Original Book Of Mormon


Recommended Posts

Hi all, as a lot of you know my very Catholic husband has agreed to read the Book of Mormon!  He ordered one and it arrived the other day (its super pretty).  He said if Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture then he will read the text that he dictated.  I didn't really understand what he meant.

Now that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is here I understand.  It is very different, the text is places is very different.  The Book of Mormon used by the LDS Church today is not the same Book of Mormon Joseph Smith translated - and its not just spelling and grammar differences, I'm talking doctrinal differences in the text.

So my question is, if the Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written by Joseph Smith a true prophet of God then why isn't the original text that Joseph Smith dictated used by the LDS Church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Hi all, as a lot of you know my very Catholic husband has agreed to read the Book of Mormon!  He ordered one and it arrived the other day (its super pretty).  He said if Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture then he will read the text that he dictated.  I didn't really understand what he meant.

Now that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is here I understand.  It is very different, the text is places is very different.  The Book of Mormon used by the LDS Church today is not the same Book of Mormon Joseph Smith translated - and its not just spelling and grammar differences, I'm talking doctrinal differences in the text.

So my question is, if the Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written by Joseph Smith a true prophet of God then why isn't the original text that Joseph Smith dictated used by the LDS Church?

I’m very interested, what differences have you found?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’m very interested, what differences have you found?

 

12 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Hi all, as a lot of you know my very Catholic husband has agreed to read the Book of Mormon!  He ordered one and it arrived the other day (its super pretty).  He said if Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture then he will read the text that he dictated.  I didn't really understand what he meant.

Now that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is here I understand.  It is very different, the text is places is very different.  The Book of Mormon used by the LDS Church today is not the same Book of Mormon Joseph Smith translated - and its not just spelling and grammar differences, I'm talking doctrinal differences in the text.

So my question is, if the Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written by Joseph Smith a true prophet of God then why isn't the original text that Joseph Smith dictated used by the LDS Church?

Me too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Hi all, as a lot of you know my very Catholic husband has agreed to read the Book of Mormon!  He ordered one and it arrived the other day (its super pretty).  He said if Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture then he will read the text that he dictated.  I didn't really understand what he meant.

Now that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is here I understand.  It is very different, the text is places is very different.  The Book of Mormon used by the LDS Church today is not the same Book of Mormon Joseph Smith translated - and its not just spelling and grammar differences, I'm talking doctrinal differences in the text.

Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon is a text with a history.  It didn't just fall out of the sky and hit somebody on the head (as some people seem to think).  Particularly in 1830 when English was sporadic, the type setter messed some things up, English has evolved since then, etc.  That's why we still have living Prophets to help guide understanding (just like with the Bible).  Scripture is not a book just left to stand alone.  

37 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

So my question is, if the Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written by Joseph Smith a true prophet of God then why isn't the original text that Joseph Smith dictated used by the LDS Church?

The content of the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book, not the grammar.  As it says on the Book of Mormon title page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Hi all, as a lot of you know my very Catholic husband has agreed to read the Book of Mormon!  He ordered one and it arrived the other day (its super pretty).  He said if Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture then he will read the text that he dictated.  I didn't really understand what he meant.

Now that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is here I understand.  It is very different, the text is places is very different.  The Book of Mormon used by the LDS Church today is not the same Book of Mormon Joseph Smith translated - and its not just spelling and grammar differences, I'm talking doctrinal differences in the text.

So my question is, if the Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written by Joseph Smith a true prophet of God then why isn't the original text that Joseph Smith dictated used by the LDS Church?

I'd be interested in which 1830 edition he ordered.  There are fake versions out there that claim to be the original, but...

For those who have the real original version, critics forget that Joseph himself made most of the changes to make some of the ancient Nephite language (i.e. phrasing and idiomatic expressions) clearer to the English reader.

For instance several places Joseph himself added "Son of" before "God" to clarify that it was the Son, not the Father.  But in LDS theology, it makes no difference.  While we do believe them to be separate individuals, it is perfectly doctrinally acceptable to address the Son as either "God" or "Son of God" as long as we understand the context in which we say it.  We don't do so very often because of the obvious confusion it causes.  But this is not a doctrinal change. It is a clarification for the uninitiated.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, zil said:

Yes, examples please

Current Version

1 Nephi 11:18
And he said unto me: Behold,

the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Original 

And he said unto me, Behold,

the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Current Version

1 Nephi 11:21

And the angel said unto me:

Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father

Original

And the angel said unto me,

behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!

