I see three problems already.1) "A man can receive nothing,
except it be given him from heaven."`` a) I believe any member
of the LDS Church who's read the Book of Mormon and prays continually for
guidance- would disagree with anyone calling this a "worst" part of the
Bible.-------2) We LDS believe the Book of Mormon to be
a record literally preserved by the Hand of God. Think about that for a second.
It includes not only His commandments, but insight into imperfect man and how
civilizations fell from righteousness.`` a) Those imperfections are
something God may have intended for us to relate to our own lives like a
warning.`` b) If God lead numerous men through painstaking, even
deadly efforts, to bring us truth- then for us to consider part of it
"worst" and "not of worth" is absolutely futile.-------And finally, I may feel that only part of a journal is of
any worth, but someone else may find value in another part. Removal is NOT an
act of preservation!People can think what they want, but this is not
the work of God. It's exactly through acts like this that flaws alter
Pure laziness to avoid reading the entire texts.
The purpose of religion is to find happiness. Happiness is based on love for
God, your neighbor and yourself. Religion shows how to live after the manner of
happiness. After living two thirds of a century, I have repeatedly seen sorrow
that could have been avoided by adhering to the precepts of religion. What were
people thinking?When I became a member of the bishopric of my local
ward, I was amazed at how much humanitarian effort goes on behind the scenes.
Without an organization, very little would have been done. This is what
organized religion does.Elder Neal A. Maxwell said, you can’t
have the brotherhood of man without the Fatherhood of God; try as you might, the
results will be cosmetic and will not last. Whether this humanist effort
accomplishes much good remains to be seen.Social studies have shown
that religious people are happier and more charitable than others. Why would we
choose a path and stinginess and sorrow?
And he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he
denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and
female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and
Gentile(2 Nephi 26:33)
RE: Canyontreker, If you find later in life that your interpretation of the
Gospel was wrong, LDS or otherwise, it doesn't make it a hoax, only that
your way of thinking of it was wrong. A of F 13,"If there is
anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, we seek after these things."
Joseph Smith. whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good
report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these
things.(Phil 4:8)The original articles of faith. #8 We believe in
the Word of God recorded in the Bible; we also believe the Word of God recorded
in the Book of Mormon, and in all other good books. See current #8.The
KJV/3 Nephi Sermon on the Mount. LDS Scholar Dr. Larson finds 12 examples
where JS copied the 1769 KJV errors.Mt 6:13 KJV and 3Nephi 13:13 Both
have the doxology, For thine is he Kingdom and power and the glory forever amen.
The KJV is based on 9th to 12th century texts. Earlier and better manuscripts do
not contain the doxology. Only One example.
very concerned, "there is no in-between when taking the whole of its words
and teachings. Some would have us believe otherwise, but the black and white of
the printed word will not allow it to the sincere person. The logic follows with
Joseph Smith as well, either a prophet or a liar."It concerns me
when we look at things as absolutes, as black and white. This logic would say
that all other religions have to be perfect or be a hoax. Yet, we know when we
feel truth and good. Wouldn't we want to live in a community of Faiths with
active members even of other religions rather than most people lost in atheism?
If you find later in life that your interpretation of the Gospel was
wrong, LDS or otherwise, it doesn't make it a hoax, only that your way of
thinking of it was wrong. I think the Book of Mormon calls this being
"stiff-necked." Read the scriptures each time with a loose neck and
opportunity of a different perspective."If there is anything
virtuous, lovely, or of good report, we seek after these things." Joseph
LValfre "How can it be the most perfect book written when it's been
changed and edited countless times?"Before you can answer this
question you have to admit that "countless" is a big exaggeration.
Changes have all been documented and the first edition is still available.
Second, the most perfect book is only in English as translations into other
languages have to be by "idea to idea" rather than "word for
word" for the end result to make sense. Ideas and interpretations change and
we find better ways to express ideas through language from time to time. Third
most of the changes are in the references; chapter headings, footnotes, etc. The
Introduction was the latest to change, but the verse itself did not. Third,
chapters and verses were introduced in the 20th century. There is current study
to see if these verse breaks are in the best places...get ready for another
edition. The Introduction, chapter headings, bible dictionary and
footnotes are not considered scripture but only aides.In any case,
nothing has been omitted or added since the first edition and the verse itself
has not changed.
