Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Book of Mormon Witnesses (was Multiple Isaiahs) Message-ID: Date: 1 Oct 90 00:00:51 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronx Inc., Beaverton, Or. Lines: 28 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Given that Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated (as were most of the >witnesses listed at the beginning of the BoM), why is his testimony >taken seriously? True most left the church but that's not the point. The important point is that even outside the church they remained faithful to their testimony. If anything I think this strengthens the reasons to take them seriously, they were still supporting a cause they had quarreled with. BTW, of the first 3 witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris returned to the church, Harris moving to Utah where he died but Cowdery's health not permitting him to do so. David Whitmer never did return. >Concerning Isaiah, JS wrote an amplified/"corrected" version of the Bible; >part of Matthew is published by the LDS. I understand that the RLDS have >and use the whole thing. Shouldn't a Mormon analysis include JS's version >of Isaiah as well as the AV and MT? Indeed, shouldn't a Mormon analysis >take JS's version as _more_ correct than the MT? >-- He started but never finished this revision. In addition it never claimed to be a translation in the usual sense but an "inspired version" given by direct revelation to correct some errors. Not the sort of thing which lends itself well to scholarly tools.