Comments about ‘Book of Mormon goes 'under the knife' in new humanist 'Bible'’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 15 2013 3:25 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Humanist and Bible don't exactly go together. One implies atheism and the other God. Perhaps Humanist chop job would be a better description.

suzyk#1
Mount Pleasant, UT

My feeling is they are delving into something they do not understand and in my opinion they do not have a right to do that. No matter what they change it will not interfer with what we as members know is right, know what was originally written. They know not the ramifications of their choice to make changes....

A1994
Centerville, UT

It sounds like Thomas Jefferson was a bit of a doubting Thomas. (Pun intended.)

I have no problem with people taking passages from the Book of Mormon to add to their collection of favorites. We have mastery scriptures that kids learn in seminary.

Of course, when you seek to eliminate the 'supernatural' parts of the Book of Mormon or the Bible, you then have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.

Esquire
Springville, UT

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Book of Mormon). Whoa! Sounds like the Republican Party!

Hank Pym
SLC, UT

re: patriot & A1994

Humanism is prefering individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over doctrine or faith

Jefferson was a Deist. As such, he believed God gave us reason not religion.

When you eliminate the "metaphysical", you have a book of ethics so to speak. Stripping out all the basis for feelings/emotions could eliminate damage that organized religion does i.e. My God > Your God

On the other hand
Riverdale, MD

@Hank Pym,

Organized religion does no more damage than organized anti-religion i.e. My Denial of God > Your God.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Thomas Jefferson was once asked about his philosophy of life. He said "I am an Epicurean". Research the philosophy of Epicurus to see what that means.

Hank Pym
SLC, UT

to On the other hand

I don't disagree. Truthfully, OrgRel's influence on humanity IMO is a push.

Like Jefferson, I'm a Deist. OrgRel makes no rational sense to me and will leave it at that

golfjazzute
farmington, UT

Jefferson was a Deist. He believed in God so there is no denial of God. Religious Dogma is what needs to be eliminated. Its tough to argue scripture such as "doing good to thy neighbor" its when we start to decide what has to be done to qualify for Gods grace, and we have the truth statements by most religions that can cause hatred, pride, violence, and poor treatment of others. I hope this "New Bible" will foster tolerance and help people see the similarities of spiritual peoples of all cultures.

Red Headed Stranger
Billy Bobs, TX

"Organized love is better than generalized concern." Neal A. Maxwell

I cannot fault others for being atheists. At one time, I perhaps was one also. I thought that I was clever, and almost managed to clever myself out of the kingdom. Then I rediscovered prayer. It is difficult to ignore God when you start to receive answers to prayer. It is a usually a marvelous experience, sometimes it is scary when your answer is "no", but the answers are real. No, I can't "prove" it to anyone else. Yes, some people mock or don't understand.

Regardless of what others say, my membership in an Organized Religion has thoroughly, repeatedly blessed my life. This membership is one of the things that I value most. I can't help it if Ms. Winston doesn't put the same effort into actually doing what the Book of Mormon recommends, and instead cuts and pastes what they like. It is kind of like buying a moist, gooey cinnamon roll, unrolling the dough and scraping off the cinnamon filling with a knife. Yes, you are left something that can be eaten, but is rather unsatisfying and removes what made the original interesting.

che1968
Exton, PA

What ever happened to the statement " The Book of Mormon is the most perfect book written, and a man will come closer to God, through it, than any other." Dissecting it will not make it less so.

Albert Maslar CPA (Retired)
Absecon, NJ

Original documents are best left alone as they are the basis for their target audience, whoever that happens to be. The Bible, Book of Mormon, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Quran, and others must be allowed to stand or fall on their own truth and merits. Truth is 100% and the most effective falsehoods contain some percentage of that truth, otherwise no one would accept the blatant falsehood. Satan is known as the father of lies and presents an often believable mix of truth and falsehood to beguile even the most astute. Selective cutting and pasting is used indiscriminately to see the falsehood, a favorite political ploy of the day which today might be presenting young children as a backdrop to the gun control controversy. Well and good, but who will sit in for the 1.2 Million children aborted in the US each year since the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade Decision legalizing abortion on demand for any reason, and today offered at taxpayer objectionable cost? Is that not a lie as well?

Fern RL
LAYTON, UT

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Book of Mormon).

I love that quote, and wouldn't mind a cut and paste job of favorite parts of the Book of Mormon or other scriptures, but I would also like to see the flip-side of the coin--all of the parts that didn't make the cut.

As to Esquire's judgment: "Sounds like the Republican Party!" that sounds like a very good example of prejudice to me.

I don't believe there is one true political party. Even if there were such a thing, all of us are mere mortals capable of making huge mistakes based on faulty understanding.

donn
layton, UT

Fern RL ,
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. (Book of Mormon, 2Nephi 15:20 )actually (Isaiah 5:20)
I love that quote, and wouldn't mind a cut and paste job(Some-one did) of favorite parts of the Book of Mormon or other scriptures, but I would also like to see the flip-side of the coin--all of the parts that didn't make the cut.

timpClimber
Provo, UT

I have had some noble and special friends who are humanists and I have some very religious friends who can look through a key hole with both eyes. But to pick and choose what should be in a holy book leaves out the essential essence of its being. I will be interested to find out how much of the first chapter of Moroni made it through the humanist knife.

coleman51
Orem, UT

I doubt that they will make many sales of these books. Perhaps they should spend their time more wisely spending their time directly denying God and leave the scriptures for others to judge the merits of each passage.

Innovate
Spanish Fork, UT

I have an issue with taking scriptures out of context in order to create a different dialog for discussion. Isn't this what happened to the Bible over the centuries? Can such a book that removes the context of miracles become dangerous for christianity and for other religious faiths in terms of rearranging context to create a humanistic doctrine. I am grately concerned about the implications of taking scripture (the word of God) and removing such context to create false doctrine.

darinraycousineau
Boise, ID

Typically, President Brigham Young spoke sternly concerning popularity and what can be its ruining acclaim:

“I do not want ‘Mormonism’ to become popular. … I would rather pass through all the misery and sorrow, the troubles and trials of the Saints, than to have the religion of Christ become popular with the world” (in Journal of Discourses, 10:297).

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

The Book of Mormon is already a "cut and paste" book. Mormon abridged a large collection of ancient records along with a generous amount of his own commentary to put it together. In many places it clearly states that "less than a hundredth part" of the total original record was included.

So yes, someone could do the same thing with all the holy scriptures we have today - distill them down to a much smaller book with only the "best parts". The real question becomes: Who is deciding what those best parts are and what is not really needed?

Mormons believe that Mormon was a prophet with the spirit of revelation and was guided by God to perform the work. They certainly trust his judgement much more than a humanist today who denies the very power of God and instead relies upon his own reason to judge what is worthy and what is not.

Cowboy Dude
SAINT GEORGE, UT

Jefferson was no Atheist. He loved scripture especially the teachings of Jesus. He cut and pasted what he wanted to learn to make him better today. In letters he stated himself in certain times of his life as an Epicurean and/or Unitarian. He didn't claim to be Deist or Agnostic, but had writings that supported this.

Put it all together and you have a man that wanted to be better. As Epicurean's believed, man is a free agent, the body is of God (a temple)to experience pleasure and pain, the universe is Eternal (no beginning or end), happiness is the aim in life, virtue is the foundation of happiness, and indulgence is the opposite of self-discipline robbing your agency and happiness.

Jefferson searched and found no modern religion that had the original Gospel. Yet, he fought for the Freedom of Religion (laying a path for the Gospel to be restored.)

Jefferson died in 1825 less than five years before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints was established.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments