Mormonism

[em200727]

Hey i would like to know more about Mormonism. I love researching other religions so if anyone has any questions, or would like to discuss that would be great

[jade012064]

Tycho23,
You asked about absolute monotheism. Basically, I believe in only one divine person or God not one in three persons or three persons. One means only one! This is best explained by the Karaite Jews on their web site in the form of two articles entitled Elohim: Plural or Singular online at http://www.karaites-usa.org/Studies_On/ and that you should see if you really want to understand why the Jews were absolute monotheists (one divine being or God only) during the Old Testament era.
Jamie

[Tycho23]

It would have made more sense to write his revelation in 19th century American English so that everyone around him could understand.

You have to realize that the majority of Bibles being printed today are in 17th century English. I wonder why that is if most of the English reading Christians out there speak, read, and write mostly in 20th Centry English. Sure, there are certian versions out there that are simplified for certian groups like studying teens, but people have had problems with these simplification, stating that they don't give the exact same message as the original. Most believe that the 17th Century English Presentation of the King James Bible is most accurate since that wording stays the closet to the original meaning of the bible (in English at least). Some people may not feel that way, but that is what I have seen as the mainstream view on the bible's wording. It has been that way for the last few hundred years. Yet again, the book of mormon was translated into that version of English as to make it go hand in hand with the bible, so that the two would be more comaparable

[Tycho23]

It is obvious that he was not well versed in 17th century English because he makes some grammar mistakes in the BOM itself.

Take into account the the book of Mormon and the Bible were not written in the same languages. The book of Mormon claims to have been written in an Egyptian/hebrew text that was then taken over to the Americans and subject to over 800 years of change. As you should know, Languages do not translate into other languages as nicely as one would hope. So a language that had no ties with English whatsoever that was translated into english would not flow so well. And as stated earlier, the closer you are to the original wording, the closer you are to the original meaning. These 'gramatical mistakes' may not be the results of some ill-versed false prophet after all, but an attempt to preserve God's words....

Just possibly...

It's a great thing that you are willing to read all sorts of material... keep investigating and don't just trust your feelings. Feelings can be really misleading.

Ditto to you as well...

And watch out for those feelings about feelings... They can be misleading.

[Dilettante]

Tycho23 wrote:

You have to realize that the majority of Bibles being printed today are in 17th century English. I wonder why that is if most of the English reading Christians out there speak, read, and write mostly in 20th Centry English. Sure, there are certian versions out there that are simplified for certian groups like studying teens, but people have had problems with these simplification, stating that they don't give the exact same message as the original. Most believe that the 17th Century English Presentation of the King James Bible is most accurate since that wording stays the closet to the original meaning of the bible (in English at least). Some people may not feel that way, but that is what I have seen as the mainstream view on the bible's wording. It has been that way for the last few hundred years. Yet again, the book of mormon was translated into that version of English as to make it go hand in hand with the bible, so that the two would be more comaparable

It is true that the King James Bible is one of the most popular English versions of the Bible (the other one being probably the "Revised Standard Version"). But there are thousands of English-language Bibles. I'm not talking about "vernacular" or colloquial versions such as the Living Bible, the Good News Bible, or The Message. I'm talking about scholarly versions such as the Oxford Annotated Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, or even the New International Version. The best versions avoid the numerous mistakes which have crept up in the KJV over the centuries, errors like "should be cast into hell", "bless them that curse you", or "for thine is the kingdom", all of which, curiously, later found their way into the BOM. If the BOM is a revealed book, why would God give Joseph Smith a faulty text? I find it odd that Mormons should use the KJV, since, in Joseph Smiths' own opinion, it was corrupt, incorrectly translated, and produced without the original manuscripts (8th Article of faith). In 1833 Joseph Smith finished his own version of the Bible, the Joseph Smith Translation, which was supposed to restore original material which had been lost and edit non-original additions. But none of the considerable changes introduced by Joseph Smith have been supported by the many New Testament and Old Testament manuscripts discovered after 1833 (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls). Perhaps that explains why the LDS Church prefers the KJV to its own prophet and founder's translation.

Take into account the the book of Mormon and the Bible were not written in the same languages. The book of Mormon claims to have been written in an Egyptian/hebrew text that was then taken over to the Americans and subject to over 800 years of change. As you should know, Languages do not translate into other languages as nicely as one would hope. So a language that had no ties with English whatsoever that was translated into english would not flow so well. And as stated earlier, the closer you are to the original wording, the closer you are to the original meaning. These 'gramatical mistakes' may not be the results of some ill-versed false prophet after all, but an attempt to preserve God's words....

