When questioned about the changes to the Book of Mormon, apologists and Church leaders will state that actually the changes are to correct human typo's, punctuation or changes to aid clarification.

So are they right and it's just not important?

nice one. i haven't looked into these BOM changes, maybe i'll have to for when i discuss it with my TBM family (yeah i shouldn't, but it'll happen because they do pester me to tell them exactly what issues i have).

http://packham.n4m.org/bomvslds.htm

Either the Book of Mormon is true, or the LDS church is true.
If the Book of Mormon is true, you need to consider which of the Mormonite churches to side with (excluding breakaways from the Utah church).

One issue that you might also bring up is the 1832 version of the First Vision written in Joseph Smiths own hand. What is significant about this version is that it supports the Book of Mormon veiw of God. It also follows the other scriptures that Joseph brought forth like the Book of Commandments, first 2/3 of the D&C, the Book of Moses, the JST, and the Lectures on Faith. It is also alluded to in the D&C 20:5-6

The "all or nothing" Official First Vision is contrary to these Mormon Scriptures, and can only be supported by the viewpoint of the King Follett Discourse which later generated scriptures like DC122 and 130 which were inserted in the 1876 D&C after Josephs death.

Speaking of first visions, D&C 76 is the first time Joseph Smith ever tells anyone that he has seen Jesus Christ and God.

The most recent ones bother me right now. They have removed all of the chapter headings that mention dark skin, etc. but none of the verses have changed. They are just trying to hide something without fixing it.

the change from jesus being god to jesus being the son of god.

The original said at one point: Behold Mary, the mother of god

It was changed to: Behold Mary the mother of the son of god

There are a few other places where jesus got demoted as the book was changed.

Of course, these changes followed Joe's own teachings as they evoloved from three-in-one god-head to three sepperate members of the god-head.

First Vision? what first vision ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2011 11:40AM by danboyle.

1 Nephi which says that Mary would be the mother of God, changed to the Mother of the Son of God, yet further down the line Jesus is still the very Father.

Joseph could not make all the changes throughout the text without major textual adjustments as well. Therefore there are two contrasting views of the Godhead (neither of which supports current LDS theology).

The reason this is so damning is that the Book of Mormon is supposed to be the most correct of any book, which was translated perfectly by the power of God. Yet somehow a major doctrinal error is present throughout the narrative.

What this means is that either the original 1830 is correct since it was the word for word translation from the plates, or it is not. But either way, because of those changes, one could argue that all subsequent editions are incorrect.

And even more pertinent is that IF Joseph Smith had seen the Father and the Son in 1820, he would have known better than to include either version of Christ and the Father the Book of Mormon.

A mormon apologist was asked on a facebook page why the book of mormon does not actually have the fullness of the gospel. His reply: "Because "fullness" as it was used in the 19th century, does not mean "all of." It only means "the extent of" or "the height of."

That means the same as "there is no more to extend" or nothing beyond this end. Likewise, the height of a mountain goes ONLY to the top. The apologist is saying that it does not mean fulness, but instead it means the same as fulness.

And of course, Jesus told the Nephites that this was the fulness of his gospel and 3Nephi 11 says:

39Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

41Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.

It now says that they are "among the ancestors" of Native Americans. I think this is an admission that Simon Southerton was right.

Something I noticed for the first time the other day, there's a verse near the end of 1st or beginning of 2nd Nephi that has a cross reference to the JST. If both works were inspired and true, why does the BOM verse differ from the JST verse? Which one is really the word of God?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2011 01:16PM by onlyme.

An acknowledgement that DNA evidence has proven the BoM to be lies.

see the irony in believing the two words are equivalent.

... it shouldn't have been so important that Joseph's peep stone would at time spell out certain words letter by letter. It wouldn't have been so terribly important to instruct the publisher of the BOM not to make any corrections since the book was supposed to be "the most perfect book ever written". If it was not important, then it should not have been so important that the book claims to have been translated by the Gift and Power of God. Why would God make typo's, punctuation errors or be unclear in His communication?? The explanation makes no sense in light of the claims made about the book and how it came about.

After Southerton proved that "Lamanite" DNA links to Mongoloid, not Semitic blood, the LDS Church quietly revised Joseph Smith's own introduction to the BoM from Lamanites being the "principle ancestors" to "among the ancestors". They tacitly acknowledged that Southerton had proven their sacred book a work of fiction and reduced Lehi's family to minor historical (if that) footnote rather than the founders of a great civilization.

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After Southerton proved that "Lamanite" DNA links
> to Mongoloid, not Semitic blood, the LDS Church
> quietly revised Joseph Smith's own introduction to
> the BoM from Lamanites being the "principle
> ancestors" to "among the ancestors". They tacitly
> acknowledged that Southerton had proven their
> sacred book a work of fiction and reduced Lehi's
> family to minor historical (if that) footnote
> rather than the founders of a great civilization.

The introduction with "principle ancestors" was not by Joseph Smith. I believe it was by Bruce R. McConkie and was added in 1981.

True. But BRM based his introduction on Joseph Smiths own journal in which he had written that Moroni informed him that the Lamanites were the 'literal' ancestors of the Native Americans.