Mormonism

[Polycarp]

In exchanges with Monty and in particular with Snarkberry, I have found some interesting insights into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In particular, Bill (Snark) advanced the whole "spirit body" concept in partial justification of certain of his views where they were opposed to mine.

I propose a debate on the subject of the beliefs of Mormons and their origins. I suggest the following ground rules:

We are exploring what Mormons believe and where those doctrines come from. We will do this with respect for their religion. But we will not be trammeled by that respect. I.e., I will not slam or flame Monty or Bill for an assertion, but will attempt to disprove it, either logically or by probability (e.g., if no evidence of Nephites has been found by archeologists, that's pretty good evidence for the non-existence of Nephites). Much the ground rules that we used successfully in exploring the origins of some (FDS) Christian beliefs.

I think that the fact that we're working with 19th Century history and parallel fact vs. revelation may give some insight into the open questions on 1st Century Christian origins.

==============
Now, I personally feel that the Joseph Smith Hill Cumorah story is the result of either (a) an extended fraud by Smith and others, or (b) evidence that the quality of psychoactive drugs in Palmyra NY has declined
over the last 150 years or so. Obviously, Monty and Bill believe otherwise. I'd like for them (and any other LDS posters) to make the cases for their beliefs and then for the rest of us to explore them critically (but courteously).

Okay, but here are two additional rules, Polycarp:

1) I will only answer one question per day and will need time to research things I don't know about as well as I should. Monty would definitely make the better debater.

2) No "flip-flopping" allowed--that is, don't change the subject until everyone's satisfied that it has been covered sufficiently.

I don't claim to be an expert on Mormonism. Heck, I'm not even an active Mormon. So if my answers are wanting, it's due to long years of inactivity and forgetfulness. I really hope that other Mormons will carry the load, especially if/when I'm wrong.

What's your first question?

[Polycarp]

Sounds cool to me, Bill.

Howzabout starting with a biggie: origins of the LDS sacred writings (other than the Bible, that is!). Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine & Covenants.

Would you (plural: Monty's in on this if he wants, or others) post where they're supposed to have come from, as best you understand it, together with a summary of the history they report? Key points, to me, are how Jos. Smith Jr. got them, evidence for their validity other than his word, and why LDSs believe that they are inspired, holy writings. Is there any "degree" to how you regard them, e.g., the Bible and BoM stand "above" the D&C in importance to LDS people? Finally, are things like the recent Proclamation on the Family considered on a par with the D&C teachings? If so, are they included with them?

[jazzmine]

This is your captain speaking, we are embarking on a short detour to Cuba. Please stay seated for just a few minutes then we'll do us a U-turn.

Snark - I've watched you for a couple of months now, am always interested in what you say and think you treat everyone very well. I just wanted to voice a concern I have for you. Obviously, this is none of my business, and I hope that you take it in the caring spirit it was intended. If it offends you, please just ignore it and don't let it ruin your day.

You oft times seem very upset by something you have, or perceive you have done. God seems to be a trifle angry at you, a lot, and I was just wondering why you take every little thing to heart. Surely, your God loves you enough that all of the little mistakes you make aren't that big of a deal. I don't believe for a second that your God thinks you're so wicked that you can't share what you feel about these Mormon questions. If it's how you feel, then it is a sincere thought.

I guess I just wanted to say that lots of people on the SDMB care about you and you should try to not be so hard on yourself.

*making a U-Turn back*

trisha

[pricciar]

I agree with jazzmine, to uturn again. Snark, don't be so hard on yourself.
You always give informative answers, even when answering with your own opinion.
They are a sharp contrast to the other Christians who sometimes attack your religion (noone in this thread). They are also a sharp contrast to some Mormon people (Is that the correct way to phrase that?) who defend themselves rabidly.
I have learned more about your church from you Snark, because you answer in a gentle way without jumping down people's throats. I believe thats an honorable way to tell people about your beliefs and I can't believe that could possible hurt any God.

U turn this suck right back.
Oh, no theres Cuba.

pat

[StrTrkr777]

I would like to hear what you have to say Snark. I do not see this as teaching so much as sharing and answering questions.

If you answer and Monty or someone else disagrees then they will post and we can continue the debate.

Please help us get going.

Jeffery

[VegForLife]

U turn this suck right back.

I can't quite get a mental picture from this, but I'm sure it would be amusing. . .

Rich

[Polycarp]

I completely agree with the posts above, Bill. When I saw, first your OP in the Pit, and then the second post above, I tried to e-mail and found that your e-mail is undeliverable. God forgives you whatever it is that's on your heart; it's up to you to forgive yourself.

