Book of Mormon Translation

[Anonymous]

Hey Guys,

I realize this thread has been dormant for a while but wanted to put this questions here. I looked to see if there was a discussion on it but couldn’t find one. How do you explain the following.

Mathew 6:25-26

Quote:

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

then 3 Nephi 13: 25-26

Quote:

25 …Therefore I say unto you,take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Word for word the same. But then JS translated the Matthew version to be (JST Matthew 6:25–27)

Quote:

25 And, again, I say unto you, go ye into the world, and care not for the world; for the world will hate you, and will persecute you, and will turn you out of their synagogues.

26 Nevertheless, ye shall go forth from house to house, teaching the people; and I will go before you.

27 And your heavenly Father will provide for you, whatsoever things ye need for food, what ye shall eat; and for raiment, what ye shall wear or put on.

Shouldn’t the JST match the BoM one since JS was correcting errors in the bible, putting back in missing parts? How do we reconcile this? I’ve been confused about this since my mission and have never found an answer.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Neither version is literal, eternal truth.

It’s not more complicated than that.

[Anonymous]

Ray’s answer is pretty much on point…but there is a little bit more here.

1. The original injunction to not be worried about the necessities of life can be interpreted as a charge to live naturally and authentically. If we interpret Christ’s saying as being informed by “wise men from the east”, the ancient daoists (and there would have been some degree of cultural exchange along the nascient silk roads) believed in natural way of life — observing nature and living in exact harmony therewith. As well, the buddhists had this charge for their priests — to live by begging and not taking any employment. This was certainly idealized to some extent, but there is a point to be made about living authentically.

2. The Nephi version has a precursor statement:

3 Ne 13:25 wrote:

And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life…

So you can see that Joseph had interpreted the charge to live without purse or script to be specific only to the full-time servants of the Lord. This change of context completely changes the meaning of the verse.

3. Joseph’s understanding of the scriptures was constantly in transition throughout his life. This changing story is clear from the first vision accounts, from the commandments around marriage and polygamy, and from his parallel translated accounts over time. The creation story changed significantly from Moses/JST, BoA, and the Temple account. What do we learn from this?

(a) the book of mormon ‘translation’ clearly copied the King James version of the bible without ever actually being a translation. This was my first clue that the Book of Mormon wasn’t a translation when I was in High School and realized that translating is impossible to get word for word the same from one translation to another.

(b) Scripture is nothing more than a snapshot of inspiration at a given point time. It can and should never be taken literally.

[Anonymous]

eman wrote:

Shouldn’t the JST match the BoM one since JS was correcting errors in the bible, putting back in missing parts? How do we reconcile this? I’ve been confused about this since my mission and have never found an answer.

Well, in a lot of places, the JST transposes verses, or rearranges statements, as well as clarifying them.

Personally, while the quotation of Isaiah in the BoM works for me, the quotation of Matthew doesn’t as much. One is quoting from old plates, the other is supposed to be the visit of Jesus to the Americas. Wouldn’t he say more stuff, or different things? Wouldn’t he say “consider the bison” or “consider the llamas” or something?!

And another thing… the quotation of Isaiah is interesting as it sheds new light, but that of Matthew doesn’t really. I just see it as duplication without much new to show.

[Anonymous]

Nephite wrote:

New discoveries alter theories!

Consider also:

Geocentric Model

Spontaneous Generation

Maternal Impression

Miasma Theory

Preformationism

Telegony

Caloric Theory

Phlogiston Theory

Emission Theory

Rain Follows the Plow

Tabula Rasa

Atom is the Smallest Particle

Martian Canals

Why should we believe that any frail human mind has completely figured out DNA?

Not to mention… the claim that Thomas Jefferson made (he was a bit of a skeptic –

“I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall from heaven!”

And yet, it appears that the Bible got there first – “The Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them” – Joshua 10:11

So for all the complaints about the Biblical cosmology/geology etc sometimes it is right!

A few others…

Lysenkoism & Lamarckianism (these may not be entirely over though)

The Planet Vulcan (no, not the Star Trek one)

Pluto is a planet.

