Original Book Of Mormon V 2.0

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

She gave birth to Jesus, it is the NATURE of Jesus that is the issue here, you will not understand if you do not understand MY understanding of the Trinity, here are a couple of videos so you can get an idea of where I am coming from when I say Trinity.

 

So again to be very clear when you say Jesus you mean the Son of God?  I ask because I thought I had a good handle on what most mainstream Christian believe about who was born of Mary but you are making me think I don't

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

She gave birth to Jesus, it is the NATURE of Jesus that is the issue here, you will not understand if you do not understand MY understanding of the Trinity, here are a couple of videos so you can get an idea of where I am coming from when I say Trinity.

 

With all due respect, speaking for myself, I'll admit don't really understand the Creedal Trinity.  I've studied it very intensely over the years, from a multitude of angles, and now I can say the words of the explanations but they don't really make sense to me, let alone reconcile with the references used for it.  And the more I study it, the more confused I've gotten (exponentially so).  Honestly, I've found the best thing to be say "I don't get you here, but I respect that it's important for you.  And when it comes to me loving you and try to understand the rest of you/your beliefs, I'll suspend my lack understanding and just go with it so I can better love and partway understand you."

Again, I mean no offense by this, just admitting my own weakness here.  

Edited December 8, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[NeedleinA]

44 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

if the translation was divinely inspired then I don't think it should be changed

@Blossom76 is this essentially the main concern (above)?
Is it that you really aren't concerned with the subject matter per se, but rather it is fact that it said "x", so why does it say "y" now. If God told Joseph "x" why did Joseph later change it to say "y". Perhaps this is more a misunderstanding related to how Joseph Smith actually "translated" versus the subject matter "trinity"?

[bytebear]

I think the biggest difference is our belief in a pre-mortal existence, not just for ourselves, but for Jesus.   And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe traditional Christians view Jesus as being a part of the essence of God, made human, and so, Jesus isn't the Father, but he isn't altogether separate either.  And it's really hard to explain the separateness.  In Mormonism, it's much easier.  Jesus was Jehovah, a separate spirit being (still God) always separate from the Father, from the beginning. 

The other aspect that is different is the notion that we also were premortal spirits, on the same plane as Jesus/Jehovah, but clearly not of the same spiritual identity.  We were and are never perfect, nor "God the son".  So, Christians see God becoming as man, walking and interacting.  But Mormons believe that interaction existed in pre-mortal spirit form.

[bytebear]

Divinely inspired works change for lots of reasons.  As I said in the other thread (repeating myself again), the original work written by Nephi was transcribed by Mormon/Moroni then by Joseph Smith, then to the printer's copy, then to the printed book.  Then second editions, etc.  We only have the records back to the printer's copy, so we can't even make it be the exact to any version before that if we wanted to.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

  If it doesn't matter in LDS theology then I don't see why the changes were necessary, if Joseph dictated God then I don't see why it would need to be changed to Son of God, if the translation was divinely inspired then I don't think it should be changed.

 

Umm point of correction  Joseph Smith did not dictate God (at least not in the Book of Mormon and the verses in question).  Joseph Smith translated the writing of ancient prophets.  These are their words as God inspired and directed them to write them during their time on earth.  The prophet in these verses is Nephi a Jew that lived about 600 years before Christ and therefore all the word Nephi  said would be through the lens of his understanding an culture

Edited December 8, 2017 by estradling75

[bytebear]

Just as with any publication over time, there are errors in transcription. The 1981 edition was the first that tried to correct the various changes over time, and used the earliest manuscripts as well as Smith's notes and corrections, including the "God" to "Son of God".  Since Smith didn't explain why he annotated that change, we can't assume it was not in the original manuscript, or if it was changed for clarity.  Either way, I think it actually makes more sense the way it is now.

Here's a list of the editions of the Book of Mormon printed up to 1981, with a short description of how it was compiled and what was changed/corrected.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Editions_(1830-1981)

Edited December 8, 2017 by bytebear

[bytebear]

I found this article while trying to find another one.  It's pretty good, and I think it answers your question fairly well, and I hope it eases your concerns.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

I did think it interesting that there are already tons of resources and answers out there to this exact concern, so we've clearly gone down this road before.