Now post!

You guys make it very hard to say "No." Thanks for your kind words. I guess I can give you the basic facts without being blasphemous or offensive to God. It'll have to wait a little longer, though, as other people are using this computer as well. I may not be able to get on again until this evening, but I'll finish writing the post on paper.

Y'all are really nice people.

[jazzmine]

We ARE the sweetest things since chocolate, aren't we? Hey, has there ever been a group hug in Great Debates?

trisha

ORIGINS OF MORMON SCRIPTURE:

The Book of Mormon is a translation by Joseph Smith, Jr. of an ancient book made of golden plates. These golden plates were written (or abridged) by four major ancient authors: Nephi, Jacob, Mormon, and Moroni. Although it isn't intended to be a history book, it abridges a period of time from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D., as well as a period dating back to the Tower of Babel times, of some of the inhabitants of ancient America.

Joseph Smith translated these plates through the gift and power of God after the angel Moroni told him they were buried in a hill (Cumorah) nearby his home in Palmyra, New York, circa the 1820's.

The Book of Mormon contains a record of the visit of Christ to the ancient Americans (Nephites and Lamanites) after His resurrection in the Holy Land. Thus, the Book of Mormon's subtitle is, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." It was written for our day, not for ancient times, and its chief purpose is to convice both Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.

How did Joseph Smith get them? The account is told in the preface to the BoM, which can be ordered free online from http://www.lds.org/ .

----
SUMMARY of Book of Mormon history:

About 600 B.C., a colony of Israelites is led by God out of Jerusalem, warned by the Lord that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed. They cross the ocean and land in America, where they split into two different societies, the "Nephites" and the "Lamanites." Mormon, a prophet/historian, makes an abridgement of their doings, and the BoM is mainly filled with spiritual discourses rather than simply history. There is an account, however, of some of the wars between the two societies.

There is the usual persecution of the righteous by the wicked, and at the time of Christ's death back in Jerusalem, many wicked Nephite and Lamanite cities are destroyed. Christ appears a little later on and ushers in an era of peace. But the society doesn't last and is corrupted later on, long after Christ leaves.

The Nephites, due to their wickedness, are eventually all hunted down and destroyed by the Lamanites, and the BoM ends with the writings of Moroni, Mormon's son. Moroni, under inspiration, bfuries the golden plates in a hill called Cumorah, and that's how the BoM ends.

----

The "D&C" (Doctrine and Covenants) is a compilation of many of the revelations of Joseph Smith and some other prophets. The "Pearl of Great Price" contains the Book of Moses ("An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith" circa 1830), the Book of Abraham (translated by J.S. from an Egyptian papyrus), Joseph Smith--Matthew (from Joseph's translation of Matthew 24), Joseph Smith--History, and the 13 "Articles of Faith."

----

Why the LDS consider these books inspired writings:

Through personal revelation, anyone whose heart is right can receive a testimony that these books are true, through study and fervent, sincere prayer. If you have a BoM, check out the last book in it, the "Book of Moroni," chapter 10 verses 3-5, to find out how to go about getting such a personal testimony.


This is getting too long. Other questions will have to wait.

[Polycarp]

Thanks, Bill.

OK. Clarifications requested on what you've posted:

1. Jesus appears to the Nephites and Lamanites after his ascension. Does it tell how he "arrives" and "leaves" (in quotes to avoid making any assumptions about what he does)? How was he received?

2. From my many-years-ago reading, I thought the Nephites were parallel to the Jews: basically "the good guys" as opposed to the Lamanites though quite subject to sin themselves. Both groups were wicked?

3. Moroni told JSJr where the plates were. IIRC, he took them into heaven after they were translated. Correct?

4. I vaguely remember something about witnesses to the plates. Is there any external evidence of their earthly presence that would be acceptable to a skeptic? I grant that you believe the word of JSJr (and witnesses?).

5. What happened to the originals from which the PoGP was produced? Are they preserved somewhere?

I hope these questions don't sound obnoxious. As you know, I'm highly skeptical regarding Mormon doctrine but willing to keep an open mind and listen.

[jazzmine]

Thank you Polycarp. You mentioned a couple of things that I would like to know also.

Where are the plates and any of the other original items that were translated by Joseph Smith? I don't feel any angst at all toward Mormonism, but as with anything else, I want to see the originals.

