Guest post
One would think the title would need little explanation but it does. The 8th article of (LDS) faith states,
“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”
By belief I mean, and I think others mean, positive affirmation that the book is accurate and authoritative. My questions for my LDS neighbors are:
Do you believe the King James Version of the Bible is translated correctly?
If your answer is “no” to that question then my follow up questions are:
What parts are translated incorrectly? Is the Joseph Smith translation, or any other translation, translated correctly? Why, why not?
If you believe no translation currently exists that does the Bible justice then why has your church with a living seer, cadre of scholars, and loads of money not given a reliable Bible translation to the world? Do you believe that the Bible has been incorrectly transmitted so that an accurate rendering of God’s word would not be possible from the existing manuscripts?
If you answered “yes” that at least one translation of the Bible is to be fully believed then my follow up question would be:
Is the Bible on par with the other standard works? Why or why not?
And lastly, for those Mormons who believe an accurate Bible translation(s) exists is:
Do you view the New Testament as reliable in the same way that Christians view the Old Testament as reliable?
My final question for everyone:
Is the Book of Mormon translated correctly?
I understand that Mormons view the Bible as incomplete in some way or else the other standard works would not be necessary. I am not asking if the other books add something not found in the Bible. I am asking if the Bible(s) we have can be trusted in the same way traditional Christians trust the Old Testament even though they do not view it as the final and only words of God. Please provide as much detail to your answers as you can and try to avoid simple “yes” and “no” answers if you can. The “why’s” and “why not’s” would be much appreciated too. And “yes”, these are loaded questions but only slightly so.
The addition of the phrase “as far as it is translated correctly” in my experience has really covered a lot more ground in discounting the Bible as authoritative for Mormons than merely translation problems. In other places Joseph Smith said something like ‘many plain and precious truths have been removed from the Bible.’ That’s a different matter than translated correctly. Perhaps the Mormon statement should read:
“We believe the Bible to have fragments of the word of God along with some false ideas which have corrupted the text. Many important truths have been removed from the Bible, however, some of the Bible can be trusted as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”
This statement to me would more accurately reflect the opinions I have seen here on Mormon Coffee. Funny thing is, you would think with all the different copies of the Bible, coming down through different groups we would see evidence of this tampering and altercation of the Bible. But the Bible stands amazingly accurate – the more archeological discoveries that are made, the more it is authenticated as a historically accurate collection of books. With the Book of Mormon no such test is possible as there has never been found any copy of BOM material on any sort of metal plate anywhere – not one. As a matter of fact, there has never been found a single other document in North America written in reformed Egyptian. This is one of the things that reveals the Book of Mormon to a fabrication of events, not a historical account. To me that is foundational – before you can trust what a book is telling you, it must be able to pass the test and be shown to be a historical real document. Then you may examine what it teaches, knowing that it is not a mythology but based on real occurrences. Since the BOM is shown to be historically unreliable, lacking any kind of substantiation, how can it be trusted as a source of truth – ultimately being trusted for truths on which your soul and eternal fate rest. The Bible has been tested and found true again and again. The BOM is not taken seriously by historians and archeologists as a real authentic document – with good reason. The above statement of faith regarding the Bible and the BOM is completely inverted – the Bible is the word of God, while the BOM borrows heavily from the KJV Bible, while adding corrupt doctrines and inserting fictional stories about a society that never existed.
David wrote “If you believe no translation currently exists that does the Bible justice then why has your church (the lds church) with a living seer, cadre of scholars, and loads of money not given a reliable Bible translation to the world?”
May I humbly add: Please begin with Revelation.
Mobaby you hit the nail on the head. When trying to defend their positions from the bible, they love to lay the verses on. However, I too have yet to see if these verses have been ‘correctly translated’. Often times when I present the Greek or Hebrew underling the passage, I get a “deer in the headlights” look back, as if a lexicon is some foreign object or something.
To be fair to the LDS, the statement “Do you view the New Testament as reliable in the same way that Christians view the Old Testament as reliable?” would be perceived as loaded.
LDS consider themselves to be Christians, so the differentiation in the statement would not make sense for them. This should not be the issue under discussion here, so, in case we get side-tracked, can we put this issue on notice for another thread?
Free,
But I did begin with Revelation – “living seer”.
OK, I’ll take a crack at this. I’m not a spokesman for the church, but I thought it might be fun to respond.
Q. Do you believe the King James Version of the Bible is translated correctly?
A. Yes! We do believe there is a possibility for minor exceptions, though. This means we believe that if there are apparent contradictions or other things that don’t make sense, they are due to human errors (ours or the translators) and that God’s perfection is unquestioned.
