New Book of Mormon About To be Canonized? w/ Paul Durham
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Robert Messick of @bookofmormoneditions joins Steven Pynakker as a special co-host to interview Paul Durham an editor of a remarkable edition of the Book of Mormon that is a Modern English version called Covenant of Christ!
#bookofmormon #holybook #bible #churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints #thebookofmormon #denversnuffer #restoration #josephsmith #evangelical #stevenpynakker #mormonbookreviews
Links for more Information about the Covenant of Christ:
www.covenantof...
scriptures.info/
www.restoratio...
Links to support Mormon Book Reviews:
Venmo Link:
account.venmo....
PayPal Link:
www.paypal.com...
Patreon Link:
/ mormonbookreviews
Channel Merch Store:
www.mormonbook...
I love this new translation!
I am about 2/3 through this new version. Especially looking at this side by side with the LDS version, it is interesting how much I find that I totally.missed in the old version, although it was there all along. I have been reading the Book of Mormon for 50 years.
I’m yearning to learn more through a humble teacher. Self aggrandizing is sad when doing the work of the Lord.
This version is SO much easier to understand without changing the meaning. It has blessed me and my kids life! So much light and understanding in this version! I believe it was inspired by God because of the understanding I gain from studying it. ☀️☀️☀️
Interesting. I probably would have really appreciated this as a kid. I barely consider myself Mormon anymore and view the Book of Mormon as Christian historical fiction now, so I'm not that interested in reading it, but I still might get a copy for the bookshelf in a few years' time when my children are older. Would definitely prefer it the stock standard missionary version.
The next step for you . . . Apostacy!
I’m currently reading JB Phillips New Testament in Modern English and really enjoying it.
I’m ok with political, Historical and geographical commentary’s but not with people making 23:34 “corrections”
Ask my kids what they think and they’ll tell you with pleasant surprise that they actually understood what they just read. That alone is miraculous.
Canonized by whom? Certainly not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I enjoy both the traditional language version as well as the modern language version. Thank you so much.
This is a very bad idea. This is how the Bible got so messed up in modern times. People think they know better than God and brother Joseph.
We literally have the original Book of Mormon. It isn’t going anywhere. This is just a version with easier to read English.
"People think they know better than God and brother Joseph." the LDS institution is an institution built off thinking they know better than brother Joseph.
The modern translations do not mess up the Bible. They provide considerably better as well as more readable translations of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic manuscripts and fragments that make up the Bible.
Don’t read it.
The real reason is it’s a horrible idea is because Denver Snuffer is behind it who is so clearly an anti-Christ it’s mind boggling anyone follows him. To say he is prideful is an understatement. Durham is obviously super prideful I couldn’t make it through his ten minute brag session about how awesome his family is mixed in with mocking the church for not having exciting enough news.
To paraphrase the Godfather, “Leave the handcart, take the book. “
Wow! Did I understand that this modern version will amalgamate JST verses into the Book of Mormon quoting the Hebrew Bible?
Priestcraft alive and well in zion!
How about the First Edition???
I love the modern English translation of The Book of Mormon, The Covenant of Christ and I accept it as a work of revelation and accept it as scripture.
“The modern translation”? This would be an individuals interpretation of what we currently have. and not considered scripture as scripture comes from prophets and apostles from God himself.
@@kellyjohnson4578 I believe this came from a prophet. May you allow others to worship as you desire others to allow you to worship.
@@noctissky794 no one stopping you from reading this book, but to call it, a translation is highly inaccurate. More like revision of scripture of tens of thousands of words and phrases for a modern audience by what he said, was a “ self appointed committee”.
I’m saying be wary because these changes aren’t just punctuation and grammatical revisions it’s much much more
@@kellyjohnson4578 And I'm saying I have different religious views than you do. I believe inspiration from the Lord was involved in this project. The same way a Christian finds your Book of Mormon to be fiction but you believe it's scripture, I believe this is scripture while you view it as the work of man. I don't believe in the claims of your prophets, I don't think the work begun by Joseph continues today with the Salt Lake City based The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and their leaders who are deemed as prophets by believers of that message, but I allot you room to worship as you desire to worship.