[Maureen]

17 hours ago, bytebear said:

I think the biggest difference is our belief in a pre-mortal existence, not just for ourselves, but for Jesus.   And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe traditional Christians view Jesus as being a part of the essence of God, made human, and so, Jesus isn't the Father, but he isn't altogether separate either.  And it's really hard to explain the separateness.  In Mormonism, it's much easier.  Jesus was Jehovah, a separate spirit being (still God) always separate from the Father, from the beginning. 

The other aspect that is different is the notion that we also were premortal spirits, on the same plane as Jesus/Jehovah, but clearly not of the same spiritual identity.  We were and are never perfect, nor "God the son".  So, Christians see God becoming as man, walking and interacting.  But Mormons believe that interaction existed in pre-mortal spirit form.

Regarding the doctrine of the Trinity - God has existed as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before the beginning. Before there was anything there was God and only God. God is One and cannot be divided into parts. The three persons of the Trinity are individually and collectively God. If I am talking about the Holy Spirit, I am talking about God. If I am talking about the Father and the Son, I am talking about God. The three persons of the Trinity are distinct from each other and have relationships with each other. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God and only God is perfect.

M.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Maureen

[bytebear]

1 minute ago, Maureen said:

Regarding the doctrine of the Trinity - God has existed as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before the beginning. Before there was was anything there was God and only God. God is One and cannot be divided into parts. The three persons of the Trinity are individually and collectively God. If I am talking about the Holy Spirit, I am talking about God. If I am talking about the Father and the Son, I am talking about God. The three persons of the Trinity are distinct from each other and have relationships with each other. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God and only God is perfect.

M.

See, this confuses me. 

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

I think I understand where you are coming from @Blossom76. If you just look at the Book of Mormon without anything else, I can see why you would see some Trinitarian notions. We always look at these verses through the lens of Joseph Smith's first vision though. We know that God the Father and Jesus Christ are seperate beings due to that vision and, since the Book of Mormon was translated after the First Vision, that verse would have been understood by Latter Day Saints to refer specifically to the Son of God at the time, and Joseph Smith was inspired to clarify that at a later date, hence why the difference is unimportant to us.

Well, ironically, I've heard that the Book of Mormon is the strongest support of the trinity ever written...at in least one individuals view (they were not Catholic though, they were protestant).

It gets even stronger in it's support in the Book of Mosiah.

Some of it is because of very delicate nuances that separate the hardcore Trinitarians from the LDS views...but if one isn't a hardcore Trinitarian, oddly enough, there are times that the two different views may seem a LOT alike...though different.

[Bad Karma]

2 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Thank you, I really like and trust fairmormon.com so I will spend a lot of time on there regarding this question, and I defiantly want to read the Joseph Smith papers.  The changes do bother me and I really want to make peace with them so I can move forward in my studies.

I can understand that, and it is justifiably perplexing, also, when we think about how many times the Holy Bible and it's various books have been translated, retranslated, kind of "wash, rince, repeat" kind of thing, and one can really get derailed at the differences therein as well, and if you go from Torah (Hebrew) and translate to English, many things do not translate well. 

Mormons are not all that dissimilar from other flavors of Christianity, some of us are well read, some of us are left of the middle, some of us are not even that. Me for example, as to the meat and potatoes of your question, I would not be able to adequately answer is to any comfortable level of explanation. After all is said and done, 18 months from now, you'll be one of the better well read members in your ward! That might bite you in the buns though, your Bishop might ask you to give more talks than the average member. The more you know goes with GOOD DEEDS, no good deed goes unpunished. Caveat emptor!

[Bad Karma]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, ironically, I've heard that the Book of Mormon is the strongest support of the trinity ever written...at in least one individuals view (they were not Catholic though, they were protestant).

It gets even stronger in it's support in the Book of Mosiah.

Some of it is because of very delicate nuances that separate the hardcore Trinitarians from the LDS views...but if one isn't a hardcore Trinitarian, oddly enough, there are times that the two different views may seem a LOT alike...though different.

I think so.

