Відео

@@Canut0 thanks for the comment!

Thanks for the ideas. There are a few branches that publish a volume and claim it to be close to the 1830. I did review of the True and Living Church and the Elijah Message group that publish a modern version of early texts. Good luck.

@@bookofmormoneditions Thanks I will check asap, if exist a chance to get a copy and make some interviews for the investigation.

Thank you!

Sorry to hear. I would imaging new replica's could/should be better now. Good luck!

@@cherylstevens4302 so glad this works out for you! Thanks for the comment.

Glad this can be useful. This is also profiled in the Book of Mormon Census at: bookofmormoncensus.com/census/1830%20Palmyra/A0003

Ultimately, no. While Liturgy of the Hours is a Catholic prayer book, they don't have a daily prayer book, or anything like it. We sure do love Chicken Soup for the Soul books, though! There was a 365 day Book of Mormon Reader (3rd party publisher), you can check that out on this channel.

@@bookofmormoneditions there are Protestant versions like the Book of Common Prayer. I guess Divine Office is the better term.

Sorry, still no daily reading/prayer volume.

@@bookofmormoneditions you should check out psalms in 30 days

Great comment that the 1908 is the version of the text! Thanks!

@@TomislavBarun thanks!

Thanks for the comment. Yes an easy "comfortable" book.

Yes, reading it novel form is a different experience. Thanks for the insight!

Thank you for the comment!

Thanks

Thank you!

They do and there's quite a few replica's that I've reviewed on this channel. I recommend the palmyra 1830 replica or the Grandin Artisans replica. Good luck!

@@jrpreach The 1840 can vary a lot, but usually will by low to mid 5 figures. These volumes are also part of the census and I’d welcome you to contact me directly to talk about any details you may have. Thx!

@@bookofmormoneditions it is signed by John M. Thompson who lived I believe in MIddle Tn with many forbears and descendants from this area. Third edition Nauvoo, Ill. 1840. I think I will do some genealogy research on him.

@@williamcammer9211 wow! And some remember 1984, 40 years ago like it was yesterday.

@@StephenSmoot yes, thanks for the reminder of it. They also came in a slip case. Congrats on your collection.

The volume is about an inch thick and a full 8x11 inch page. So there's some good content to read each day. However, it converts to about a chapter and a half each day in the traditional Salt Lake text. About 8-10 minutes reading. Unfortunately it doesn't have a D&C or PoGP. Thanks!

@@bookofmormoneditions how much is this book and how can I get a copy?

So sorry about that, I'll work to make it more refined next time.

@@bookofmormoneditions it’s not you, it’s the inherent racism in that book. And the origins. There are too many problems with it trying to be a historical record. And with the claims of the original author, who was very problematic for any rational human.

Thanks for the recommendations. the JS inspired version is a great study. I'll have to look at it closer.

No one wants to spend time with the devil. That's why it's important to learn what the prophets have taught. Thanks for the comment.

Thanks for the details. It's great to see that good attracts good.

Though Joseph Smith made several substantial edits to the Book of Mormon during his lifetime (mostly adding “son of” to “god” in some verses describing Jesus), the actual textual variants are very, very minor across editions, especially after Smith’s death, so it’s not really a problem for traditional believers. Furthermore, I don’t believe in the inerrancy of scripture, so it wouldn’t be a problem for me even if so.

Most correct; not perfect.

I don't think so. There's a difference between text and format. The text is roughly the same, even if a cover or page layout changes. Also, even if there's discussion on policy, reading the Book of Mormon still draws the reader to Christ. Hope that helps and thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

Thank you!

Yay! You've got to love those "golden" finds like that! Congrats on your collection.

Yes, kind of fun to use it as a title. However, consider this for a debate topic: The phrases that make bad English is actually good Hebrew. The "and it came to pass" phrase is actually a poetic phrasing in Hebrew. This also includes repetitive word use, chiasmus, the use of "and" in lists, etc.