Current Version

1 Nephi 11:32

And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world;

Original

And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world;

 

These are just a couple of what we have discovered so far, with the changes in the new version in purple, why change the word of God?  It makes no sense.  We will keep comparing as we read and I'll list more as we find them.

There is a big difference in calling Jesus the Son of God and calling him God, God told Joseph Smith to call Jesus God, who are we to dispute that?  Either the Book of Mormon is the word of God or it is not, and if it is then changing that word is blasphemy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

 most correct book

"most correct" is not synonymous with: perfect or without error. It simply means "most" correct.

1830 Edition (as well as subsequent editions)-  state:

Quote

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun.

Mistakes of men from: scribes, to type setters and even Joseph himself.

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Current Version

1 Nephi 11:18
And he said unto me: Behold,

the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

See my post that was posted just before yours.  Also see @zil's post above.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

There is a big difference in calling Jesus the Son of God and calling him God, God told Joseph Smith to call Jesus God, who are we to dispute that?

Jesus is the Son of God and God.  He's both.  He's not the Father.  

6 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

  Either the Book of Mormon is the word of God or it is not, and if it is then changing that word is blasphemy.

God can help clarify meaning in scripture.  Again, scripture (the Bible or Book of Mormon) is not something which fell out of the sky, but rather has a history behind it.  The Church (via prophets) helps guide our understanding. 

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

"most correct" is not synonymous with: perfect or without error. It simply means "most" correct.

Easily solved; computers can handle the infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters thing.  We simply create every possible combination of words.  In order to remain "most correct" in the presence of all possible texts, it will have to be absolutely correct.

Right up there with abusing the loophole in Matthew 24:36; if no man can know he day or the hour, then all we have to do is make sure that everybody knows a different day and hour, then we're good for thousands more years while He waits for a day and hour no one knows.

Edited by NightSG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NightSG said:

Easily solved; computers can handle the infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters thing.  We simply create every possible combination of words.  In order to remain "most correct" in the presence of all possible texts, it will have to be absolutely correct.

So, you've found an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters, have you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd be interested in which 1830 edition he ordered.  There are fake versions out there that claim to be the original, but...

For those who have the real original version, critics forget that Joseph himself made most of the changes to make some of the ancient Nephite language (i.e. phrasing and idiomatic expressions) clearer to the English reader.

For instance several places Joseph himself added "Son of" before "God" to clarify that it was the Son, not the Father.  But in LDS theology, it makes no difference.  While we do believe them to be separate individuals, it is perfectly doctrinally acceptable to address the Son as "God" or "Son of God" as long as we understand the context in which we say it.  We don't do so very often because of the obvious confusion it causes.  But this is not a doctrinal change. It is a clarification for the uninitiated.

He got it from the Community of Christ Church (ex RLDS) its actually the 1837 Second Edition (or Kirtland Edition) - its legitimate 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

For instance several places Joseph himself added "Son of" before "God" to clarify that it was the Son, not the Father.  But in LDS theology, it makes no difference.  While we do believe them to be separate individuals, it is perfectly doctrinally acceptable to address the Son as "God" or "Son of God" as long as we understand the context in which we say it.  We don't do so very often because of the obvious confusion it causes.  But this is not a doctrinal change. It is a clarification for the uninitiated.

I think it makes a very big difference, to call Jesus God and then to call him The Son of God is different, it is not the same, and it does not mean the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

So my question is, if the Book of Mormon is the most correct book ever written by Joseph Smith a true prophet of God then why isn't the original text that Joseph Smith dictated used by the LDS Church?

When's the last time someone had the chance to read the original edition of the Bible to compare it to what we have now?  Would you be willing to apply the same scrutiny?

Quote

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."
(The Book of Mormon - Title Page)

"And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire."
(Mormon 8:17)

There are no doctrinal differences, punctuation was added after the dictation of the entire manuscript was complete, therefore all punctuation was done by man and not through the Gift and Power of God as was the actual translation.  As a result, punctuation may still be altered by those holding proper authority to ensure the accurate interpretation of the text.  Additionally, minor alterations to phraseology were made to prevent incorrect interpretation. In one example, the original printing had written regarding Mary, "the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh", but to prevent incorrect interpretation of the phrase, Joseph Smith authorized the change to "the mother of the Son of God. . ." as this was always what the reader should understand from the text, which he especially would know since he was the one who originally translated the phrase by the Gift and Power of God.

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

He said if Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture then he will read the text that he dictated.

