I really enjoy the RLDS editions of the Book of Mormon, and also the shorter editions published by RLDS members. Verda E. Bryant’s Between the Covers of The Book of Mormon is a condensed paraphrase written for a young adult age group, but it makes following the narrative much simpler. It’s great for just digging into your favorite parts of the book for the highlights. Thanks as always, Robert!
Thanks for the comment. There is a place for alternatives for sure. I did a review of her "short" Book of Mormon and would also encourage looking for the Gen Z book of Mormon and the Street Legal Book of Mormon. ua-cam.com/video/84lHe-RLZ4w/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/08cPPI6TX-w/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/Bc1r27Dujh0/v-deo.html
I have black hardcover editions of both the Authorized Version and the Revised Authorized Version, but they were both published during the RLDS era, before the name change.
I was told that the original writings was done in old English script, yet at a time when that script was not used. Account for that? Rev 22:18 states, “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll.” The Book of Mormon was not inspired by Almighty God, or his son, Jesus Christ. So I ask you, then who did? The Bible (Gods inspired word), refers to Satan as “the god of this system of things.” Who would do such a thing as to inspire the writing of a book so outlandishly wrong, but the very one who opposes God, Satan the devil. The Book of Mormon is not holding to the truth at all, it’s simply the works of the devil to continue his purpose of misleading people away from the truth.
@@danl6852the plagues will be upon all false religions in the final days of this system. The Bible refers to all false religion as “Babylon the Great.” The world empire of false religion. Babylon being the birth of false religion. That time will come soon enough. That day our hour is only known by God, as that day will come as a thief in the night.
Have you read the BOOK OF MORMON cover to cover, while praying for discernment, asking him to show you if it's true or not? The bible tells if thr forth coming of a book in yhr kast days. I am born into and raised in the Lds church but I have attended many churches with friends growing up and with families of different faiths as an adult. Even though I was born into and raised in the church, I sat out to obtain my own testimony, part of this search was going to other churches, kerning their teachings,praying to be shown which church was true? Which one had the whole truth of God. I began this journey at 13 yrs of age, I was 17 when I knew I had received my answer. I saw good in all churches but something was always missing. I can bare witness to you that the Book Of Mormon is true, it is for us in these last days. It's another testament of our Savior, Jesus christ. If you will read it with an open mind, a true desire for truth, God will show you his truth. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely baring my iwn personal testimony to you. Also if you read it, you will learn of secret combinations that seek to destroy Gods people and over govts which is exactly what we see today. I hope you will read it and oray about it. May God bless you with discernment and a true desire of his truth. Much love and blessings I leave with you
I recently read through a German translation of the Book of Mormon done by the Reorganized Church in the 1960s, and I'm pretty sure it was translated from the Revised Authorized Version as it leaves out many "und es begab sich..." phrases (the german equivalent of "and it came to pass). It was a very enjoyable read, especially as it was translated into a much more archaic style than the german translation published by our church! (though I must admit the translation quality wasn't as good). So, although I do not own a Revised Authorized book of mormon, I do own the german equivalent, which I think is fun.
A few quick facts about the layout of my RLDS German BOM: It has about 850 pages, is printed in a single column format, and has about 10 verses per page.
What an interesting concept of a translation of a translation. It's likely that when translated into another language, there is an internal decision on how formal/common to make a text. Words like veil, curtain, covering may be the same concept, but make a huge difference in meaning.
I have a copy of the LDS version of the Book of Mormon. I have to say I've always thought it was a horribly hard thing to read because of the clumsy English. It seems to be a sort of "imitation King James." I think the Community of Christ helped by revising that. I remember when I stopped in Salt Lake City at the Tabernacle, a man asked if I'd like to have a Book of Mormon. I asked him for a Spanish translation of it because I figured it wouldn't have that awkward language. But they sent me the English anyway.
Even Spanish has formal and informal vocabulary. It's interesting to discuss linguistics and the use of words to portray a message. Keep in mind even in our 200 years, English has evolved from when Joseph was around. That's the challenge, does yesterday's words mean the same today? Thanks for the insight.