Polycarp wrote:

OK. Clarifications requested on what you've posted:

1. Jesus appears to the Nephites and Lamanites after his ascension. Does it tell how he "arrives" and "leaves" (in quotes to avoid making any assumptions about what he does)? How was he received?

Ascending and descending, several times IIRC. He was well received, as the more wicked people had all been destroyed.

2. From my many-years-ago reading, I thought the Nephites were parallel to the Jews: basically "the good guys" as opposed to the Lamanites though quite subject to sin themselves. Both groups were wicked?

There were times when the Lamanites were more righteous than the Nephites, and vice versa. And of course it varied from individual to individual, from time to time. The Nephites tended to be more civilized in general, but they really degenerated towards the end.

3. Moroni told JSJr where the plates were. IIRC, he took them into heaven after they were translated. Correct?

AFAIK, yes.

4. I vaguely remember something about witnesses to the plates. Is there any external evidence of their earthly presence that would be acceptable to a skeptic? I grant that you believe the word of JSJr (and witnesses?).

There's the "Testimony of the Three Witnesses," who saw the plates and heard God's voice telling them that they were translated "by the gift and power of God." Then there's the "Testimony of the Eight Witnesses," who actually handled and "hefted" the plates. Both groups testified to the world that the plates were real. As is always the case, faith in God is required before a testimony can come. God deliberately withholds evidence so we can exercise faith in what He has revealed.

5. What happened to the originals from which the PoGP was produced? Are they preserved somewhere?

My mother tells me that she thinks the Book of Abraham papyrus was burned in a museum fire. The other parts of the PoGP were probably written by a scribe taking dictation from Joseph Smith, AFAIK, and are probably preserved somewhere in SLC. Again, AFAIK--I could be wrong.

There was a sealed portion of the golden plates that JS was not allowed to open or translate, so there is definitely more scripture to be revealed and translated. But first we have to live by and remember the messages of the other scriptures and prove ourselves worthy of receiving more.

[Gaudere]

There's the "Testimony of the Three Witnesses," who saw the plates and heard God's voice telling them that they were translated "by the gift and power of God." Then there's the "Testimony of the Eight Witnesses," who actually handled and "hefted" the plates. Both groups testified to the world that the plates were real.

Did these testimonies happen on a specific date? Are there non-Mormon records of the testimonies?

------------------
"Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."
- Bertrand Russell

Polycarp: Well, I wrote an essay on the subjects above, but just didn't feel right about doing so, so I stopped. The truth is, I'm a wicked man and have no business speaking for God or His church. God has made that abundantly clear to me, that he doesn't want a hypocrite speaking for Him. Time and time again I've had to learn this lesson. To paraphrase a D&C verse, the Lord says, "If you receive not the Spirit, you shall not teach." I don't have the Spirit with me due to recent wickedness on my part, so I will have to bow out of this discussion.

Hopefully Monty or someone else can give you the information you seek, but I just don't feel right about it at all. I'm sorry.

[Monty]

I refuse to be involved in this discussion.

That is, unless the wording of the OP in this thread is changed just a tad. As it is, the avowed intent is to disprove the LDS church.

I will say the following, though:

Your method described in the OP is not fair as you've stipulated that not being able to provide proof of a civilization which was wiped out (giving the BoM account) is proof that it never existed. That doesn't necessarily follow. For more information on that particular bit, check out the "Truth Table" in any decent textbook on Logic.

How about applying your criteria to the mainstream Christian churches? The Bible, as it stands now, has physical impossibilities and self-contradictions...doesn't that prove "all those churches must be wrong?" How about proving to me that Jesus was resurrected? Can you show me the body? No? Then, obviously, there was never a body to be resurrected!

Of course that last bit was sarcasm, but I hope you take my point.

Now if you're merely interested in the mechanics or the history of the LDS beliefs themselves, Bill has already provided excellent source documents and web sites for those. Go look at those or call the missionaries or even read some of Leo Rosten's writing ("The Religions of America") to find out what the LDS, the JW, the Christian Scientists, and a whole host of others, believe and practice.

That's it. Bill; let me know when this thread takes on a realistic/serious discussion sort of mode. Otherwise, I'll not return to this.

Monty's right--the intent of this thread is specifically to "disprove" Mormonism, according to the OP. I won't participate in a game of "Scribes and Pharisees" either, come to think of it. It's one thing for people to be curious about someone's religion, and quite another for them to be actively trying to disprove it. I won't cooperate with this kind of thread. Thanks for the clarification, Monty.

