Posted on 10/02/2009 8:13:03 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Any claim of revelation is outrageous. It presumes that God exists, that God speaks and that all is not lost when human beings translate that speech into ordinary language. But time mutes the outrage, or muffles it. Many of us greet the miracles of Jesus with a shrug, and there is little scandal any more in claiming that the Bible is the word of God.
-SNIP-
So we probably know more about the production of the Book of Mormon, which is holy writ to the world's 14 million Mormons, than we do about any other scripture. The product of over two decades of painstaking labor by Royal Skousen—a Brigham Young University professor of linguistics and English language, a Mormon and an occasional spelling-bee judge—this Yale edition aims to take us back to the text Smith envisioned as he translated, according to the faithful, from golden plates that he unearthed in upstate New York.
-SNIP-
......only 28% of the original manuscript survives. The rest was consumed by the elements after Smith placed it in the cornerstone of a Nauvoo, Ill., hotel in 1841.
-SNIP-
Mr. Skousen told me that this project gave him "a bit of heartburn" because LDS leaders didn't want him to publish it. "They have a history of controlling the text," he explained. And this new edition did leave me wondering which text is now the real Mormon scripture. Mr. Skousen told me that he is "not claiming that the Yale edition is the revealed text." mistakes in his. "Oh sure," he said, "It's foolish to think it's ever done."—Mr. Prothero is a professor of religion at Boston University.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
If Romney becomes a presidential candidate, more light will be shed on the LDS church in this manner IMO.
Ping
Oh this is sweet, but well documented manipulation of information
"There are qualifications to teach or write the history of this church. If one is lacking in any one of these qualifications, he cannot properly teach the history of the Church... I will state these qualifications in the form of questions so that you can assess your own qualifications. Do you believe that God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ personally appeared to the boy prophet, Joseph Smith Jr., in the year 1820? Do you have personal witness that the Father and the Son appeared in all their glory and stood above that young man and instructed him according to the testimony that he gave to the world in his published history?" (Boyd K. Packer, BYU Studies, Summer 1981, pp 272-273).
In the same address Packer states, "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."
This guy is a religion professor? The first paragraph should offend anyone that believes in The Bible. Heck the first sentence should offend.
Wow. Just wow.
I’m an undergrad student in Religion, and cannot believe who universities put in front of students. Worse still, the students actually PAY for this stuff.
A professor of religion treating divine revelation (not that the Book of Mormon is) as outrageous ignores recorded history.
And 2009 A.D. is the wrong time to scoff at, or otherwise categorically deny the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To do so ignores all of the lines of evidence to the contrary.
Ironically, it fulfills another prophesy:
2Ti 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Another illustration of how unbiased the average university professor is nowadays.
My sentiments also. One wonders if his area of expertise is Islam, doesn't one?
Pardon me while I throw up.
Then WHY doesn't this Holy Writ contain the RESTORED GOSPEL
WHY doesn't it contain anything about the rituals performed in the MORMON temples?
It appears that Modern Mormonism has NOTHING that the BoM is required for.
In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.
Ezra Taft Benson
(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)
(Makes one wonder if these two fellows ever met and discussed things...)
This is simple to answer: whichever one meets our needs in these days and times.
--MormonDude(I happen to believe EVERY version!)
The Yale edition differs from the standard text in over 2,000 places, but almost all of these differences are inconsequential ("inequality" becomes "unequality," for example). Even where a change is substantive—"sword" of justice becomes "word" of justice—nothing hangs on the change theologically. Were the waters of the Red Sea "departed" or "parted"? It doesn't really matter (though, like Mr. Skousen, I prefer the odd original: "departed").We have been saying much the same thing for many years, as the author acknowledges:
One conclusion to draw from this fact is that Mr. Skousen wasted two decades of his life; this oversize, 848-page book is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. Another is that the Book of Mormon has been vindicated, warts and all. Mormons have long acknowledged that the Book of Mormon has a textual history. They admit that there were grammatical and spelling errors in the first edition, and that the text has changed over time.But it has now been proved through painstaking scholarship that none of these changes amount to a hill of beans.
I will buy and study Dr. Skousen's book eventually. However, I do not expect it to change my belief in the Book of Mormon as the word of God.
The canon of Scripure was closed long before Packer opened this mouth, you have no scriptural support for defining a prophet (the Bible already does that), and the Book of Mormon (long with all other writtings associated with it) is at odds with the rest of the Bible. To that end, the Bible is the only source which true Christianity holds as the one and only authoritative source of God’s revelation to mankind.
So, LDS isn’t the church established by Jesus Christ; therefore, LDS is a cult preaching a false gospel. Paul dealt with this in the early church at Galatia:
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Point being, not even a supernatural being (much less a self-proclaimed prophet or a person calling himself an apostle) can preach another gospel. There is only ONE gospel:
1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures
You can believe one of two possibilities: Either God changed His mind thereby invalidating Scripture: which would make him a liar and impotent (therefore He can’t be God at that point), or a cult sprang up in the United States 2,000 years after Christ went to the cross. Take your pick.
In the final analysis, we will all be judged based off of how we respond to the doctrine of Christ, and His gospel and John warns us of those that do not hold to the sound doctrine:
2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
There is no wiggle room, and I’m thankful God made it that way so that those that love His Word, would not be deceived.
Well if there's no difference, will you meet me at 12:00 to have a fight. I'll bring a sword, you bring a word. Okay?
Any claim of revelation is outrageous. It presumes that God exists, that God speaks and that all is not lost when human beings translate that speech into ordinary language. But time mutes the outrage, or muffles it. Many of us greet the miracles of Jesus with a shrug, and there is little scandal any more in claiming that the Bible is the word of God.
You had already cited that paragraph, and others had commented on it. There seemed to be no reason for me to quote it again. (I do disagree with the sentiments expressed in that paragraph.)
On the other hand, your "cherry-picking" left out paragraphs which tend to support traditional LDS claims regarding the editing of the Book of Mormon. I simply wanted to provide a more balanced view of the article. Surely you have no objection to that.
My “cherry-picking” was due to FR posting rules on the WSJ. I would have preferred to post the entire article. Surely you have no objection to that.
The author did not say there was no difference between sword and word, only that "nothing hangs on the change theologically." Without knowing which verse in the Book of Mormon he was citing, I cannot dispute the author's conclusion.
So neither of us was really "cherry-picking" as you originally wrote; we were merely trying to summarize the article's important points while obeying the posting rules. No one can object to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.