has fasted many days because of the sins of this people, and he is an hungered, and thou shalt receive him into thy house and feed him, and he shall bless thee and thy house; and the blessing of the Lord shall rest upon thee and thy house.



While the word 'near' is used in the KJV of the Bible, the word 'close' is used in the NKJV of the Bible.

Ruth 2 (KJV)

20 And Naomi said unto her daughter in law, Blessed be he of the Lord, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said unto her, The man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen.


Ruth 2 (NKJV)

20 Then Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “Blessed be he of the Lord, who has not forsaken His kindness to the living and the dead!” And Naomi said to her, “This man is a relation of ours, one of our close relatives.”


Ruth 3 (KJV)

9 And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.
12 And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.
13 Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the part of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman's part: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee, as the Lord liveth: lie down until the morning.


Ruth 3 (NKJV)

9 And he said, “Who are you?”
So she answered, “I am Ruth, your maidservant. Take your maidservant under your wing, for you are a close relative.”
12 Now it is true that I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I.
13 Stay this night, and in the morning it shall be that if he will perform the duty of a close relative for you—good; let him do it. But if he does not want to perform the duty for you, then I will perform the duty for you, as the Lord lives! Lie down until morning.”

[_grindael]

Fascinating. Thank you. But the text says that the Zoramites are dissenters from the Nephites. So how some of them could be outside "others" makes no sense. What a silly argument.

[_canpakes]

As I understand it, mg accepts there are parts of the KJV in the Book of Mormon and that they got in there other than because they were translated from plates.

So far, so good.

MG -

This is accurate, then? No other issues than the KJV language?

[_mentalgymnast]

This is accurate, then? No other issues than the KJV language?

None other that those that have been discussed in a number of other places/writings. Way back when, for me, it started here...as far as I can remember anyway:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Approaches-Bo ... 1560850175

Up thread I said:

If the Book of Mormon falls somewhere within the parameters of Ostler's Expansion Theory, Joseph's 'Midrash' and the narrative on the plates written by the Nephite prophets, I wouldn't expect that something in the Book of Mormon such as the Global Flood or the Tower of Babel would have its origin on the plates. If we have other interjections, such as New Testament scripture and Isaiah with all of their italic glory found in the text, that tells us something... So, I don't see any reason to expect that the Book of Mormon is a character for character translation of the plates. The mind of Joseph is in there. The contributions of other folks 'on the other side' may be in there.

...is...the text in the Book of Mormon exactly parallel[ing] the characters on the plates or [is] there...room for 'expansion' and/or midrash mixed within the text? Again, the plates were not being used directly during the translation so all bets are off as to exactly what was going on although we do know there was some kind of interactive collaboration/syncing between Joseph's mind and whatever other 'input' there was...and the resultant words seen using the seerstone in the hat. Considering some of the various explanations and/or examples of the various ways revelation/inspiration 'works' it wouldn't seem out of question to consider the translation process to be some kind of mix between the physical and the spiritual...with Joseph's mind in that mix. A fluid process rather than...cut and dried 'words were handed to him' process.

I think this approach makes it possible to be somewhat more 'forgiving' and/or flexible with what we run across in the Book of Mormon text.

Brackite is on this thread. Am I way off Brackite? Is this reasonable or not?

A short 'to the point' answer is fine. I don't want to take too much of your time if you're busy.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

Again, the plates were not being used directly during the translation so all bets are off as to exactly what was going on although we do know there was some kind of interactive collaboration/syncing between Joseph's mind and whatever other 'input' there was...and the resultant words seen using the seerstone in the hat.

How do you know this? can you be more specific about what you mean by interactive collaboration/syncing and how it is known that that is what happened?

Particularly since it doesn't seem to match up with the official LDS essay version?

[_Kishkumen]

I would agree there was some collaborative interaction/syncing with View of the Hebrews, The Late War, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, etc.