So God uses poor grammar? You don't preserve the original meaning by making grammatical errors. What good translators do is find expressions in the target language which correspond to the meaning (not the letter) of the original. Most of the time, a literal translation makes no sense.
Was Joseph Smith a good translator? Let's see: he translated the "Book of Abraham" from Facsimile 1, Facsimile 3, and Papyri 10 and 11, which make no mention of Abraham but, as Egyptologists found out, actually deal with Egyptian funeral procedures and were written for a deceased man named Hor. a similar thing happened with his "Book of Joseph". He was presented with the Kinderhook plates, which he pronounced authentic (see Smith, History of the Church, 5:372-79) as recorded by William Clayton, and translated part of them. But it turned out they were a complete fabrication when, years later, the hoaxers confessed. Finally, Henry Caswall, an English minister, gave Joseph Smith a Greek Psalter to translate (he didn't tell him what it was) as a test of his credibility. Joseph Smith promounced it an ancient Egyptian hyerogliphic. Smith again failed the test (he didn't recognize the Greek and said it was reformed Egyptian--BTW, what is reformed Egyptian anyway? I can't find any ancient language specialist who has heard of it...)
So was Joseph Smith a translator? I very much doubt it.

P.S.: It's not my feelings that warn me of the unreliability of feelings--it's reason.

[Q]

I have tried to see how one could believe in the Mormon faith, but I could not imagine someone who wasn't raised a Mormon actually choosing Mormonism over one of the more popular organized religions. While I don't believe Jesus was the son of God or Mohammed talked to God, atleast those religions had history. How could someone honestly believe that Joseph Smith went into a cave (I think), talked to God, came out and started preaching the word of God. Didn't this happen in the 1800's? If someone today were to say they talked to God and were starting a new religion wouldn't we call them crazy???

[McCulloch]

I have tried to see how one could believe in the Mormon faith, but I could not imagine someone who wasn't raised a Mormon actually choosing Mormonism over one of the more popular organized religions. While I don't believe Jesus was the son of God or Mohammed talked to God, atleast those religions had history. How could someone honestly believe that Joseph Smith went into a cave (I think), talked to God, came out and started preaching the word of God. Didn't this happen in the 1800's? If someone today were to say they talked to God and were starting a new religion wouldn't we call them crazy???

Is it somehow more believable if someone starts a new religion in the first century CE (christianity) or the seventh century (islam) or the fifteenth century (sikhism) or the nineteenth century (Bahá'í and Mormonism) or the sixth century BCE (buddhism, confucianism, jainism, shinto, taoism). They were all new religions once.

[windy]

Hey i would like to know more about Mormonism. I love researching other religions so if anyone has any questions, or would like to discuss that would be great

When I first read this thread I could see what was coming.
As you read the replies you can see that each post gets steadily worse in contradicting a personally sincere belief that this person has.
I have fellowshiped with the mormons as I have with many other faiths on my own search for God.
I found them to be one one the most loving caring and tolerant of all those I have searched through.
Sure I can find fault with what they believe, but I could have found fault in all of them, and most of all with myself.
When I get critical 'and I often do' I remember what JESUS said 'He who is with me is not against me' what can I say?

[Q]

McCulloch, I assumed someone would respond with that. It just makes me more skeptical about organized religion in general. There does not seem to be any way to "logically" choose one over the other, thus making attempting it a shot in the dark.
-But do you agree with my statement that if someone, in this day and age, said that they spoke to God and these are his wishes then he would be considered crazy. But that is not any different than what Joseph Smith and others have done. How could someone wholeheartedly base their most important beliefs on something so unlikely to be true?

[McCulloch]

McCulloch, I assumed someone would respond with that. It just makes me more skeptical about organized religion in general. There does not seem to be any way to "logically" choose one over the other, thus making attempting it a shot in the dark.
-But do you agree with my statement that if someone, in this day and age, said that they spoke to God and these are his wishes then he would be considered crazy. But that is not any different than what Joseph Smith and others have done. How could someone wholeheartedly base their most important beliefs on something so unlikely to be true?

QDizzle, you are preaching to the choir. I most certainly agree with your statement that in this day and age, that if someone said that they spoke to God and these are his wishes, then he would be considered crazy. I just do not understand why the same sensibilities should not be extended backwards in time. I don't quite understand why you would say that Joseph Smith's revelations would be any more unlikely than Mohammed's, Buddha's, various gurus', apostles' or messiahs'. Pascal's wager did not make sense when simply comparing christianity with atheism; it makes even less sense when looking at the large number of mutually incompatible religions that god has blessed humanity with.

[Q]

McCulloch, I agree completely. I was just saying that ATLEAST some of the other religions have thousands of years of history, giving them a little more weight. But regardless, they are in the same boat. I'll just never understand the life choices some people make...