Here are some very good sites on Mormonism that you might want to check out, if you're seriously interested in it:

Official Home Page of the LDS Church

All About Mormons

And of course a good web search engine will bring up many, many hits on Mormonism as well.

[StrTrkr777]

I cannot speak for PolyCarp, but for myself, I know that not I nor anyone else is going to change Snark's or Monty's or anyone else's mind on their beliefs of Mormonism.

I seek not to disprove it but to learn more about it. I know that I can go to those web sites and read what they have to say, but they are not as interactive as you guys are. If I have a question about an area, I cannot likely get clarification from the web site (if it is not spelled out the way I am thinking), but you guys can likely clarify it.

If you choose not to post any more that is fine. I understand Monty's points about proof and all.

Do whatever you guys think is right.

Jeffery

Gaudere wrote:

And Snark was certainly willing to take ARG on, although that might have been because it was a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Snark has learned since then that he is not qualified to speak for the LDS church, being unworthy due to his sins. Start a thread on general Mormonism questions in six months from now, and if I've conquered a certain sexual habit, I'll be more than willing to answer questions about my faith. However, I've got to work on myself first. It's actually an LDS commandment for unworthy persons not to teach (as I said above but was convinced by you guys to ignore ). I would be breaking an LDS commandment by teaching Mormonism right now.

Six months from now I may sing a different tune, but for now, I'll avoid "Scribes and Pharisees" threads on Mormonism.

Not that I consider anyone on this thread a "scribe" or a "Pharisee"--it's just my name for confrontational types of questions on religion.

[E1skeptic]

Polycarp says in his OP,

I propose a debate on the subject of the beliefs of Mormons and their origins.

Then, Snarkberry,

Okay, but here are two additional rules...

and later,

I don't have the Spirit with me due to recent wickedness on my part, so I will have to bow out of this discussion.

Bill is a nice guy with a few problems, and he is unstable. He knows it. One day he'll "teach", and the next moment he'll withdraw from it, and he'll be back again two hours later. His problem with the "teaching" part is that he involves his beliefs everytime he states FACTS, as a form of support, and then he feels bad. Hey, Bill, stick to the FACTS, and don't let your feelings get involved. Remember, YOU accepted the challenge initially.

Now, a debate like this can only be carried, IMHO, between people that are knowledgeable about the subject, but who disagree on certain points within it.

Having Monty and Snarkberry discussing the fundamentals, origins, or points of view of "Mormonism" would be a real DEBATE. Seems to me that before debating something we don't know much about, we should gather as much information as possible, right? THEN a debate becomes viable. Why not opening a thread with questions (in GQ, obviously), and a little reading (lots of links here) before continuing this one? -just an idea, ok?-

I agree with Monty in that the tone of the questioning posed by Poly is more of a debunking/disprove "Mormonism", but that was his intention, and he was clear about it: "...I will not slam or flame Monty or Bill for an assertion, but will attempt to disprove it, either logically or by probability..."(my emphasis). I don't think Poly is "...merely interested in the mechanics or the history of the LDS beliefs themselves", as Monty said.

I am very curious myself about the beliefs of LDS (and Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.), but I guess I learned my lessons, and now I try to learn more before getting into a debate. But, heck, that's just me, and I can always be wrong.

Ok, now, after a little deviation, you guys "have control..."

------------------
"Skeptics are not perfect (that is reserved, I believe, for certain Christians)."
-Akatsukami.

E1Skeptic wrote:

Bill is a nice guy with a few problems, and he is unstable. He knows it.

Yep, this is true.

One day he'll "teach", and the next moment he'll withdraw from it, and he'll be back again two hours later. His problem with the "teaching" part is that he involves his beliefs everytime he states FACTS, as a form of support, and then he feels bad. Hey, Bill, stick to the FACTS, and don't let your feelings get involved.

It's impossible for me to talk about Mormonism without my feelings getting involved.

Remember, YOU accepted the challenge initially.

Which was a mistake on my part. Monty convinced me of that with his post.

Your best bet for getting "The Straight Dope" on the LDS church is to get in touch with the LDS missionaries, who are in the phone book, and invite them for an appointment in your home.

[jazzmine]

Yikes Snark. If I do that they won't ever leave me alone again. (and just to lessen the "brunt" of that remark, let me add that neither would missionaries from any other type of church).

trisha

Actually, the missionaries are instructed to "move on" if you don't express interest in joining the LDS church after hearing the discussions (according to my former-missionary brother).

[Gaudere]

Anytime you get into a religion in a board, someone's going to try to attack it. I certainly will attack any and all freely. I admit the OP seems a bit confontational, but just because someone is trying to disprove something you believe is no cause to keep your mouth shut. Look at the evolution v. creationism threads; who do you have more respect for, Jedi-667 or the people who actually answered Jedi's questions while he ran off in a snit? And Snark was certainly willing to take ARG on, although that might have been because it was a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Polycarp will question you, yes, but I doubt he'll be a jerk about it. As you have noted, Monty, his religion has some questionable bits in it too, so if you liked you could zing him right back if he is holding your religion to a higher standard of proof than his own. After all, you are the recipient of the most recent revelation.

I would like to hear what both of you have to say; you just can't get the same feel for a religion from websites and reading the BoM than you can from talking to an actual believer. But if you choose not to post I will respect that.

------------------
"Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."
- Bertrand Russell

[SoxFan59]

I was going to post my thoughts to this thread, but, in a way, Monty beat me to it.

Before Monty posted, my thoughts were that the format of this discussion ain’t fair. We need to either pick a more narrow topic (i.e. a specific aspect of LDS theology) and limit the discussion to that, and perhaps we need to identify our own biases before entering the fray of discussion.

The way this discussion is currently framed, its more like “throw everything we’ve got against the wall, and see what sticks.” I don’t think it invites real philosophical debate.

Plus, there are no boundaries. If Bill and I were to weigh in on the issue of the veracity of LDS theology, Bill would have some concept of where I was coming from, knowing I am an evangelical christian. There would be a common ground for the debate (e.g., we both except that Bible as authoritative, and both believe that God exists, etc.). We could focus specifically on areas of contention. However, with this scattershot method, with any one weighing in with his own philosophy, it will be tougher for Bill to focus in the debate. An atheist will have his agenda/world-view, as will an agnostic, or any other personal religious philosophy. On the far extreme will be those who are just ornery. I remember times on the old AOL board where George’s response to a point would be something akin to “So?,” or Ben would shoot back his ubiquitous “why?” Its not that discussion couldn’t be held in this format, I just feel bad for Bill, in that he would have a difficult time dealing with the scattershot challenges to his presentation, whether they be legitimate questions, angry attacks, or the usual games played by “trolls.”

Bill has also protested that he is not equipped for the task of being the one defending his faith. I have to respect that; I’ve done enough research into Mormonism to know that Bill acquits himself very well in defending his church, but Bill is honest enough to admit he doesn’t have all the answers (a trait sadly lacking in many who post to this board). And I don’t mean that Bill equivocates in what he believes in; he’s made it quite clear that he believes the LDS way is the “one true way,” what I mean is he often admits he isn’t knowledgeable about a particular subject, and will not submit an authoritative answer when he really doesn’t have one. So Bill is being placed in an unenviable position; he has been anointed the SDMB Mormonism expert, yet admits he’s not an expert theologian. That’s a trick bag that’s awfully difficult to fight your way out of.

For example, Bill states that the Book of Abraham papyrus were destroyed in a fire (or at least that’s what he’s heard). I recently discovered that the BOA “original” papyrus were re-discovered in 1967, and subjected to scientific and historical analysis. But rather than debate this, one can look it up at several internet sites, and see for yourself. Admittedly, a lot of the published material on the rediscovery of this material is decidedly anti-mormon (mostly because the conclusion of the experts is it is not the “Book of Abraham,” but an ordinary ancient Egyptian funeral document), but, like Bill said in his post above, you can connect to the internet sites and make look at it yourself. See http://www.irr.org/mit/boapage.html.

And ultimately, this is a “great debate,” not MPSIMS about Mormonism. I’ve discovered in my past dealings with Bill that when he gets into a “debate” mode about Mormonism, he ultimately feels bad about it, and even shuts down and doesn’t want to post to the board, etc. I would just warn Bill that he’ll only regret getting into this.

And, I ultimately agree with Monty. This whole discussion is a set up to bash Mormon theology. I’ve considered engaging Bill in this type of debate before (by e-mail), but we’ve usually decided its not worth it. I know that ultimately, Bill and I will never convince the other of the relative merit of the other’s position. So why bother? I consider Bill a friend, and do not want to hurt his feelings. I pray that someday Bill will see that Mormonism is a fraud (which I say from my own extensive reading and research into the subject, not out of animosity towards any one in particular) and embrace the truth of the gospel, BUT, I don’t make it an issue between us. Most of you have discovered what a great guy Bill is. Why would I want to bring him down in a forum like this?

As an aside, I’ve been reading a book that’s stirred a lot of controversy in evangelical christian circles. Its called “Blinded by Might,” by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobsen. Written by two men who were once high level employees of Jerry Fallwell’s Moral Majority organization, they have come to the conclusion that they were wrong, that trying to change the face of american culture to defend what we believe are the Judeo-Christian cultural foundations of our society via the political process doesn’t work. We can only affect our society by changing people’s hearts and attitudes, from the bottom up, not from the top down. I happen to heartily agree. The basis of the sort of debate embodied in this thread is to use truth as a weapon to bludgeon. For too long, many on my side of the aisle have been guilty of this kind of behavior. I feel like there’s a need for Christians to apologize for this kind of behavior. That doesn’t mean to compromise on the truth, but to recognize that the battle is the Lord’s, and that we need to depend on spiritual power to convince, rather than the force of our will or the cleverness of our argument.

That’s how I’ve tried to treat my discussions with Bill about Mormonism, and my discussions about matters of faith and morals with anyone else on this board. As such, I think this thread is unfair, and ill-conceived. Monty is right on.


------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[jazzmine]

What is the explanation, from a Mormon point of view, for the discrepancies between the translation by JS and the translation done after 1967?

Soxfan59 wrote:

I’ve discovered in my past dealings with Bill that when he gets into a “debate” mode about Mormonism, he ultimately feels bad about it, and even shuts down and doesn’t want to post to the board, etc. I would just warn Bill that he’ll only regret getting into this.

I don't speak for God or God's church, for the simple reason that I have some bad habits that are inconsistent with being spiritual. And the closer I get to God, the more unworthy I feel to be trying to defend His church. So however zealously I start out in a debate about Mormonism, sooner or later I feel I have to bow out due to personal unworthiness. As I have said, in the future this may change, but for now I don't have the authority to represent the LDS church in a discussion.

You're right, Sox, I would regret getting into such a debate right now. So I won't.

For Soxfan59 (and no, this doesn't count as "teaching" because I'm just providing links):

Book of Abraham facsimiles

and

Book of Abraham (General info)

It's 4:30 in the morning and I can't sleep. This also doesn't count as teaching, as I'm just quoting someone else's article. < g >

Jazzmine wrote:

What is the explanation, from a Mormon point of view, for the discrepancies between the translation by JS and the translation done after 1967?

The following is by W. John Walsh (I think) and is from http://www.mormons.org/ :

Critics of the Church often claim that there have been significant doctrinal changes to the Book of Mormon since the first printing. They make these false claims to discredit our assertion that the Book of Mormon was translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith through the gift and power of God.

First, while we claim that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, we do not claim that the entire process for bringing the translation to the world was free from error. It is important to remember that the Church claims that only Jesus Christ was perfect and did not make mistakes.

Some minor errors, mainly spelling and grammatical, in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. The current edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material in conformity with pre-production manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

At first, the 3,913 changes you cite sound rather significant. But if you recheck your source you will find that even the anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner admit that the 3,913 changes were not really significant at all:

"As we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text." (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, Chicago: Moody Pres., 1980, p 131, emphasis added)

When the Prophet Joseph dictated the translation from the plates, a scribe copied down his words. Since only Jesus Christ was perfect, it is not surprising that the scribes made some minor errors. In addition, the non-Mormon typesetter that the Church hired to take the handwritten manuscript to book form was forced to decipher the scribe’s handwriting to set the type. Also, consider that the printing process in 1830 was much more manual and cumbersome than the ones we use today. With all the intervention by fallible mortals required to bring forth the printing of the Book of Mormon, it is surprising that more grammatical and spelling errors were not made. It is important to note that the changes in the Book of Mormon text are actually insignificant to the number of changes that have been made in the Bible throughout the centuries.

For more discussion regarding the LDS view of scriptural inerrancy versus the Fundamentalist Protestant view, see The Canonical or Biblical Exclusion by Stephen E. Robinson.

