Book of Mormon Chapter Headings Have Changed

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Erm... Those changes are rather huge!

At first I never noticed the value of the changes, but when thinking about people who base their beliefs apon the history and story, it is rather quite significant.
Anywho, I looked up this book. So is it actually a church produced book, because if I were to use it to prove a point I once made before, it is most likely that the newer book will be accused of antimoishness. That it is not a church book. Is it produced by deseret books? From what I saw, doubleday was a publisher, so this would suggest that it is secular from the church. Did the GAs give the manuscript for this version a look over?

Pirate.

[_ludwigm]

it appears Joseph Smith may have got somethings wrong.

In the name of ©#@®!Ϯy I forbid You to say such things.
Joseph Smith said that the lord hath commanded him and only that the lord hath commanded him. And what the lord hath commanded him cannot be wrong.

If I were You, or ... if You were ©#@®!Ϯy or ... I'm sorry for the little confounding ...
Well, listen the HG and You will be blessed. Joseph Smith has got nothing wrong.

[_Chap]

Isn't the interesting point here that these changes have apparently (correct me if I am wrong) been made without the slightest indication of where, when, by whom and why the decision was made?

The aim of running things that way seems to be two-fold:

1. The CoJCoLDS leadership, by taking responsibility for as little as possible, distances itself from possible criticism.

2. The lack of any press release saying "we are now changing X to Y, for the following reasons" makes it easier to give ordinary LDS the impression that no change has in fact taken place, and that as things are, they have always been.

All this is of course most strongly illustrated by changes in temple ceremonies, where NO public statement is ever made. There is already a generation of younger LDS who do not believe that the ceremony ever did contain mimed throat-cutting or belly-slashing, and certainly not oaths of vengeance on the United States. One day there will no doubt be LDS who think that the Book of Mormon headings never referred to coins or to 'loathsome' Lamanites.

[_ludwigm]

The situation is worse in non-english books.
The first hungarian Book of Mormon was translated at the end of 80s or in early 90s, the actual one - I think - in 2005. (I will check it when I get home from work, I have no BoMs in my workplace ...)

I have read the older 20+ times, the new one two times yet.
I compared word by word a few page only, all sentences are changed!

The first one doesn't sound biblical at all, it is a plain translation from english to hungarian with bad (non-hungarian-style) punctuation, probably by people who don't live in Hungary since WWII or 1956.
The second one uses the vocabulary of our most widely used Bible version ( called Karoli, 1490 ) but doesn't use the assembling of the sentences from that Bible (where the KJV and the Book of Mormon text are same or very similar). Moreover, there are many non-hungarian structured sentence.
For the majority of the members, who know the Bible as slightly as the Book of Mormon, it's all the same. (In my sixyear investigation, I knew only a few member who read D&C cover to cover and - as far as I know - about the half of the membersip have read the whole Book of Mormon.)

[_Roger Morrison]

Thanks Brackite, tried the URL but couldn't get it?? Anyway, most interesting and indicitive of survival-at-all-costs. What might bode from this? Over time eradicating the word "Mormon" as an identifying name of the group?? After all "Mormons" is/was a dirty-name initially imposed by the enemy.

Certainly LDSism could then--after acknowledging Joseph as a well meaning, delusional--take its place among sectarianism as no worse than any other. Even better than some. Then they w/could be accepted as Christians, then>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who knows?? Of course shortly it won't matter, Jesus will come-again, the sheep will be seperated from the goats and>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution or what, eh? Warm regards, Roger (Not to be taken seriously :-)

[Guest]

Wow. This is stunning. Once again Mormon apologists pull a double-think maneuver, and claim the doctrinal changes aren't official and don't change doctrine.

[_Inconceivable]

[quote="Chap"]Isn't the interesting point here that these changes have apparently (correct me if I am wrong) been made without the slightest indication of where, when, by whom and why the decision was made?

Excellent point.

I recall as a missionary when a Jehovah's Witness pulled out their Green Dragon we would just shake our heads.

I remember asking them, "Who keeps re-translating your Bible between each edition?

There were no names. There were no faces - just the publishing company.

[_Black Moclips]

Ahh yes, the beloved Green Dragon. I haven't heard that term in a while. I thought we were the only ones in the mission to use it, but I guess it was more widespread. That was one of our favorite pasttimes, bashing with the TJ's (Testigos de Jehovah in spanish) during our street display.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

A good move by the church. Take away any confident statements and replace them with wishy washy. I love changing "Alma is taken up" to "Alma may have been taken up." I think they're letting the apologists write these new headings. The next thing I think they should do is change the years at the bottom of the page. Whenever they find some artifact that might be from the Nephites, the timeline doesn't match up. The dates at the bottom are always screwing them up. They can adjust the years in the Book of Mormon to fit in better with their Mayan theories.

[_Yoda]

For what it's worth, I just checked out those references on LDS.org and all of the old scriptural references still stand. None of the new translations have been adopted on the official Church website version of the LDS scriptures.