😮
Absolute blasphemy
More likely you will see the King Follett Discourse canonized
I think the KFD is the most fascinating thing Joseph taught. I think Joseph was clearly revealing the concept of living more than once and I think Denver Snuffer has revealed farther light and knowledge by expounding on that concept with the teaching of "cycles of creation"; we live one life on an "earth" (we don't repeatedly reincarnate, one life per cycle of creation) but throughout eternity, God creates a new cycle of creation, a new earth, and spirits have the chance to go to that earth to be added upon by choosing righteousness and growing in faith, or regressing by choosing wickedness. D&C 91 or 93 talks about Christ going from grace to grace. I think Christ became what He is by eternal progress through these cycles of creation. I believe His (and ours) Heavenly Father did this before Him and Christ followed that path.
Yes! Should be in POGP.
The main problem with Denver Snuffer, in my opinion, remains the same: where exactly does the authority derive for Snuffer to change, revise, alter, add to and take away from the already canonized scriptures in the main church? The standard works from Salt Lake are all scriptures canonized through being adopted through the law of common consent, as required in the Doctrine and Covenants. I studied Snuffer long and hard, and almost moved into that camp, but ultimately concluded that he is no different from the couple hundred self-appointed men since the days of Joseph Smith who think they know better than the leaders of the main church in Salt Lake how the church should function. And I think that Snuffer would be correct if he believes this: he probably could run the church better than the elderly leaders in Salt Lake. The problem is one of authority: the men in Salt Lake came through the normal channels to receive their callings. Meanwhile, Snuffer has changed, altered or discarded established scriptures when it doesn't suit his idea of truth (Sec 132 being a prime example). At the same time, Snuffer insists that he will never be a "leader" of any religious movement--though I notice that every time there is a "conference" held of this branch of restorationists, he is front and center (usually the anchor speaker) at the event. Likewise, he is at the center of this scripture revision. So, since this branch of the Mormon tree is now considering canonizing this modernized version of the Book of Mormon, how does this small branch of believers in Denver Snuffer derive their permission to "canonize" a scripture? Wouldn't you need an established church (or actual organization) in place before this could be considered valid? And why, if Snuffer is not a leader, does this all need his permission to proceed?
hasn't there been more than 4,000 editing corrections? the bible has been translated and changed many times in it's history
If you consistently applied your argument "against" Snuffer to other prophets in history; and say, he didn't come "through the normal channels to receive their calling(s)" -- then you would also have to reject Abinidi and Paul. Both of these prophets were called directly by the Lord, outside of what you call "normal channels". In Abinidi's case, the Lord directly called him to testify against the establishment of his day (King Noah, and his wicked Priests, including Alma). Hummm.., maybe the Lord, and the BOM, are trying to teach us something about OUR day. And Saul's conversion to Paul involved a blinding light, a voice, which led to a change of name and a new life of preaching apart from Peter and the other apostles.
If you studied the 10 talks, then you'll realize that the talk on Priesthood should answer all your questions about the Lord's voice and his will. The manner in which the LDS believe Priesthood is given is through a man pretending to have keys. God bestows the priesthood - not men. When God ordains a servant to deliver a message then it's up to the listener to decide if the message actually originates from God. God is no respecter of persons. He doesn't have a preference to help the LDS over those individuals that practice Islam or any other religion. All are alike unto God. If a man is able to draw near to God and enter into his presence, God alone will ordain and call those he can trust to deliver his word.
There are so many lies that came out of the LDS church since the days of Brigham Young up to now, that it requires everyone to consider and ask - Does God change? Based on the current LDS narrative and doctrine, God changes his word regularly.
Denver has been asked by God to declare the words of Joseph in a manner that is pure and undefiled. If studied, you'll find that what Joseph restored has been completely destroyed by the LDS church.
The authority is straight from Cheesus! Duh..
I could be wrong, but didn't The Book of Mormon come forth before there was a church organized?