@John Wilson"The Book of Mormon is copyrighted. The other books
are not. Cutting and pasting parts of the Book of Mormon cannot be legal without
specific written authoriziation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. I doubt the Church will authorize the partial use of the Book of
Mormon."Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, right?
The Book of Mormon is copyrighted. The other books are not. Cutting and
pasting parts of the Book of Mormon cannot be legal without specific written
authoriziation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I doubt
the Church will authorize the partial use of the Book of Mormon.
@ Herbert Gravy,He did, the article just says that his book of abridged
scripture was published in 1858.
I like what President Marion G. Romney told religious educators:“When I drink from a spring I like to get the water where it comes out
of the ground, not down the stream after the cattle have waded in it. … I
appreciate other people’s interpretation, but when it comes to the gospel
we ought to be acquainted with what the Lord says.”That goes
for humanists' editing.
I thought Thomas Jefferson died in 1826 on the same day that John Adams did.
Exactly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence?
I once attended a lecture by an atheist who spoke about the Sermon on the Mount
and what it meant to him. It was very insightful and nobody felt offended. I
think what Jefferson and others saying is that there is something of great value
in the scriptures, even for those who do not believe in the supernatural. I
would hope my Mormon friends see this move by the Humanists to include
selections of their scripture in their library as being in that vein.
This is my favorite Thomas Jefferson quote:I hold to the precepts of
Jesus, as delivered by himself, to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime
which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first
age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion,
having no foundation in what came from him . . . If the freedom of religion
guaranteed to us by law in theory, can ever rise in practice under the
overbearing inquisition of public opinion, truth will prevail over fanaticism,
and the genuine doctrines of Jesus, so long perverted by his pseudo-priests,
will again be restored to their original purity. This reformation will advance
with the other improvements of the human mind, but too late for me to witness
it." Thomas Jefferson, 1820
I've read only a little of the other religion's scriptures, so I
don't claim to be an expert in them. I'm a little more familiar with
the Book of Mormon and the Bible. They are overflowing with references to the
spiritual side of life. They talk of Christ, His Godhood, His miracles, His
superior teachings, His grace, His atonement, His resurrection. Without these,
the Book of Mormon and the Bible are mere shadows of religion.I am
glad that there are books that are superior to our current (natural man's)
knowledge. Else what would we strive for? What *truths* would guide our lives
for the better.Humanists and athiests can tear apart the Book of
Mormon. It’s a free country. They may even have “joy for a
season”, but in the end, they can’t stop the word of God from
visiting the whole earth and from declaring the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ
and the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent Father in Heaven.
To "On the other hand" I hate to tell you this, but organized
anti-religion has caused more deaths than organized religion.How
many millions have been killed in the last century alone by Communists in their
anti-religious political takeovers?
My favorite Thomas Jefferson quote:"A departure from principle
in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and
so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have
no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering." Doesn't sound like a modern-day atheist.Sounds like a prediction
that has come true today....
Impossible, taking miracles, faith, prayer, the afterlife, revelation, the
existence of a superior being, spirituality, etc. out of scriptures. It's
akin to claiming there is common photosynthesis without light. To take the
Godhood of Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father out of the equation would require
cutting out the heart of the scriptures. Either Jesus Christ was
who He said He was (so many times and in so many ways) or He was a fraud - a
huge fraud. One cannot separate His divinity from His wisdom. It is the same
with the Book of Mormon. With its claims, either it is true or it is a grand
hoax. There is no in-between when taking the whole of its words and teachings.
Some would have us believe otherwise, but the black and white of the printed
word will not allow it to the sincere person. The logic follows with Joseph
Smith as well, either a prophet or a liar.
@che1968"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."How can it be the most perfect book written when it's been changed
and edited countless times?
When I was trying to put myself through the process of finding out if the Book
of Mormon was true, something much like this helped me the most. I was exhausted
from leaders and advisors telling me how to read the Book of Mormon
('Underline every time it says 'Jesus Christ,' or
'Lord'; Mark everything related to the Atonement; Mark everything
related to repentance, etc). So, when I decided I was sick of those experiments,
I picked up a completely blank copy, read it as fast as I could, and only marked
the verses I really, really liked. There was no rhyme or reason as to why I
liked them, just ones that struck me as particularly great on a really fast read
through.For me, that was what it took for me to actually give the
book of chance. It didn't in and of itself convince me the book was true,
but it helped me lose some of my biases against it by helping me see that, if
nothing else, there was a lot of good in it. That gave me the time and the right
attitude I needed to eventually find out it is true.