Phrenology

Graphology

Freudianism

Frozen Moon & Hot Universe

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/29/144431640/debunked-science-studies-take-heat-in-2011

There are also a good few well known theories, which currently have big, big holes in them just now.

The Big Bang and Dark Matter. (Dark Matter is unproven, yet it is the thing upon which a lot of cosmology rests.)

Memes (This favorite of Richard Dawkins is unproven)

String Theory

Gravity

Newtonian Physics (much of which contradicts Quantum theory)

There are also numerous controversies in the Higgs-Boson carry-on, but I suspect these will be largely resolved in the near future.

[Anonymous]

Theories and models are readily adapted and changed when research or discovery shows they are incorrect. Science knows the information is not complete.

Religious claims however, do not enjoy the same benefit. While perhaps some steadfast Vikings still think a giant wolf is eating the sun whenever there is a solar eclipse, and are certain the scientists are just telling them lies, the truth is religious claims are made on imperfect information, with little to no chance of being updated when new information becomes available. While we do now mostly accept that the earth is a sphere, it came at a high price. Think how long it took Christianity to consider that the Earth was not the center of the universe. We might laugh and say, well yes but they were just ignorant and stiff necked, but we are much more enlightened now.

But it doesn’t seem to be the case. We accept science to be correct when it is used to put braces on our daughter’s teeth or to make food taste better, cure disease or make a safer car, but somehow reject anything that challenges a religious claim. We are hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

But it doesn’t seem to be the case. We accept science to be correct when it is used to put braces on our daughter’s teeth or to make food taste better, cure disease or make a safer car, but somehow reject anything that challenges a religious claim. We are hypocrites.

Yes, and sometimes we’re fools to do so. Look at thalidomide and DDT. There’s a row over Aspartame now too.

We also accept science to be correct when it comes to immolating or killing our enemies.

Quote:

the truth is religious claims are made on imperfect information, with little to no chance of being updated when new information becomes available.

Science comes from incomplete information as well, and leaps of thought (rather than faith). Theology can, and is, updated. We come from a church which specializes in that.

[Anonymous]

eman wrote:

Shouldn’t the JST match the BoM one since JS was correcting errors in the bible, putting back in missing parts? How do we reconcile this? I’ve been confused about this since my mission and have never found an answer.

Thanks!

Hi Eman,

What was initially most disturbing to me is the inconsistencies (aka lies) that I was fool enough to believe.

Now, I am not bothered by even obvious inconsistencies like the ones you point out because I realize that we cannot help but be inconsistent & lie to ourselves & others. We may not do it purposefully, but we do it because our views cannot help but NOT be all-knowing.

So… essentially, religion, science (as Sam mentioned), philosophy – pretty much any framework of thinking, is based on subjective illusions – because none of them are exhaustive in exploring truth, but are picking which to focus on.

It is said that we are like “binoculars with legs.”

We might as well find illusions that work for us, rather than against us.

To me, I see many cognitive distortions in both the Book of Mormon & other scripture – including the bible.

But what’s new? Aren’t we all full of cognitive distortions?

I try to focus on the ideas that motivate and inspire me, & try not to obsess over what is considered by some to be literal, specific “facts.”

[Anonymous]

For me it casts more ‘doubt’ on the JST.

I think even some apologetics consider the JST as a commentary on the bible, not a correction of the bible.

I agree that identical passages to New Testament are troubling.

Given God is the author and finisher of our faith, he could, if he wanted, inspire consistent wording in multiple documents.

I haven’t yet reached wayfarer’s certainty over non-translation. When I read accounts like Lehi in the dessert and NHM I wonder how Joseph could have got these things right. There are lots more.

When I see the New Testament in the BoM I consider several possibilities:

– In the dictation/translation process Joseph came to a passage he was familiar with and defaulted to that. Whatever version Mormon inscribed, Joseph went wording that was easier.

– Like a good global brand with consistent messages in all marketing materials (!), the wording was intentionally the same (God as the great brand manager in the sky)

– Wording intentionally done that way (by God or Joseph) to help new investigators in 19th C and today feel we are ‘building on common beliefs.’

– Inspired/inspiring fiction that draws on existing ideas and theology and is not a translation

– A fraud and fabrication pieced together using lots of other sources and ideas.