Funny enough, I've been working on a BoM project like this. It's with RLDS verses though.
Love it!
No, this is not CNN.
I’m confused. He keeps saying it’s canon, approved by the Lord. Through whose authority? Are they expecting the GAs to officially canonize this version to be used throughout the church?
The brethren won’t be canonizing this edition. He (Paul) never said who received the revelation to make this “translation” because it wasn’t anyone who had the authority to receive it. I found Paul to be prideful to the point of actually bragging about this new edition/translation and even had the prideful suggestion that it was so superior to the BofM we have now that we should replace the original with this new version. I was very unimpressed by his attitude and what he said.
It hasn't been officially accepted as canon by anyone. There are a group of believers who are holding a conference at the end of the month to formally accept it for themselves. This does not involve any corporate church.
You need to understand that the Lord can work however, and with whomever He wishes. God always sends outsiders to start something new when the old organization has served it's purpose. Otherwise he'd have worked with the Pharisees instead of sending John. Modern LDS programming is so hard to overcome in this regard. There is *no* guarantee in the scriptures that God will always strive with the organizations that he sets up, especially when they become corrupted.
Denver Snuffer considers himself to have the authority, and so do his followers. He claims that Jesus Christ wrested the keys from the LDS president and gave them to himself. His followers regard him as their prophet.
What about the Isiah 9:5/2 Nephi 19:5 discrepancy? I always assumed it was supposed to be "battle" and not "boot".
The CoC translates Isiah 9:5 with the word boot instead of battle. The book of Mormon translates Isiah 9:5 with battle instead of boot. How can this discrepancy be explained? It's present in the printers manuscript.
Community of Christ made an updated version of the Book of Mormon in the 1960's called the Revised Authorized Version with modestly updated language. I think the LDS Church should consider doing something similar.
Paul
I hope you’re doing the same thing to the Bible. Talk about deal breakers.
@@terrywalker839 I don’t speak Greek or Hebrew, but I’m also a Roman Catholic, so, the validity of the Bible does not rely upon fundamentalist literalism. That said, Jerusalem does in fact exist. 😜
Kinda have to, right? It's one of the reasons the Brighamites have married themselves to the KJV . . . they need the superficial harmonization between the two. There are "evidences" that depend on "same language" fallacies.
Hi Paul, good to see you!
I have read this I have also have read the original LFS version 50 or more times in the last 65 years I am now 79 years old. This new version is in my opinion superior to the 1830 edition We would do well to reread this version On another note I could care less about your visitors family or genealogy Utah Mormons are so stuck on themselves
Wow you have become curmudgeonly in your old age. The guest was specifically asked to tell about himself and his background and I found it very interesting. It also provided some perspective of where he's coming from as an editor for this project.
Well its all made up anyway so I guess making changes is just part of history of book
Tapir rodeo after the show! With Valley Tan libations. And cookies and Jello!
"Tapir rodeo"
The 3 Nephites are riding on tapirs now.
Interesting!
I'm not reading the Boof of Mormon anymore because I left the church but I would be curious to see how this version handles the more racist portions of the BofM. For example, "white and delightsome" now becomes....? Or how it handles the doctrinal changes that were made between the printers manuscript and the 1842 version. Any ideas on this? And what was the purpose of the golden plates if much of the translation was done using a rock in a hat, for example?
Oh, i'm sure it's countenance. Not melanin.
Why not just accept it for what it is, read it, and see for yourself? Read it with fresh eyes, untainted by bias.
1. Wasn't done with a rock and a hat, that was made up by early LDS leaders. It would be more accurate to say that they were a pair of spectacles that the translator would wear. (This is actually clarified with the Covenant of Christ book) Aaaannnd
2. From the Covenant of Christ website the verse you're talking about in this translation "...Therefore, although they had been pure and radiant and highly pleasing, the Lord God made their dark countenance show through so they wouldn't be attractive to my people." Versus the LDS "Wherefore, as they were white and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing into my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."
🤙 Ask and ye shall receive as they say haha
To be a true translation wouldn't it mean the plates would have to be used?
Is that how they translate to other languages?
The plates were never used!, well in the past that's what they said but now it's been changed to Josph seeing a parchment in a hat and translating it using a brown stone!. The younger treasure hunter Joesph used the hat & stone method to help the town folk find buried treasure and it didn't look good to translate the BOM using treasure-hunting techniques. So the story changed.
Where did these guys do their work in reformed Egyptian? I am considering doing an annotation that highlights the many thousands of dealbreakers in the BM.
The Egyptologists all say that there is no such thing as reformed Egyptian. Robert Ritner laughed at the idea before he died. He actually studied the Book of Abraham.
I can't help but think that something, and maybe a lot of things, are going to be lost in translation. When you translate from the original, you lose word connections to Hebraisms, you lose words and phrases that set up chiasms, inclusio, etc. The great thing about the Book of Mormon being written in the KJV English is that you can compare word and phrase choices, look back to the original Hebrew and Greek, and compare what was used and why. Yeah, it takes a lot of work to search out and study the scriptures in this manner... but there's a lot to be gained. When you turn it into modern English, you're just dumbing it down and diluting the power of the Word. Might as well make an emoji version.
Incorrect. It was plainly stated that the KJV prose was to help the people in Joseph's time to accept the BoM as scripture. That language is very difficult for people to understand today. Why wouldn't a merciful God, who wants all His children to be able to understand his words, provide a version of the BoM appropriate for them and their circumstances? Some portion of the Gentiles are supposed to repent, build Zion, and bring the gospel to the remnant Lehi. This new version is absolutely more understandable, and more clear than the original BoM.
You can either accept it as it is, or reject it. The great thing is that you get to make that choice for yourself.
Nah as one of the "youth" I think this version has expanded my understanding! The translations he's talking about has helped me understand the life of the Lord in a way I never got studying the KJV. Highly recommend investigating yourself, they have a side-by-side view on the Covenant of Christ site 😊
And I think that the hope that the brethren in SLC are going to embrace this version of the BOM is delusional. The modern version of LDS teaching and thought is in a hopeless straight jacket of doctrinal conformity. There is literally nothing new coming out of SLC--the last thing the brethren want is an outsider pointing out how weak and insipid ALL the teachings have become: the endless recycling of leader's teachings, the endless leader worship, the continual "dumbing down" of doctrinal teachings. Mormonism is stuck in a hopeless morass of doctrinal cement. I totally understand the appeal of Denver Snuffer. He's at least teaching something new and creative. I know he means well and I wish the best for him. My conclusion however is that he started out well, but at this point has overstepped the boundary lines he should have respected.
The Pharisees probably thought the same of John the Baptizer.
True prophets would not be stuck like this. The SLC brethren are nothing like John the Baptizer.
It could be interesting to print in red letters, the text that The Lord is speaking.
I understand the Church of Jesus Christ ("Bickertonite" LDS) has that edition in print. I don't have one. For my part, I've had to go through and mark the red text myself.
@@MusicBlik
Thank you.
The Book of Mormon needs shortening by about 20%.
@Themanyfacesofego a version like that does exist. It's called the Short Book of Mormon
wasn't there an 'easy-read' version of the Book of Mormon in the 90's? I'm sure I had one once. and why is called the 'Book of Mormon' when they don't use the word 'Mormon' any longer?
Um because a Prophet named Mormon compiled and wrote the book? We aren't Mormons because our leader isn't Mormon. Our leader is Jesus Christ. Therefore we are the Church of Jesus Christ, not the church of Mormon.
@@cameronvantassell9483 Plenty of the past leadership embraced the name Mormons. It's only been during Nelson's tenure that that name has become a hiss and a byword.
The Book of Mormon for the unwise!
What does that even mean?
@@cinnamondan4984 22:14
@@cinnamondan4984 I don't know. I read it and found it to be of great worth. However, modern LDS tradition teaches that anyone who deviates from the organization is evil.
As someone whose actually read these versions I found them very enlightening 🤷♀️ certainly learned more than studying the KJV my whole life
Indeed