A couple of thoughts, probably really insignificant but impressions spring to mind for whatever reason. The first is the size. The Book of Mormon looks unusually thin, maybe because of the paper type? Or the size of book? It just seems thin. Second thought is in regards to the Revised version. I GET THE BENEFIT OF EASE of having it to maybe simplify it but I think there are dangers that come from that, depending on your perspective of course. One perspective might be: The purpose of reading the Book of Mormon is to activate the power of the Holy Spirit to communicate truth to you and confirmation that what you're reading is right. Well, oddly enough, no matter how true the Book of Mormon is and you'd think God wanting all his children to make it in the end, readers such as Jeff McCollough of Hello Saints has been reading it from an academic perspective but still claims he's always praying for God to enlighten him and reveal truth doesn't seem to be making the connection, unless he has an alterior motive to seem like the good guy, but an intent to convert the Mormons. So I get that perspective, no matter how the wording is, the idea is to gain a confirmation from the Spirit, I get that. Another perspective is just as Bibles are now. There are so many different translations of the Bible and oddly enough, today, one example is Hannah from the Joseph Smith foundation who I believe is a descendant of Joseph Smith and is very defensive, you'd think she'd be using the Inspired Version of the Bible in that case. So far as I know, the Church holds firm that next to the Inspired Version of the Bible, the King James Version is the most correct and is the standard by which we use. (When you look at key verses from the Bible in LDS doctrine and compare them throughout the various versions, you see how simple truths are lost from "making them plainer in English" because apparently there are Greek Words that didn't have direct translation words so man was left unto himself to find a replacement word in translation from Hebrew to Greek or English) but Hannah Stoddard from the Joseph Smith Foundation, who had a UA-cam Channel I was surprised to see, like a protestant referenced a version, but took it from the New International Version...... When did we as Latter-day Saints start doing that? One of our key arguments, let's call it, was the variation of translations. When you do that comparison, you can see why Latter-day Saints adamantly defend the KJV and further say leave it alone, with the JSTs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints version, which you'd think would change with the Churches acquisition of the JST from the Community of Christ, but it's going to be a museum piece rather than the Bible we use because sending out missionaries with the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible with non-LDS already distrust of the Book of Mormon they see as Joseph Smiths Bible and then telling them we read from the JST Bible will only steam their clams more that now you've messed with their Bible. That's number 2 perspective, it doesn't make it easier, it can change the overall meaning. Perspective 3 is from an academic perspective. Latter-day Saints do benefit from gaining much credibility of the Book of Mormon as far as evidences go. From a linguistic perspective, using the revised version can hurt you, if that's all anyone were able to read, why? Because the Book of Mormon, in that regard with all of the And it came to pass parts is what linguistically gives it that credibility and scholars are comparing it today to determine is it real or did Joseph Smith just conjure it all up. As they go through the unaltered Book of Mormon, that's what helps it, all of those And it came to pass repetitions are authentic Hebrew ways of writing, a drag on or dragged out sentence much more than an American who just wants to get to the point wouldn't understand that, Hebrews had a unique way of writing and that's evidence of it, scrub that from the Book of Mormon and what are you left with? You've sliced off one of the fingerprints and thus your evidence
If you're a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you may be interested to know that that church has made a number of edits to the wording of the Book of Mormon that some argue distance the text from semitic roots.
Thank you for the post. Yes, I did a review on the Voice from the Dust by Robert Kay, where he outlines the "and it came to pass" phrase is a hebrew transition. There are also commentaries that what's bad English, is proper Hebrew structure. So it's interesting regarding credibility if the text is updated/altered.