For those who don't want to follow the links I gave, here's a statement from one of them that sums up the issue of the Book of Abraham's source:

In summary, the numerous similarities that the book of Abraham and associated Latter-day Saint doctrines share with both Egyptian religious texts and recently discovered pseudepigraphical writings may confirm further the authenticity of the Joseph Smith Translation known as the book of Abraham. A major question about its authenticity continues to revolve around whether Joseph Smith translated the work from the papyrus fragments the Church now has in its possession or whether he used the Urim and Thummim to receive the text of the book of Abraham by revelation, as is the case with the translation of the scroll of John the Revelator, found in Doctrine and Covenants section 7, or the Book of Moses, which is excerpted from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and is also found in the Pearl of Great Price. From these examples, it is evident that for Joseph Smith it was not necessary to possess an original text in order to have its translation revealed to him. In his function as prophet, seer, and revelator, many channels were open to him to receive information by divine inspiration. - Michael D. Rhodes, Encyclopedia of Mormonism

And no, before I get flamed for going back on my word by posting the above posts, let me say that I'm not teaching my own words regarding LDS doctrine, and I'm not debating Mormonism. I'm simply providing links and relevant quotes from others.

Who says there are no loopholes?

[SpoonsJTD]

In a thread in General Questions, Snarkberry said:

It was called the "Spaulding Manuscript", and even anti-Mormons have to admit that the BoM bears virtually *no* resemblance to it whatsoever.

So your unfit in God's eyes to debate this topic in GD, but fit to do it in GQ?

So you don't think it's suspicious that a prevalent belief in JS's time, which has since been debunked, was that the American Indians were from the lost tribes of Hebrews, which JS's 'revelations' go in some detail about?

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood÷if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

I take it all back, where do I sign up?

SpoonsJTD wrote:

In a thread in General Questions, Snarkberry said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was called the "Spaulding Manuscript", and even anti-Mormons have to admit that the BoM bears virtually *no* resemblance to it whatsoever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So your unfit in God's eyes to debate this topic in GD, but fit to do it in GQ?

Pick, pick, pick. The only reason I mentioned the Spaulding Manuscript was to identify what book Pickman's Model was talking about. I didn't "debate" it--I simply mentioned it as the source of his question and gave him the prevailing view of it, and gave him a link to a relevant site on the subject. Is supplying information necessarily "debating" it?

So you don't think it's suspicious that a prevalent belief in JS's time, which has since been debunked, was that the American Indians were from the lost tribes of Hebrews, which JS's 'revelations' go in some detail about?

No, I don't. I have a strong testimony that the BoM and other LDS scriptures are true, including the Bible (as translated correctly).

Regarding the scripture you quoted, polygamy is no longer practiced by the LDS. This scripture was given for those in Joseph Smith's day, not necessarily for ours.

Darn it, I'm being drawn into a debate again.

[SpoonsJTD]

Snark said:

Regarding the scripture you quoted, polygamy is no longer practiced by the LDS. This scripture was given for those in Joseph Smith's day, not necessarily for ours.

I quote this (with the bolding mine), which is found before my previous quote, in the LDS D&C:
[/quote] 3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.[/quote]

This to me does not leave it open to 'ok for JS, not ok for us.'

How does the LDS church decide which of God's 'new and everlasting covenants' no longer apply today?

SpoonsJTD wrote:

How does the LDS church decide which of God's 'new and everlasting covenants' no longer apply today?

Simple: that's what the living prophet's function is, to lead the church and give it counsel for our day.

Here's a quote from Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie:

... Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D&C 132:1-28.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D&C 132:7, 29-66.)

All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness.
(<small>McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 578-579.</small>

[SpoonsJTD]

Snark said:

Simple: that's what the living prophet's function is, to lead the church and give it counsel for our day.

So the living prophet can over-ride a covenant passed down by God, one which was specifically identified as 'everlasting'?

SpoonsJTD quoted the D&C:

"4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."

The "new and everlasting covenant" mentioned is the covenant of celestial marriage, I believe, not plural marriage. (See D&C 131:1-4).

SpoonsJTD wrote:

So the living prophet can over-ride a covenant passed down by God, one which was specifically identified as 'everlasting'?

Nope.

I wrote:

SpoonsJTD wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does the LDS church decide which of God's 'new and everlasting covenants' no longer apply today?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simple: that's what the living prophet's function is, to lead the church and give it counsel for our day.

I misspoke here. The prophet doesn't have the authority to negate "the new and everlasting covenant" of celestial marriage. The Lord has promised that He will never allow the prophet to lead the church astray.

[SpoonsJTD]

D&C 132:1

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines÷

It is section 132 from which I quoted the other passages. So, IMO, the 'covenant' is not referring to marriage in general, but seems to be a covenant requiring those who have the 'truth' revealed to them to follow the laws the D&C goes on to discuss later in section 132. I just don't understand how someone could have 'withdrawn the power by which they [plural marriages] are performed' when God said it was ok.