If there was something to hide, why would the Church authorize the continuous re-printing of 1830 replicas like the one your husband just bought?  Regardless, since the text that Joseph Smith dictated did not include punctuation, in order to fully accomplish the stated objective, your husband would need to read the actual original manuscript, which can be found here: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org  That said, the 1830 edition is just as true as any other edition, just as the manuscript itself is true.  The Book of Mormon is what it is claimed to be, another testament of Jesus Christ, yet only the sincere seeker will ever come to know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:
 the Son of God

the Son of the Eternal Father

the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world;

@Blossom76 Do you know who made the changes in the BOM from "god" to "Son of God"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Current Version 1 Nephi 11:18  And he said unto me: Behold,  the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
Original  And he said unto me, Behold,  the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.

These are just a couple of what we have discovered so far, with the changes in the new version in purple, why change the word of God?  It makes no sense.  We will keep comparing as we read and I'll list more as we find them.

There is a big difference in calling Jesus the Son of God and calling him God, God told Joseph Smith to call Jesus God, who are we to dispute that?  Either the Book of Mormon is the word of God or it is not, and if it is then changing that word is blasphemy.

From Zil's link:

Quote

Question: Why did Joseph Smith make changes to the Book of Mormon such as modifying "God" to read "the Son of God"?

These changes were made for the purpose of clarification, not doctrinal modification

These changes are clarifications that the passages are speaking of Jesus, not God the Father.

The terms "God," "Everlasting God," and "Eternal Father" are ambiguous since they could properly refer to either the Father or the Son. For example, "Eternal Father" refers to God the Father in Moroni 4:3, Moroni 5:2, and Moroni 10:4, but to God the Son in Mosiah 16:15 and Alma 11:38-39.

The addition of "the Son of" to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon's teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel. This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts. For example:

"And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself...as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up...and to be crucified...and to be buried in a sepulchre...." (1 Nephi 19:10)

"...he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth." (Mosiah 7:27)

"Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father." (Mosiah 16:15)

"Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Alma 11:38-39)

Just out of curiosity Blossom, are you honestly going page by page, verse by verse, and comparing your hard copy of your old version with current version?

I'd hate to think you were just finding criticisms on some anti-mormon website, and just pasting them here as if they were really your own research...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

to call Jesus God and then to call him The Son of God is different, it is not the same, and it does not mean the same thing

Quote

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Here we have the Apostle Thomas calling the Son of God, God.  Is this a problem?  Did Thomas not know that Jesus was the Son of God?

Then see verse 31 at the end of the chapter:

Quote

31 But these are awritten, that ye might bbelieve that Jesus is the cChrist, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have dlife through his ename.

So which is he, God or the Son of God?  How about both?  Is it OK for the Bible to mix the terms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, for serious scholars, we have the life's work of a guy named Royal Skousen, PhD in linguistics, who began a landmark work in 1988 - Compiling every single change to every single printing in existence.

http://criticaltext.byustudies.byu.edu/about

Quote

Professor Royal Skousen has spent more than twenty five years meticulously researching the original and printer’s manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, revealing discrepancies and making a case for the type of translation the Book of Mormon is. Every page, every sentence, every word, letter, and mark are accounted for in the landmark Critical Text Project, arguably the most important Book of Mormon research to date.

It's quite a remarkable website, with hours and hours of material, again, for the serious scholar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Just out of curiosity Blossom, are you honestly going page by page, verse by verse, and comparing your hard copy of your old version with current version?

http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/diff.1.html

But really, in the end, what difference does it make?  Whether an action or command comes from the Father, the Son, or Cliff, the Third Cousin of God that They left worldsitting while They took a week off for a Father and Son fishing trip, does it really change your behavior in the least?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her sources are "Anti Mormon Sites" which ask the "investigator" to raise these points to refute our doctrine. 

9 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I think it makes a very big difference, to call Jesus God and then to call him The Son of God is different, it is not the same, and it does not mean the same thing.

That's because Jesus is **NOT** God, he is the SON of GOD.  There, a Mormon said it.  HOw are you coming along with your missionary lead lessons? Are they helping to answer your questions? Have you discussed a baptism date yet? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'd hate to think you were just finding criticisms on some anti-mormon website, and just pasting them here as if they were really your own research...

ding, ding, ding!
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bad Karma said:

Her sources are "Anti Mormon Sites" which ask the "investigator" to raise these points to refute our doctrine. 

That's because Jesus is **NOT** God, he is the SON of GOD.  There, a Mormon said it.  HOw are you coming along with your missionary lead lessons? Are they helping to answer your questions? Have you discussed a baptism date yet? 

As I have already stated in a another post, I will be studying for 18 months to see if this is the right thing to convert to, my husband has agreed to study with me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share