@@weirdlanguageguy Which I think is a shame. The checkered past of the United States and slavery really messed things up, but I think the criticism the church gets for that I don't think is warranted. There were a lot of southern members, sure, that would have made things really difficult, but Brigham Young himself is recorded as applauding the call of Elijah Abel and telling blacks that one day the time would come that blacks would receive and hold the Priesthood. I would argue the Prophets and apostles of the Church weren't the problem, they after all were prophets, seers, and revelators and had a perfect understanding of the plan of salvation and they all knew it was coming. They knew everyone that lived in the earth were children of God, that's what the church hinges on. It's likely local leadership and congregants didn't understand or couldn't accept that with Southern mentality and some in the North. Those who watched and were followers of Joseph Smith would've seen his platform he ran for as a presidental candidate and knew the Churches stance. Racism has to end and leaders knew it would have to, likely to keep the peace so, it's all misunderstood, though I dont doubt there were racists but I don't think so in the higher levels of leadership, I suppose until someone can prove otherwise, we were one of if not the first to start. Other denominations wouldn't allow intermixed marriages or blacks to speak in congregations either, it's just more convenient and easier to attack the Mormons. The whole country and all faiths were the same if not worse, but Latter-day Saints were the first and because they were the only ones that claimed Priesthood authority, outside of Catholics, they were the first to begin ordination again. Mormons are, therefore, the least racist, there had to be a time as a country the United States of America had to pass and Brigham Young knew that, but he knew it would come eventually
In terms of paper, yes it is a very thin paper. This was also the case with the Salt Lake text for the 1999 & onward printings. It was the same format/layout, but the thinner paper reduced the volume noticeably. So these two printings have VERY thin paper that causes a reduced volume thickness. I wonder if there is a mental shift, as the 1980's Salt Lake volume was an inch thick and now it's about half that. Do readers look at a smaller thickness and mentally say "I can read that!" but dread a thicker volume?
Thank you for your background story and you are correct that the churches need to adapt to the needs of its current members. The early members never had the problems we do and we don't have the challenges of old times. Good luck on your life journey.
Just FYI it's never "the" Community of Christ. The name of Community of Christ is Community of Christ. Adding an article is incorrect even in lowercase. It's like saying "The UA-cam" or "The Facebook" it only makes sense in sentences like "The UA-cam Channel Book of Mormon Editions is interesting" but NOT "The UA-cam is an online video sharing platform." Hope that helps.
Fair point here. I’ve heard it said both ways, but I watched some videos from their last world conference, and the speakers always just said “Community of Christ.”
Yes and no. . . That is certainly the trend today, but there are plenty of official World Church resources that refer to the church as "the Community of Christ."
Great video. Why on earth would someone remove so much material and still call it a BOM? Really sad the CoC had to sell their heritage but thankfully the LDS has the means to buy it. I am sure they will look after it in the correct way.
Everyone says it was an agreeable and honorable transfer and both groups say the've been blessed. As to the BoM edits, each group has the privilege of updating for the benefit of their readers. Interesting none the less. Thanks for the post.
We had to pay a lot for the Temple it was a sacrifice for both and we need to continue to respect each others beliefs disgussing them on podcasts will cause arguements with some our article of faith sais We Believe in worshiping almighty God to the dictates of our conscience and allow all men to do the same let them worship how when and what they may
Yes, and it's out of a scope regarding these volumes of the Book of Mormon. The CES letter has doctrinal questions that have been discussed, ad nauseum in other forums and I'd encourage you to look elsewhere for reconciliation regarding it. We try to keep this channel informative without doctrinal critiques.
Thank you for this video! I never knew about this version. I believe it is possible to update the linguistic style while retaining the meaning.
Thank you for the comment. Linguistics and language is an amazing topic.
I really enjoy the RLDS editions of the Book of Mormon, and also the shorter editions published by RLDS members. Verda E. Bryant’s Between the Covers of The Book of Mormon is a condensed paraphrase written for a young adult age group, but it makes following the narrative much simpler. It’s great for just digging into your favorite parts of the book for the highlights. Thanks as always, Robert!
Thanks for the comment. There is a place for alternatives for sure. I did a review of her "short" Book of Mormon and would also encourage looking for the Gen Z book of Mormon and the Street Legal Book of Mormon.
ua-cam.com/video/84lHe-RLZ4w/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/08cPPI6TX-w/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Bc1r27Dujh0/v-deo.html
I have black hardcover editions of both the Authorized Version and the Revised Authorized Version, but they were both published during the RLDS era, before the name change.