Anyway, this is far astray from the OP, and I will chalk it up to a difference in interpretation. If I may speak for you as well, I doubt either one of us is an expert on LDS scripture, and arguing the finer points of said scripture was probably an over-zealous potshot on my part. I apologize. I will do some more research and post when I have something that is more pertinent to the OP.

[DrFidelius]

Just as a pointless aside, why do so many people have trouble with accepting Mormons? Other Christians recognize that the doctrines of the Old Testament were added to and revised by the writers of the New Testament. Why should anyone have a problem with understanding that a group believes that their leaders have received further information and insight into God's will?

[jazzmine]

Snark, your quote by Walsh above didn't really address my question. This may be my fault, sometimes I find that I'm not very clear.

Tweaking text over the years is fairly understandable to me. Changes to spelling and grammar seem reasonable.

I was talking about the fact that other people have translated the exact same scrolls (unless I'm missing something) and have not come up with anything even close to what JS did.

trisha

SpoonsJTD wrote:

Anyway, this is far astray from the OP,

Oh, I'm not going by the OP, as the OP wants this thread to be a thread trying to "disprove" Mormonism. If I see that someone is trying to trap me in my (imperfect, non-omniscient) words, I'll leave his/her argument alone.

Here's another quote, from Mormon Doctrine again:

"...Celestial marriage is a holy and an eternal ordinance; as an order of the priesthood, it has the name the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Adam was the first one on this earth to enter into this type of union, and it has been the Lord's order in all ages when the fulness of the gospel has been on earth...." <small>(McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 118.)</small>

So an Apostle (Bruce R. McConkie) has defined the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" to be simply celestial marriage, not plural marriage.

[Gaudere]

In response to your "pointless aside", DrF, I suspect it's because distorted or misleading information gets out, making them appear kookier than they are. There also aren't as many Mormons around (as far as I can tell), so there isn't an extremely visible group to refute any misconceptions, like there is with Christians and Jews.

I, personally, have trouble with Mormons because they make it more difficult to get a drink after skiing in Utah. You bastards!!!!

------------------
"Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."
- Bertrand Russell

Jazzmine wrote:

I was talking about the fact that other people have translated the exact same scrolls (unless I'm missing something) and have not come up with anything even close to what JS did.

Oh, you're talking about the Book of Abraham, not the Book of Mormon. That's where the misunderstanding occurred.

I read on one web site that the Book of Abraham was a long scroll, something like 32 (?) feet in length, and that the remnants we have of it today are only a small part of it. And if you go to the web site I referred Soxfan59 to, it explains that Joseph Smith didn't necessarily have to have the actual document to translate it--after all, he translated the Bible also, and he didn't have an original Bible text to work with. Go to the site for more info.

Good grief, I've drifted back into debate again when I said I wouldn't. This thread is very addictive to me! I'll stick with references and quotes from others from now on, if I can.

[SpoonsJTD]

Why should anyone have a problem with understanding that a group believes that their leaders have received further information and insight into God's will?

I fully understand that a group believesthat their leaders have received further information and insight into God's will. I simply think they are wrong in that belief. We (non-LDS and LDS Christians) have common ground: Jesus Christ, the bible, etc. I believe there is ample evidence to, at the very least, cast serious doubts as to the credibility of Joseph Smith, and whether God really did use him to pass on new information that He didn't think Jesus did a good enough job of passing along. Without that common ground, in a situation where I am trying to explain it to a non-Christian, the argument is admittedly much weaker.

Suffice it to say, if someone came along 2000 years after you thought you had gotten the last word on a subject, claimed to have more information, a lot of which seems to contradict much of the 'last word', you might be skeptical. I suppose I might understand how the early (and current?) Jews felt when Jesus came along, and although to non-believers, the situation may seem parallel, I think the arguments have different weight.

[DrFidelius]

Okay Spoons, but I think a better comparison would be with Paul. You've got a nice little group, sure that the rabbi you had been following really WAS the Messiah. Along comes this little gimp who never even HEARD Yeshua preach (in the flesh) telling you how you should feel about Him. After a few hundred years it all looks more coherent, but there are indications that the faction led by Peter (basically Jews who accepted Yeshua as Messiah) had some pretty nasty things to say about Paul and his "further refinements".

Right now, I have no idea whether the Mormons are right or not. No existing religion can stand up to intense scrutiny of its origins. Do you realize how many centuries there were between the time the Buddha lived and his teachings were written down? Do you know that the Koran was not written until three generations after Mohammed's death?

Glass houses, stones, etc.