@@bookofmormoneditions In your opinion, after all your books in your collection. What version would make the "most" sense to use in the common day. I use "most" loosely. With the context of the hebrew.

@titus, I'll always recommend a Salt Lake missionary volume so you can highlight to your own desires, and even recommend a "journal edition". In terms of Hebrew context: Donald Parry did Poetic Parallelisms of the BOM, (can be found in Online PDF and printed), Maxwell Institute BoM did a pretty good job and Voices from the Dust by Robert Kay was really interesting, Stick of Judah in the hand of Ephraim changed the text to Hebraic, so an interesting read also. Best wishes on your collection!

Lol. thanks!

Thanks for the comment.

Thank you for the comment. Many share your views, many don't. Interesting either way.

Very interesting questions. I guess it is based on the person asking.

You would like my review on the GenZ book of Mormon!

Good point. The title is just as significant as the text.

They stated they were inspired to do it that way.

Thank you!

You're saying the Isaiah chapters are hard to read? Just kidding, LOL. Thank you for the comment.

Thank you for your thoughts.

I would hope the knowledge gained is from the readers readiness to learn. Glad to hear this works for you.

Very interesting comments. Thank you!

@@Telavian agree to look at things critically. But undoubtedly this version is being presented with no apology as on par with the original translation, with a purported statement from Christ owning the translation and saying so. That is no small claim.

Thank you for the perspective. Very good points.

Yep, it isn’t a great idea. It’s from an excommunicated member who started a movement of his own. Denver Snuffer.

Thanks for the comment.

Thank you for the comment. Interesting perspective.

People don't consider how common revelatory experiences are. A dentist named John Phillip Newbrough wrote a "new Bible" called _Oahspe_ in 1882 that dwarfs the Book of Mormon. He did this by means of automatic writing, and he's not the only one to produce purported scripture in this way. There are plenty of self-proclaimed prophets out there. Judging them by their fruits requires discernment, humility, and caution.

@@TrebizondMusic-cm6fp I know revelations are very common as the recipient of many personal revelations. Revelations pertaining to scripture and church direction can only come from the prophet.

@Brodie, all good points to think about. Thanks for the comment.

@@brodiewells Agreed.

My personal opinion is that it goes against even the book of mormon itself to have highly trained people attempt this. The book of mormon prophesies itself that the learned can't do this work.

@@drewhanna9057 Nephi amplified Isaiah's prophecy that the learned would not be allowed to do the initial translation. But I'm grateful for all the scholarship that has been done by highly trained people: Skousen's Critical Text project which restored a close approximation of Joseph's original dictation, and all the linguistic analysis that has given glimpses into meanings of names, how the original writing likely engaged in word-play along with structuring of the text, etc. I don't accept that Isaiah's and Nephi's prophecy dictate that we lock up the book without daring to do all of that. The miraculous translation was done, and it produced the English text, and since the original Egyptian text is out of our reach (except for the "Caractors" document), what we have is fair game for conscientious scholarly analysis. This includes the "caractors," for which at least one person has proposed a translation. To try to deny anyone's right to look at that fragment with the secular knowledge available now is needless superstition.

@TrebizondMusic-cm6fp not superstition, I just came from a protestant background and have a profound appreciation for how decades and centuries of scholars working with texts end up translating them into things of their own imagination, making it impossible for others to actually find the truth. One example is the word Elohim in Genesis. Him acts like an English plural "s". That means literally translated, it would be "gods", just as brother Joseph's miraculous translation in the book of Moses shows us. But because scholars, who are so exceedingly expert...just knew that there is only one God, they translated it according to their knowledge as "god" singular and now we have more of the mists of darkness. Please don't insult me by saying it was superstition, it's very informed from my background, having gone to protestant seminary and seeing the end result of the ideas that highly trained scholars can do it. The truth is, they are usually trained much more poorly than we think. It's much better to use brother Joseph's transcript, or "the most correct book of any on earth."