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

So again to be very clear when you say Jesus you mean the Son of God?  I ask because I thought I had a good handle on what most mainstream Christian believe about who was born of Mary but you are making me think I don't

If you watch the videos I posted for you, you will understand where I am coming from and get a better idea of the mainstream christian view of the Trinity

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

@Blossom76 is this essentially the main concern (above)?
Is it that you really aren't concerned with the subject matter per se, but rather it is fact that it said "x", so why does it say "y" now. If God told Joseph "x" why did Joseph later change it to say "y". Perhaps this is more a misunderstanding related to how Joseph Smith actually "translated" versus the subject matter "trinity"?

I guess it is both, it is the fact that is was changed and the fact that the change in question seems to change the view the book of mormon has on the nature of Jesus.

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Umm point of correction  Joseph Smith did not dictate God (at least not in the Book of Mormon and the verses in question).  Joseph Smith translated the writing of ancient prophets.  These are their words as God inspired and directed them to write them during their time on earth.  The prophet in these verses is Nephi a Jew that lived about 600 years before Christ and therefore all the word Nephi  said would be through the lens of his understanding an culture

I didn't mean Joseph dictated directly from God, but he dictated the WORD God when he was translating the plates, if that was the dictated word then why change it to the words Son of God

[bytebear]

46 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I didn't mean Joseph dictated directly from God, but he dictated the WORD God when he was translating the plates, if that was the dictated word then why change it to the words Son of God

There are several possible answers. 

1) The original manuscript/translation had it as "son of God" but it got changed in the printers manuscript and/or publication. 

2) Smith saw the scripture through the eyes of one who understands the role of Christ as the son of God, and believed the verse was more logical to his understanding, and not to Nephi's Old Testament understanding of God.

3) Joseph Smith was inspired/called by God to clarify the verse (going back to reason 2), which is my belief.

[bytebear]

Here's a question for you.   Can a modern prophet clarify scripture?   Could a NT apostle and or Christ himself interpret OT scripture giving it different meaning than was commonly thought?  (i.e. confound the Pharisees)?  

A quick Google search says that at least one non-LDS Bible scholar believes so.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Verses-Clarified-Old/dp/0982707096

 

[Blossom76]

35 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Here's a question for you.   Can a modern prophet clarify scripture?   Could a NT apostle and or Christ himself interpret OT scripture giving it different meaning than was commonly thought?  (i.e. confound the Pharisees)?  

A quick Google search says that at least one non-LDS Bible scholar believes so.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Verses-Clarified-Old/dp/0982707096

 

Yes I believe that they can - thank you that simple question just helped more than you know, changed my viewpoint so to speak.  Thanks

[Midwest LDS]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, ironically, I've heard that the Book of Mormon is the strongest support of the trinity ever written...at in least one individuals view (they were not Catholic though, they were protestant).

It gets even stronger in it's support in the Book of Mosiah.

Some of it is because of very delicate nuances that separate the hardcore Trinitarians from the LDS views...but if one isn't a hardcore Trinitarian, oddly enough, there are times that the two different views may seem a LOT alike...though different.

Yeah, if you look at the scripture without the First Vision I can understand the confusion, especially if you grew up with an understanding of God as being one in substance rather than as one in purpose. It goes both ways in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah vs. 3 Nephi 11 for example). It's the same thing in the Bible, some verses seem to obviously favor a non-Trinitatrian God, others a Trinitarian one. For me that always showed why it was so important to have a living prophet who can explain what God meant in scripture through revelation, rather than someone (generic) trying to argue what he thinks it means through logic.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[zil]

7 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I didn't mean Joseph dictated directly from God, but he dictated the WORD God when he was translating the plates, if that was the dictated word then why change it to the words Son of God

He's saying Joseph just dictated the word Nephi used - that it was Nephi who said "God" and Joseph later clarified that Nephi meant the Son of God.  Add to this the previous posts regarding Jewish tradition in 600 BC, and this would make sense.

[estradling75]

8 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

If you watch the videos I posted for you, you will understand where I am coming from and get a better idea of the mainstream christian view of the Trinity

So you are saying that if I watch a total of three hours of video it will tell me if you personally believe that Jesus is the Son of God?...   That seems like awful lot of wasted time for the answer that you could give in a few words. And given the confusion that surrounds the subject I am not convinced a simple video will fix it

Lets recap...  My understanding is that the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ the Son of God.  Or to simplify Mary gave birth to the Son of God.  I considered this a foundational belief that I shared with just about every other Christian out there.  Yet you seem to be doing your best to avoid answering a question that I think should be very basic.

So let make this a simple yes or no question.  Do you @Blossom76 believe that Mary gave birth to the Son of God?  Yes Or No?

[estradling75]

8 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I didn't mean Joseph dictated directly from God, but he dictated the WORD God when he was translating the plates, if that was the dictated word then why change it to the words Son of God

In the prior thread I talked about how some people try rip the Book of Mormon out of its own context and try to force into a different context.  And then when it fails to to live up to their distorted context then complain that the Book of Mormon itself is at fault.   This is exactly what you are doing here.

You are focusing on the God part of Translated by the Gift and Power of God, and expecting the said translation to be basically sola scriptura.  This is a demand you would never make of any other Translation effort.

Lets give an example.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are perfect..  Even if you are not personally interested in them you got to know their is a lot of effort and excitement about them.

And I am pretty sure that if you would ever read a Translation of a Dead Sea Scroll you would understand and accept that there multiple places error could still exist.  First and for most is in the original text.  Who was the author, why did they write, what was their cultural, how careful and accurate were they?  Clearly there can be issues here.

Then there is the Translation effort, in most cases that is a Scholarly effort who main goal should be the accurate transmission of the thought and ideas in the original in to a different language.  Ask anyone that has done translation before this is a lot harder then it sound, plenty of room for error.  This is the only place the Book of Mormon is fundamentally different.  Joseph Smith was not a scholar, God handled the effort of   "accurate transmission of the thought and ideas in the original"

Then there is the publication of the Translation.  Anyone who has ever published a book how much effort is required to make sure the publication matches the original work.

Now in the case of the change made in Nephi, do you think Nephi's original text is better then what Joseph Smith attempt at clarification?

 

 

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

I am not saying that it does, I am having difficulty making it fit in my head and the changes made to the Book of Mormon do not help that at all.

There is no difference between Trinity and Godhead in the USAGE of the word GOD.  Both sides believe there are 3 Persons in ONE GOD. 

Therefore the statement, Mary gave birth to God is valid in both LDS and Catholic usage.  Jesus IS GOD.

The change to Son of God clarifies that the sentence is talking to a SPECIFIC PERSON in that Godhead/Trinity.  Therefore, correcting the statement to Mary gave birth to the Son of God is also valid in both LDS and Catholic usage.  Jesus IS THE SON OF GOD.

 

[mordorbund]

5 hours ago, estradling75 said:

So let make this a simple yes or no question.  Do you @Blossom76 believe that Mary gave birth to the Son of God?  Yes Or No?

15 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

She gave birth to Jesus, it is the NATURE of Jesus that is the issue here,

So, for a little perspective (although @Blossom76 can correct me if this is irrelevant to her specific concerns), the Catholics have already gone through this debate. In the 5th century the Council of Ephesus met to debate whether it would be better in their liturgies to refer to Mary as Christotokos (mother of the Christ) instead of Theotokos (mother of God). What shook out was that the liturgy would maintain Theotokos, and that it had nuances that addressed many of the concerns (see the Theology section in the link) raised in this thread (does that mean Mary is the mother of God the Father? That Mary is the source of the divine nature of the hypostasis?)

So when Blossom reads in The Book of Mormon that Mary is the "mother of God", it doesn't bring in the confusion that a number of protestants (which was the majority of early converts - and probably even modern English-speaking converts) might have reading it. What's more, referring to Mary as the "mother of the Son of God" - deliberately changed from "mother of God" - can subconsciously place Mormons on the wrong side of the Nestorian debate. Not only that, but the change of verbiage was not done to our ceremonies but to the Word of God!

Again, Blossom can clarify if this is irrelevant to her concerns - if it is then we can all ignore this post (I almost have already). It sounds to me like @bytebear's question has changed her perspective (and addresses this issue as well). Who can clarify the meaning of scripture? If a Council can clarify the wording in a liturgy, surely a prophet can clarify scripture. If this resolves the issue I don't see a need to seek further resolutions.