Nice collection! Great job on having these two versions.
I was told that the original writings was done in old English script, yet at a time when that script was not used. Account for that? Rev 22:18 states, “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll.” The Book of Mormon was not inspired by Almighty God, or his son, Jesus Christ. So I ask you, then who did? The Bible (Gods inspired word), refers to Satan as “the god of this system of things.” Who would do such a thing as to inspire the writing of a book so outlandishly wrong, but the very one who opposes God, Satan the devil. The Book of Mormon is not holding to the truth at all, it’s simply the works of the devil to continue his purpose of misleading people away from the truth.
Can you please point to me which plagues came upon Joseph smith?
@@danl6852the plagues will be upon all false religions in the final days of this system. The Bible refers to all false religion as “Babylon the Great.” The world empire of false religion. Babylon being the birth of false religion. That time will come soon enough. That day our hour is only known by God, as that day will come as a thief in the night.
Thanks for the comment, not sure what to reply to, as this was just a book review. However best wishes on your journey.
@@danl6852he had a plague of lying : with just about everything.
Have you read the BOOK OF MORMON cover to cover, while praying for discernment, asking him to show you if it's true or not? The bible tells if thr forth coming of a book in yhr kast days. I am born into and raised in the Lds church but I have attended many churches with friends growing up and with families of different faiths as an adult. Even though I was born into and raised in the church, I sat out to obtain my own testimony, part of this search was going to other churches, kerning their teachings,praying to be shown which church was true? Which one had the whole truth of God. I began this journey at 13 yrs of age, I was 17 when I knew I had received my answer. I saw good in all churches but something was always missing. I can bare witness to you that the Book Of Mormon is true, it is for us in these last days. It's another testament of our Savior, Jesus christ. If you will read it with an open mind, a true desire for truth, God will show you his truth. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely baring my iwn personal testimony to you. Also if you read it, you will learn of secret combinations that seek to destroy Gods people and over govts which is exactly what we see today. I hope you will read it and oray about it. May God bless you with discernment and a true desire of his truth. Much love and blessings I leave with you
I recently read through a German translation of the Book of Mormon done by the Reorganized Church in the 1960s, and I'm pretty sure it was translated from the Revised Authorized Version as it leaves out many "und es begab sich..." phrases (the german equivalent of "and it came to pass). It was a very enjoyable read, especially as it was translated into a much more archaic style than the german translation published by our church! (though I must admit the translation quality wasn't as good).
So, although I do not own a Revised Authorized book of mormon, I do own the german equivalent, which I think is fun.
A few quick facts about the layout of my RLDS German BOM: It has about 850 pages, is printed in a single column format, and has about 10 verses per page.
What an interesting concept of a translation of a translation. It's likely that when translated into another language, there is an internal decision on how formal/common to make a text. Words like veil, curtain, covering may be the same concept, but make a huge difference in meaning.
I have a copy of the LDS version of the Book of Mormon. I have to say I've always thought it was a horribly hard thing to read because of the clumsy English. It seems to be a sort of "imitation King James." I think the Community of Christ helped by revising that. I remember when I stopped in Salt Lake City at the Tabernacle, a man asked if I'd like to have a Book of Mormon. I asked him for a Spanish translation of it because I figured it wouldn't have that awkward language. But they sent me the English anyway.
Even Spanish has formal and informal vocabulary. It's interesting to discuss linguistics and the use of words to portray a message. Keep in mind even in our 200 years, English has evolved from when Joseph was around. That's the challenge, does yesterday's words mean the same today? Thanks for the insight.
A couple of thoughts, probably really insignificant but impressions spring to mind for whatever reason. The first is the size. The Book of Mormon looks unusually thin, maybe because of the paper type? Or the size of book? It just seems thin.