[Anonymous]

Reflexzero wrote:

Theories and models are readily adapted and changed when research or discovery shows they are incorrect. Science knows the information is not complete.

Religious claims however, do not enjoy the same benefit. While perhaps some steadfast Vikings still think a giant wolf is eating the sun whenever there is a solar eclipse, and are certain the scientists are just telling them lies, the truth is religious claims are made on imperfect information, with little to no chance of being updated when new information becomes available. While we do now mostly accept that the earth is a sphere, it came at a high price. Think how long it took Christianity to consider that the Earth was not the center of the universe. We might laugh and say, well yes but they were just ignorant and stiff necked, but we are much more enlightened now.

But it doesn’t seem to be the case. We accept science to be correct when it is used to put braces on our daughter’s teeth or to make food taste better, cure disease or make a safer car, but somehow reject anything that challenges a religious claim. We are hypocrites.

Since “science knows the information is not complete,” the Book of Mormon should not be rejected based on any DNA studies. That was my point. And to be fair, I don’t know of a single prophet who said the earth is flat or is the center of the universe. Those beliefs were limited to the Dark Ages. I would like to know if I am incorrect regarding that.

[Anonymous]

Shawn, I think you might have mistyped in the last comment. I don’t think it says what you meant to say.

[Anonymous]

Haha, thanks man. For anyone who is curious about it, I changed “the Book of Mormon should be rejected…” to “the Book of Mormon should not be rejected…”

[Anonymous]

Thanks Mackay for some thought provoking comments. I would like to throw my 2 cents in on a couple:

mackay11 wrote:

Given God is the author and finisher of our faith, he could, if he wanted, inspire consistent wording in multiple documents.

I find the process of revelation a fascinating topic, and based on all the evidence that I have see this far I disagree with the above statement on the following points:

1. If God must work with man in his weakness, and human agency is a true principle, then God ultimately does not have direct control over the message that a prophet will deliver.

2. If multiple translators/revelators/scribes express their ideas using unique language then the chance that they would compose a passage using identical words is highly unlikely unless they fall back on words previously written.

mackay11 wrote:

– Inspired/inspiring fiction that draws on existing ideas and theology and is not a translation

– A fraud and fabrication pieced together using lots of other sources and ideas.

What if we trade the word “fiction” above to “revelation”? In doing that I’m not trying to change the meaning of the comment as much as change the perspective from which it is viewed. Revelation never strikes me as the same as secular translation, so the tail end of the first line becomes moot. I would say “…draws on existing ideas and theology while adding nuggets of new inspiration.”

“A fraud and fabrication” according to some definitions and up against some expectations can be seen as inspired work through a different lens, without changing any fundamental facts surrounding the work.

I’m probably not coming off well to most readers but if we think about a “Matrix” world vs. a “real” world I would argue they are both “real” in the sense that they both allow for real memories through actual personal experience — as well as real learning experiences, etc. If both options allow for comparable personal growth based on “experience” there are only a few ways in which the physical reality can be differentiated.

My point is if we’re striving for spiritual progress it makes no difference if we discuss the actual history of Rome or the parables of Jesus, the importance is that we understand the lessons and assimilate the knowledge into our being.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Since “science knows the information is not complete,” the Book of Mormon should not be rejected based on any DNA studies.

Agreed, let’s not reject the Book of Mormon as an inspired document based upon DNA studies. however, we can completely reject the historicity of the book as reflected in the prevailing statements of the Church up until around 198x, when they said that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the native americans. Joseph Smith believed that the native americans (USA) were the Lamanites, and he so stated in the Wentworth letter. While DNA does not rule out entirely that there are a handful of lamanites left of some regional geography yet to be determined, the overwhelming evidence is against the historicity of the book of mormon as understood by Joseph Smith and the Prophets until 1980.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

BTW, there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever that the Israelites ever lived in Egypt or that the Exodus ever occuured as described in the Bible.

Actually, funnily enough, I think there IS some evidence of the former. The latter’s the problem. I suppose Sinai might just be the kind of place escaped Egyptian slaves would go.

Incidentally, some people connect Exodus with the eruption of Thera, which would explain the pillar of Fire business and perhaps the plagues.

[Author]

Posts