Christ-like?

[Aesa]

You're right -- I simply feel that a child should be at an accountable age to bear witness.
You wouldn't have a 6 year old prophet bearing witness, hypothetically.

[Maya]

I also remember I had a testimony of God and Jesus already when very little... but then I was a lutheran....
I cant see anything wrong about kids learning to give their testimonies when very young. I know a child can have a MUCH grater love to HF and JK and certainly the information channel is more open!
Small children are able to see the angles if needed and they take care of them. Often children met with accidents, and who actually should have died, tell stories about some shinny person who helped them...

[Elgama]

Originally Posted by Aesa

You're right -- I simply feel that a child should be at an accountable age to bear witness.
You wouldn't have a 6 year old prophet bearing witness, hypothetically.

since she could talk if my daughter has said she has had an answer to prayer yes I would listen. Sometimes she gets promptings because I am too busy she
has more time to listen. And actually have started to watch my son despite being unable to talk he is capable of dragging me away from something that is wrong or organising me.

I think if you ignore a small child's perception of faith, that is when you brainwash and remove their testimony. My daughter's ideas are not always 100% academically correct but she knows wht she is talking about - for example she describes the prexistence as being a grown up before she became a child and that Emma down the road was the only person not there because she says she wasn't lol she does not doubt it but her understanding is that of a 5 year old. So yes if a 6 year old said they had received revelation I would do the same as with an adult listen to the Holy Ghost

-Charley

[Justice]

Originally Posted by Aesa

I'm not going to bother quoting your text.
What I'm saying is, and I thought it was, is that the Book of Mormon is a commentary because it is said by you to have originally existed in reformed egyptian on gold plates -- thus it is a commentary on the original, and what makes it a commentary is the fact that you could translate it 100 times and it would always differ in at least small ways -- as is with the Bible.

So, when a literary work is translated from one language to another it is considered a commentary of the previous language?

Wasn't the Bible translated into English from other languages?

But, you say it's a commentary too.

I'm not sure what to say to that. That is something I would never reason through. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I think it's logic at it's worst.

How about a comment on the words of Nephi I posted about how the Lord can speak to whomever He chooses? Agree? Disagree?

[Aesa]

Agreed, ofcourse.
But it's a commentary because each translator has their own opinion as to how the text should be translated and using what words in what context.

It's the same as something like the Qur'an which, in it's english form, is never disputed as a commentary.

I always say that it's not the translation or the words, but the Spirit. You could read a version as rotten as the NIV and still get truth from the Spirit out of it.

[Justice]

Well, that's the entire premise behind why the Book of Mormon, or any work of scripture for that matter, can be considered simply a translation into a new language and not just a commentary... the spirit is the key. The Spirit knows what words were written and knows how to convery the messages from one language to another, independant of the knowledge of the one doing the translating.

It sounds like you know it's possible, you just don't think it is?

The Book of Mormon only had 1 translator... Joseph Smith. He said he was given a Urim and Thummim by which he would translate from the Spirit by the gift and power of God. He had a second grade education, and even if he had a PhD in language translation, he would still have had to rely on the Spirit because Nephi said his language was one that only they used.

As I said earlier, either the book is true or it isn't. There is only one way to determine that. You have to have faith and be believing that God can make it happen, and not read it to trifle with the words.

The question is not "is it a commentary by Joseph Smith" because he did not have the know-how nor intellect at that young age to understand one iota of the language of the Nephites. The question is "we have the Book of Mormon, was it by God's hand?" Quite frankly, it is impossible that Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon on his own, and even with the aid of all those who claimed to help.

But, the direction one should take to determine whether it's true or not should follow the path outlined in the text itself, not any other way. No one ever said one can determne it's truth by man's understanding, like by proving it's a commentary by logical means. One would have to know the original text in reformed Egyptian to know if it's a commentary. The English version IS our original. Most of the Book claims to be an abridgement, which isn't quite the same thing as a commentary.

What is important is that it consists of words by people who actually lived, telling events that actually happened to them. Whether or not it's commentary that Jesus appeared to them and instructed them is all but irrelevant when compared to the point that it claims Christ's appeared to them and taught them His gospel. That it's "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" should impress our minds much more than whether or not it's commentary or abridgement of actual events.

[Aesa]

Well ofcourse, but since the Book of Mormon is said to be scripture -- we can also assume that it will follow the path outlined in the other scriptures.
Let me clarify, what I mean is -- nothing is included that would diminish other scriptures, so for example a doctrine that makes an already existing doctrine (not creed, lets be clear) do a 360.
I don't consider "adding to" the scriptures as inherently incorrect though, when you take into account that for example revelation was written before the "bible" was a book. You're probably aware that I'm reffering to the "if anyone adds to this..." warning. Obviously it's talking about revelation and only revelation.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Originally Posted by Aesa

Agreed, ofcourse.
But it's a commentary because each translator has their own opinion as to how the text should be translated and using what words in what context.

It's the same as something like the Qur'an which, in it's english form, is never disputed as a commentary.

I always say that it's not the translation or the words, but the Spirit. You could read a version as rotten as the NIV and still get truth from the Spirit out of it.

The translation of the Book of Mormon was given by God through the Urim & Thummim, so Joseph and Oliver may have used some hillbilly writing when writing it down initially but the writing was not their opinion of what the text said.

[Justice]

I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. This isn't another Sunday meeting testimony, I am speaking from the heart. Christ did appear to these people and He did teach them His gospel. There is revelation in the Book of Mormon.

If there is anything that seems new in the Book of Mormon, or seems to be a 180 degree turn from what is in the Bible, then it is the weakness of those trying to understand.

In the simple yet profound words of Nephi:

2 Nephi 25:
26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

2 Nephi 33:
6 I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.

Surely there is good in the book.

Moroni 7:
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

Surely the book is of God.

[Maya]

I do have to say I am not so very comfortable, when I see a child climb to testify on the meeting.... Although sometimes it would be VERY refreshing and probably full of teachings for us grownups to hear the small ones tell us the truth. A real eyeopner!