@@drewhanna9057 We may have been talking past each other. I'm aware of how biases can infect translations. For my part, I prefer to read the Book of Mormon in the aforementioned Yale edition, because it's the most accurate reconstruction of Brother Joseph's dictation - by a trained linguist who was dedicated to reconstructing the text, not interpreting it. Textual criticism and translation are different things, as I expect you're aware. So maybe we don't have a disagreement.

@TrebizondMusic-cm6fp maybe, it's ok to disagree even though. I don't feel any bad way towards you! My other experience that has taught me not to mess with the original is reading it multiple times. Each time I come away with such a different understanding of certain passages and know that the lord is teaching me what they really mean. I worry that this would be diluted if we start monkeying around with it to make it easier to understand. I worry we will lose the layers of understanding that come later and we will be stuck only on the level of spiritual understanding of the person changing the words. It's like this, there are many children's books of the book of mormon that tell cute little versions meant to teach children on their level. I worry that by doing this, we will do the same thing at an adult level and miss so much more. Does that make sense? I have just learned to trust the spirit more than other people, especially with source documents and changing them.

No, it was/is/continues to be owned exclusively by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! It isn't "cumbersome" but it IS translated in the language chose by Jesus Christ and His Fathe, Almighty God, to say what they want it to say, NOT what some "modern" person with ambition to make it say what he wants it to say!!

And the restoration of Priesthood keys was interwoven with the process of translation. You don't get to ignore that. Yes, the book should go forth to the entire world - Skousen's reconstruction has been published by Yale, after all. It's not an official Church publication. I make music inspired by the Book of Mormon which I hope people will listen to even if they know nothing about it. If people want to bring a Protestant attitude to it, they have the right to apply such blinders. I can't abide in that attitude in good conscience in light of the depth of my engagement with the book.

Thank you for the comments. It's not the first conversation regarding if the text should be modernized or traditional. But interesting nonetheless.

Actually the Book of Mormon is public domain. Only the chapter headings and footnotes belong to the LDS church.

​@@janeencarter6210 Obviously the earliest editions are public domain, after the copyright which Joseph Smith held expired. But copyright is a legal matter. You're shifting the goalposts.

Doesn't need to be...

No, and it's not a good idea for people to do this in my opinion.

@BarbaraVincent, In short, No. This is outside of the Salt Lake Church, hence the loosely organized fellowships and the leadership/producer of the work.

I don't think so, but it would be funny if that was the case. LOL. thanks for the post.

Thank you for the comment. Very good insights!

It's difficult to get through the dry Isaiah chapters, interesting awareness that this volume has alternatives. Thanks for the comment!

Or maybe the keys have been wrested as John the Baptist did to the Jews. Look at the fruits!

I wonder, what keys or authority did Brother Joseph possess when he produced the original Book of Mormon…?

@chrisvancampen6706 I've never thought about it. We know he was called as a prophet. But how exactly when it comes to translating the Book of Mormon not sure. Maybe when the Angel Moroni came to him?

@@theRockyRay I think a key is a metaphor in the way Joseph Smith explained it, as knowledge or insight. A certain insight will unlock action and influence in a way that can be used for good or evil. For example, knowing that envy is a strong human emotion is an insight marketers exploit for action and influence. In scripture, ignore the language as having ritual significance and consider plain meanings for a minute: Adam had the key to the knowledge of God. Simply put, his insights included the fact that God exists because he saw him. In our realm, Adam and Eve are the first humans with this knowledge. When they share the thought with you personally, you have this insight that can lead to true faith in the existence of a God, because their testimony is sure and true.

The fact that Denver Snuffer is at the helm of this is the most significant factor in my eyes. If he's claiming keys in opposition to those Russel Nelson holds, then Snuffer has every incentive to sway his "improved" translation to justify his own authority. Whenever some difficulty of translation presents any kind of theological problem (like "white and delightsome") then this translation has incentive to favor Snuffer's interpretations and claims to authority at the expense of trying to clarify the text as Joseph received it - let alone as how Mormon et al wrote it.