No Esquire. Actually, and ironically, this is exactly what these Humanists are
doing when they choose to chop up the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other inspired
writings, and then THEY are calling evil good and good evil and putting darkness
for light and light for darkness.
James E. Talmage broke up the Book of Mormon into chapter and verse. Some of
these should not have been broken. Try reading two verses as one or two chapters
as one verse. You can get a perspective closer to the 19th century students of
scripture.I don't find any fault in reading scripture out of
the original context if you find truth in it.
Or perhaps, Thomas Jefferson's work was just one way he had to study the
Bible. Perhaps he didn't intend to change it all. It is the practice of
many scholars to examine things by pulling our groups or parts of it to look at
in a different order. I have underlines in my Bible. That doesn't mean I
don't believe the part I didn't underline!!!
There are definitely passages in the book of mormon that make me wince, and the
one quoted as one of the worst is definitely one that qualified in my mind too.
Interesting that the Book of Mormon is being considered at this
global level, good for them. I agree it contains a great deal of wisdom--even
words of life.
It's interesting that anyone wishes to emulate a book apparently written
for a rather insulting purpose (if you're a Native American). The trouble
with taking a scripture out of context or time frame is that it is then subject
to misinterpretation. To understand the scriptures, you have to read them all
and study the complete message. When people read these statements out of
context, with no understanding of the situation or complete meaning,and they
know little of the faith that offers it, they come to inaccurate conclusions
about the faith--and that leads to persecution, in many cases. If you want to
understand a religion, read the complete books of scripture and learn their
teachings from believers who can help you understand context.
i'm fine with people doing what they please, and I even find it kind of
flattering that they have recognized the BoM as a good book of ethical
guidelines, but but as just good books of ethical guidelines all these books
have failed their purpose.
JoeCapitalist2,The point you bring up is understood with some
differences you might consider:The abridgement of the Book of Mormon
record was done by a prophet of God who had seen Christ and knew of His divine
work. The humanists are seeking to remove information about the
devine Sonship of Christ by dispelling the miracles that seem unbelievable. Such
an effort distorts truth in much the same way politics and influencing public
perception does.There are differences of context when the dialog of
the Book of Mormon is rearranged for the purpose of providing a doctrinal
response to a different religion that chooses to remove Christ and God from
scripture. Such a response removes the essence and meaning of each scriptural
text meaning for the reader.
I found this article interesting and can't wait to read their results. I
would love also to see what their collection of the worst quotes would be from
all the works.That being said...One of the trends in our society is
to completely separate our public life from God. I understand that desire as
there are many interpretations and morals codes derive thereof. However...The very basic tenant of our existence as a republic and national
entity is our belief that the rights that we are afforded in the constitution
and the subsequent Bill of Rights (and Amendments) is that these rights are
INALIENABLE. That word is a very important part of our history. The
US Declaration of Independence states that God Himself bestowed our rights and
liberties upon us. Not man. This protects us.These are natural
rights... not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular
culture or government. I believe that there is a movement,
nefarious by some, ignorance by most, meant to undermine that concept. Once
undermined, then all the rights we now enjoy become LEGAL right. That is to
say... bestowed on us by a given legal system.
The motivation behind this effort appears to be an attempt to answer the
question, “Do we have to believe in magic and superstition in order to
follow the example of great men like Jesus and other sages throughout
history?” My personal view is “no, we do not” so from that
perspective this may have a lot of appeal (in separating the wheat from the
chaff, so to speak).On the other hand, given the vast library of
ethical (far superior to the barbarism found in the some of these
“unedited” books) and even spiritual teachings found outside of
these works, I can’t help but wonder “why go there?” If
believing in supernatural stories gives people comfort and provides the
motivation to change their lives for the better, why undertake a project that
may be perceived as disrespectful to what they cherish?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
"Organized love is better than generalized concern." Neal A. MaxwellI 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
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.
to On the other handI 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
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,Organized religion does no more damage than organized
anti-religion i.e. My Denial of God > Your God.
re: patriot & A1994Humanism 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
“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!
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.
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....
Humanist and Bible don't exactly go together. One implies atheism and the
other God. Perhaps Humanist chop job would be a better description.