Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Gadianton]

I have to laugh. Using the Annotated Book of Mormon is ‘apostate’ in Gadianton’s view. Sheesh. The Book of Mormon is there word for word with study commentary.

Right, it's not official commentary ratified by the Brethren. You can use his commentary AFTER you first finish your 1/2 hour of reading.

[MG 2.0]

My two cents as a lifelong practicing member of the church. If you are prioritizing the canon of scripture I would say it goes like this:

1. Book of Mormon
2. Bible
3. Conference talks
4. D&C/PofGP

Thanks, MG.

I wanted to be clear about one thing - When you say Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) are you talking about the same Bible I would use or is there a Mormon Bible?

The church has used the King James Bible for many years. In the last decade or so I have seen more members, including gospel doctrine teachers teaching the Sunday class for scripture study, using other versions to either highlight or make some passages easier to understand. I don’t think that there is anything being said about that as far as I know.

The gal (lay member) that taught our local ward gospel doctrine class this last year used other Bible translations fairly often.

There is a Bible printed by the church. King James Version. It has foot notes and indexing and a Bible dictionary that was put in there for LDS folks to help them with their study.

I’ve used other online translations to help in Bible study.

You can access the LDS Standard Works here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... atform=web

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I have to laugh. Using the Annotated Book of Mormon is ‘apostate’ in Gadianton’s view. Sheesh. The Book of Mormon is there word for word with study commentary.

Right, it's not official commentary ratified by the Brethren.

Well, that’s true. Is that all you ever read? Official works published by the church? Would you have considered yourself ‘apostate’ for reading the Annotated Book of Mormon if it had been available back in the day?

You can use his commentary AFTER you first finish your 1/2 hour of reading.

I’m hoping you’re being facetious. This brings up the larger point and that is, church leaders do encourage daily scripture study.

No clock.

Again, I think that you and Marcus are trying to make out members of the LDS Church as being timed robots as they study the scriptures. It’s not like that at all.

But you know that.

You’re a performance act duo.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Joseph Smith did do his own translation of the Bible to fix the careless mistakes and conspiracies of evil and faithless scribes. However, the King James is the official version, and to use anything but the King James in Church is totally apostate. That includes, weirdly, the Joseph Smith translation.

The Mormon King James version has footnotes that often cite the Joseph Smith translation for commentary on certain verses, but those comments are not really any more official. And so in this case, if you went gung ho correcting the teacher or giving talks in Sacrament directly from the JST, you'd be in apostasy. That's the sort of thing that leads to right-wing apostasy, such as following Denver Snuffer.

[MG 2.0]

Sometimes I really wonder about your Mormon upbringing, mg. You seem to have missed quite a bit.

I’m not at all sure why you are saying this. Mine was a fairly typical upbringing as far as church activity was concerned. Although there was one Sunday I put up a stink about going to afternoon Sacrament Meeting and I ended up going to church barefoot.

That happened only one time.

But yeah, nothing too much out of the ordinary. Seminary. Institute. Religion classes at BYU.

Probably similar to your upbringing if you were raised in the church.

We just ended up in a different place.

I sure don’t claim to be perfect though, if that’s what you’re expecting. But I’m trying…mostly.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Well, that’s true. Is that all you ever read? Official works published by the church? Would you have considered yourself ‘apostate’ for reading the Annotated Book of Mormon if it had been available back in the day?

I doubt that I've ever read the Book of Mormon for a full half hour, not even on my mission. I did study the Bible, the official commentary, and other sources so that I could be ready to bash with ministers. I read the Old Testament all the way through on my mission and took copious notes of various storylines. I would then recite the storylines to other missionaries as evidence of how f'd up the Old Testament is and they'd get a laugh out of it. At one of the flats I stayed in, the owner left a history of China on the bookshelf that was like a thousand pages. That book became my daily study for that area.

Yes, I was absolutely apostate. The difference between me and you is I cared about what the doctrine really was and I knew what the doctrine was. There's no point in lying to yourself and making church teachings fit your lifestyle. If you believe in a modern prophet then you try to figure out what the prophet is actually trying to tell you, not what you want to hear. If you want to live life on your own terms, you can do that and avoid all the other nonsense and save 10% anyway.

Again, I think that you and Marcus are trying to make out members of the LDS Church as being timed robots as they study the scriptures. It’s not like that at all.

Did you even go on a mission? Maybe in your time this wasn't emphasized, but reading the Book of Mormon a half hour and using the approved missionary study guide was the most mandatory of all mission rules for daily study. If that's making robots out of people, take it up with the Lord, because he so commanded it through his mouthpiece the living prophet.

[MG 2.0]

Joseph Smith did do his own translation of the Bible to fix the careless mistakes and conspiracies of evil and faithless scribes. However, the King James is the official version, and to use anything but the King James in Church is totally apostate. That includes, weirdly, the Joseph Smith translation.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Inquiry: In the LDS church is it considered apostate to use any other version of the Bible than the king James translation?

Response: The LDS church has not officially declared that using any other version of the Bible than the King James Version is apostate. In fact, many church members and scholars have recognized the value of other translations and use them for study and comparison.

However, the King James Version has traditionally been the preferred translation used in LDS meetings and publications, due in part to its historical importance and familiarity. Some members may feel a strong attachment to the KJV for personal or cultural reasons, and may be uncomfortable with other translations.

But ultimately, the choice of Bible translation is a matter of personal preference and study, and there is no official LDS policy mandating the use of the KJV exclusively.
Pi A.I.

Ceeboo, don’t listen to him.

I will say, however, the expectation is that the King James Translation is the Bible translation that is usually used at church. So there is that. But apostate?

C’mon.

Like I said, as recently as last year our Gospel Doctrine teacher was using one or two other translations. Not a blink of an eye from ward leaders. If they even cared or knew about it.

You’re a fundie, gadianton! As I said earlier, this seems to be common among those that leave the church.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I doubt that I've ever read the Book of Mormon for a full half hour, not even on my mission.

That’s interesting. Why? Keystone and all that…

Did you take it seriously on your mission or had you already decided it was not what you had been taught that it was?

Did you even go on a mission? Maybe in your time this wasn't emphasized, but reading the Book of Mormon a half hour and using the approved missionary study guide was the most mandatory of all mission rules for daily study. If that's making robots out of people, take it up with the Lord, because he so commanded it through his mouthpiece the living prophet.

Yes I did! Washington D.C. Mission. I served as a tour guide at the Washington D.C. Temple just before it was dedicated.

And yes, we did have daily scripture study for an hour or so each day most of the time.

As members of the church, however, not on full time missions, there is no time requirement. But again, I think you know that.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

That’s interesting. Why? Keystone and all that…

Did you take it seriously on your mission or had you already decided it was not what you had been taught that it was?

I took my mission as seriously as anyone else, was a ZL etc. I believed it back then, it was just pointless. It's far more effective to learn the Bible because that gives you common ground with Investigators, and even if you're into deep doctrine, which I was, it's the Bible, PoGP, D&C, everything but the Book of Mormon. That's why you read Hardy's deconstruction of the Book of Mormon because it's the only way to make it interesting. Reading 1/2 a day is about orthodoxy, like praying 5 times a day in a certain way. The harsh way to put it would be brainwashing. It's not for learning, its a repetitive ritual. I had missionaries complain to me all the time about it. A sister in an interview once was to her wits end in boredom. She took it all super seriously, and had already read it 4 times and she'd been out less than a year. She's like, what am I supposed to do with this? Be bored. Obedience is the first law of heaven, not learning new things.

As members of the church, however, not on full time missions, there is no time requirement. But again, I think you know that.

You also rank the modern day prophets lower in authority than the Song of Solomon, so of course you wouldn't think it's a commandment.

[huckelberry]

A commandment to read Book of Mormon 30minutes a day? Really?

...No. You’ve got to remember huckleberry, this fellow is an apostate. He’s going to come up with stuff...

Lol. Sometimes I really wonder about your Mormon upbringing, mg. You seem to have missed quite a bit.


Huckelberry, like Gadianton, I grew up with that commandment as well. Here's a source:

We, ourselves, must be studying the scriptures and have a daily habit.19

The way you build spirituality [is] by study of the gospel.20

"Strive in your homes, and teach others, to take some time of each day to have a quiet hour, meditation.

Let there be study of the scriptures at least thirty minutes of each day...”

[Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: President Harold B. Lee]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 7?lang=eng

Harold B. Lee was President of the LDS church July 1972 to December 1973.

The link fills in more history about it if you are interested.

Marcus, thanks for the clarification. I admit I would hear that as counsel instead of commandment thought those are closely related I suppose. Spring of 1967 was the last time I went to an LDS church service. (with the exception of a few funerals in more recent years) I have heard in a general way that the church increased emphasis on reading the Book of Mormon in the years after I left. (I had parents and siblings who remained active in the church.)