Comments on: Unholy Moly 2

By: Cassie

Cassie — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 03:54:00 +0000

That is not true for one reason: The LDS Church does not claim that portion of the text to be scriptural.

By: Pete Dunn

Pete Dunn — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:55:25 +0000

My take on it is posted here: http://fiddley.com/archive/200711/i_make_a_record_of_my_proceedings_in_my_days

To sum up:

“It also means that the LDS church has, in part, fessed up to what I’ve and others have been trying to say for several years, that, in fact, the Book of Mormon is not an accurate historical record at all.”

By: Christy

Christy — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:02:27 +0000

Thanks for setting me straight, Scott! That makes quite a difference.

By: scott

scott — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:26:42 +0000

Christy,

This is not wording from an original translation from Joseph Smith, it is text that was included as an introduction page in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon put together by a committee of the LDS Church.

There is, however a Title Page that is a translation by Joseph Smith. This is not the text being discussed.

By: Mel

Mel — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:25:28 +0000

Oh, and to actually have a point for my previous comment; This change really matters to believers more than anything. If it doesn’t change their belief in the Church, good, it doesn’t change my non-belief either and I certainly don’t think it is a valid argument against the church. The sad part of it all is when I read comments from people who don’t live in Utah and cannot understand why there is so much verbal hatred between members and non-members. We look like a bunch of unintelligent idiots arguing over something that simply cannot be proven absolutely in either way; and I think we kind of enjoy it a bit too much.

By: Mel

Mel — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:59:45 +0000

I forget what the point of the whole article was about because I just spent almost an hour reading the comments. That, friends, is entertainment at its finest! Cheers!

By: Julie

Julie — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:30:02 +0000

Very interesting, and the comments too. This is my kind of internet. Thank you.

By: Christy

Christy — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:23:51 +0000

I think this is fascinating. As an outsider looking in, that seems a significant change for a very small word. Am I correct in my understanding that the original introduction is believed to be the direct translation by Joseph Smith? If that is so, and if that translation is seen as divine providence, then WOW!

Suzanne - Limbo was never a tenet of the Catholic church. It was merely a possibility entertained by theologians. The pope has not supported nor denied limbo, just clarified that it be put in its proper place as speculation.

By: Cassie

Cassie — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 07:00:38 +0000

Even most mormons have to work on mormon holidays. Except I can only think of one mormon holiday…

I enjoy your viewpoints Jon. I’m a mormon and the change really doesn’t change anything for me. Same testimony and all. I saw it on the news and only thought that it was cool. If there was a change to 1st Nephi, then I would probably be upset.

By: erat

erat — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:41:08 +0000

@Starenova - Write a friendly, to the point letter to your bishop requesting that your name be removed. Don’t get spiteful, or write a novel, or otherwise spit on the church in your letter. Make it clear that you came to your decision after lots of soul searching and you feel this is the best route to take.