Second thought is in regards to the Revised version. I GET THE BENEFIT OF EASE of having it to maybe simplify it but I think there are dangers that come from that, depending on your perspective of course. One perspective might be: The purpose of reading the Book of Mormon is to activate the power of the Holy Spirit to communicate truth to you and confirmation that what you're reading is right. Well, oddly enough, no matter how true the Book of Mormon is and you'd think God wanting all his children to make it in the end, readers such as Jeff McCollough of Hello Saints has been reading it from an academic perspective but still claims he's always praying for God to enlighten him and reveal truth doesn't seem to be making the connection, unless he has an alterior motive to seem like the good guy, but an intent to convert the Mormons. So I get that perspective, no matter how the wording is, the idea is to gain a confirmation from the Spirit, I get that. Another perspective is just as Bibles are now. There are so many different translations of the Bible and oddly enough, today, one example is Hannah from the Joseph Smith foundation who I believe is a descendant of Joseph Smith and is very defensive, you'd think she'd be using the Inspired Version of the Bible in that case. So far as I know, the Church holds firm that next to the Inspired Version of the Bible, the King James Version is the most correct and is the standard by which we use. (When you look at key verses from the Bible in LDS doctrine and compare them throughout the various versions, you see how simple truths are lost from "making them plainer in English" because apparently there are Greek Words that didn't have direct translation words so man was left unto himself to find a replacement word in translation from Hebrew to Greek or English) but Hannah Stoddard from the Joseph Smith Foundation, who had a UA-cam Channel I was surprised to see, like a protestant referenced a version, but took it from the New International Version...... When did we as Latter-day Saints start doing that? One of our key arguments, let's call it, was the variation of translations. When you do that comparison, you can see why Latter-day Saints adamantly defend the KJV and further say leave it alone, with the JSTs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints version, which you'd think would change with the Churches acquisition of the JST from the Community of Christ, but it's going to be a museum piece rather than the Bible we use because sending out missionaries with the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible with non-LDS already distrust of the Book of Mormon they see as Joseph Smiths Bible and then telling them we read from the JST Bible will only steam their clams more that now you've messed with their Bible. That's number 2 perspective, it doesn't make it easier, it can change the overall meaning.
Perspective 3 is from an academic perspective. Latter-day Saints do benefit from gaining much credibility of the Book of Mormon as far as evidences go. From a linguistic perspective, using the revised version can hurt you, if that's all anyone were able to read, why? Because the Book of Mormon, in that regard with all of the And it came to pass parts is what linguistically gives it that credibility and scholars are comparing it today to determine is it real or did Joseph Smith just conjure it all up. As they go through the unaltered Book of Mormon, that's what helps it, all of those And it came to pass repetitions are authentic Hebrew ways of writing, a drag on or dragged out sentence much more than an American who just wants to get to the point wouldn't understand that, Hebrews had a unique way of writing and that's evidence of it, scrub that from the Book of Mormon and what are you left with? You've sliced off one of the fingerprints and thus your evidence
If you're a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you may be interested to know that that church has made a number of edits to the wording of the Book of Mormon that some argue distance the text from semitic roots.
Thank you for the post. Yes, I did a review on the Voice from the Dust by Robert Kay, where he outlines the "and it came to pass" phrase is a hebrew transition. There are also commentaries that what's bad English, is proper Hebrew structure. So it's interesting regarding credibility if the text is updated/altered.
@@weirdlanguageguy Which I think is a shame. The checkered past of the United States and slavery really messed things up, but I think the criticism the church gets for that I don't think is warranted. There were a lot of southern members, sure, that would have made things really difficult, but Brigham Young himself is recorded as applauding the call of Elijah Abel and telling blacks that one day the time would come that blacks would receive and hold the Priesthood. I would argue the Prophets and apostles of the Church weren't the problem, they after all were prophets, seers, and revelators and had a perfect understanding of the plan of salvation and they all knew it was coming. They knew everyone that lived in the earth were children of God, that's what the church hinges on. It's likely local leadership and congregants didn't understand or couldn't accept that with Southern mentality and some in the North. Those who watched and were followers of Joseph Smith would've seen his platform he ran for as a presidental candidate and knew the Churches stance. Racism has to end and leaders knew it would have to, likely to keep the peace so, it's all misunderstood, though I dont doubt there were racists but I don't think so in the higher levels of leadership, I suppose until someone can prove otherwise, we were one of if not the first to start. Other denominations wouldn't allow intermixed marriages or blacks to speak in congregations either, it's just more convenient and easier to attack the Mormons. The whole country and all faiths were the same if not worse, but Latter-day Saints were the first and because they were the only ones that claimed Priesthood authority, outside of Catholics, they were the first to begin ordination again. Mormons are, therefore, the least racist, there had to be a time as a country the United States of America had to pass and Brigham Young knew that, but he knew it would come eventually
In terms of paper, yes it is a very thin paper. This was also the case with the Salt Lake text for the 1999 & onward printings. It was the same format/layout, but the thinner paper reduced the volume noticeably. So these two printings have VERY thin paper that causes a reduced volume thickness. I wonder if there is a mental shift, as the 1980's Salt Lake volume was an inch thick and now it's about half that. Do readers look at a smaller thickness and mentally say "I can read that!" but dread a thicker volume?
As an ex mormon, I feel that radical Mormons are misguided. Religions are living things evolve with the heir community.
Thank you for your background story and you are correct that the churches need to adapt to the needs of its current members. The early members never had the problems we do and we don't have the challenges of old times. Good luck on your life journey.
Just FYI it's never "the" Community of Christ. The name of Community of Christ is Community of Christ. Adding an article is incorrect even in lowercase. It's like saying "The UA-cam" or "The Facebook" it only makes sense in sentences like "The UA-cam Channel Book of Mormon Editions is interesting" but NOT "The UA-cam is an online video sharing platform." Hope that helps.
Thank you for the clarity. It's always nice to know more about "the organization". Much appreciated.
Big deal. The Book of Mormon or Book of Mormon. The UA-cam channel or UA-cam channel. The LDS Church or LDS Church. Thanks for saving the internet.
Fair point here. I’ve heard it said both ways, but I watched some videos from their last world conference, and the speakers always just said “Community of Christ.”
Yes and no. . . That is certainly the trend today, but there are plenty of official World Church resources that refer to the church as "the Community of Christ."
Great video. Why on earth would someone remove so much material and still call it a BOM? Really sad the CoC had to sell their heritage but thankfully the LDS has the means to buy it. I am sure they will look after it in the correct way.
Everyone says it was an agreeable and honorable transfer and both groups say the've been blessed. As to the BoM edits, each group has the privilege of updating for the benefit of their readers. Interesting none the less. Thanks for the post.
Can anybody tell me where I might send an old fashioned 'check' in the mail to purchass a copy of the "king Follett Discoarse" ..?
Thank you 😊
Not sure about a hard copy, but the Joseph Smith Papers have available details:
www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-king-follett-sermon
@@bookofmormoneditions thank you very much!
My Book of Mormon podcast would have lacked the drinking game had it come to pass that the RAV were to be utilised.
Thanks for the comment. That's hilarious! I've never thought of the "and it came to pass" drinking game before!
We had to pay a lot for the Temple it was a sacrifice for both and we need to continue to respect each others beliefs disgussing them on podcasts will cause arguements with some our article of faith sais We Believe in worshiping almighty God to the dictates of our conscience and allow all men to do the same let them worship how when and what they may
Thank you for the post. You are correct that we should be respectful and humble with transactions like this.
@@bookofmormoneditionsthen STOP attacking Historical Christianity as the mother church of Abominations for a start!!!
Have you read the CES letters?
Yes, and it's out of a scope regarding these volumes of the Book of Mormon. The CES letter has doctrinal questions that have been discussed, ad nauseum in other forums and I'd encourage you to look elsewhere for reconciliation regarding it. We try to keep this channel informative without doctrinal critiques.
Good stuff 🙏 thank you ❤
Glad you enjoyed it.
interesting video
Thank you for the comment!
L O L Mark Twain said if you took out all the and it come to past, you would have a pamphlet. I guess he was right.😂
Funny. Thanks for the comment