Q. What parts are translated incorrectly? Is the Joseph Smith translation, or any other translation, translated correctly? Why, why not?
A. Like I said, we mostly just leave room for the possibility of exceptions, and we believe this in no way devalues the Bible as the Word of God. I’ve been reading the New Testament with my children and teaching them to regard it as one of the most precious gifts mankind has ever been blessed with. I don’t know what parts may be translated incorrectly, and I generally assume that it is translated correctly.
The Joseph Smith translation is not really a translation. It is a series of clarifications and a few translations. All of the KJV language remains intact. In our bibles, we just have some Joseph Smith translations as footnotes. However, we don’t believe Joseph Smith was infallible either. In my mind, the Joseph Smith translation is only the Word of God “as far as it is translated correctly”. We believe that continuing revelation is necessary because even God’s most trusted servants make mistakes. We also trust that God will make sure we have the information we need.
Q. If you believe no translation currently exists that does the Bible justice then why has your church with a living seer, cadre of scholars, and loads of money not given a reliable Bible translation to the world?
A. I think the KJV does do the Bible justice, but even if it didn’t, prophets reveal the Word of God at His discretion, not theirs.
Q. Do you believe that the Bible has been incorrectly transmitted so that an accurate rendering of God’s word would not be possible from the existing manuscripts?
A. No, I definitely don’t believe that. I believe God expects us to do the best we can with what his servants have given us, and turn to him for additional understanding.
Q. Is the Bible on par with the other standard works? Why or why not?
A. Admittedly, there are some books in the standard works that I don’t pay much attention to, like the Song of Solomon, but I don’t think I am at all prejudiced against books just because they come from the Bible. I’m happy to get the Word of God no matter which book it comes from.
Q. Do you view the New Testament as reliable in the same way that Christians view the Old Testament as reliable?
A. Hey this reminds me of the “Bush Doctrine” question put to Sarah Palin. Since you don’t really explain how you think Christians view the Old Testament’s reliability, it’s rather difficult for me to make the comparison.
Q. Is the Book of Mormon translated correctly?
A. Yes, but it’s not infallible either. It has passed through fewer hands and therefore has much less likelihood for error than does the KJV. In other words, the Book of Mormon is probably a far better translation than the Bible is, but both translations are good enough that they can be called God’s word.
In the end, the Bible is an absolute miracle! That it managed to survive as well as it did can only be attributed to divine intervention. Translation is not an easy thing. Human mistakes in translation could never detract from the divinity of God.
My opinion here
Q. Do you believe the King James Version of the Bible is translated correctly?
A. Not entirely. If it was Joseph would not have been commanded to retranslate it. However, it is the closest of all versions currently in print.
Q. What parts are translated incorrectly? Is the Joseph Smith translation, or any other translation, translated correctly? Why, why not?
A. I could not say, as I do not have the gift to translate. I could list a few parts of the Joseph Smith translation, but you can look that up.
I do believe the Joseph Smith translation is correct, however, as far as I know, it was never fully completed. Also, his manuscript belongs to the reoganized LDS church, so I have not had occasion to read all of it. It is correct because he was not relying on mortal scholars, but had the direct revelation from God himself on what what originally written in the books of the Bible.
Q. If you believe no translation currently exists that does the Bible justice then why has your church with a living seer, cadre of scholars, and loads of money not given a reliable Bible translation to the world?
A. One cannot translate scripture without the permission of God. Joseph Smith was called to do this, and no other prophet has yet been so commanded. This is why it is not done. I think that God does not give the command because the KJV does enough justice that any errors can be cleared through the other scriptures that we have, making a new translation unnecessary.
Q. Do you believe that the Bible has been incorrectly transmitted so that an accurate rendering of God’s word would not be possible from the existing manuscripts?
A. If it is people of the world translating it than yes. There is not enough of the original in tact for an accurate rendering through the knowledge of men. However, with the insperation of God it is always possible.
Q. Is the Bible on par with the other standard works? Why or why not?
A. In truth the Bible is above the other Standard works. The purpose of the others is to support and prove the Bible (Mormon 3: 24). The Bible was the first witness, and is therefore the greatest.
Q. Do you view the New Testament as reliable in the same way that Christians view the Old Testament as reliable?
A. If I understand you correctly I have to say no. It is much more so. All the standard works are reliable for teaching the truth of the gospel, and nothing in them is not needed for us today.
Q. Is the Book of Mormon translated correctly?
A. Yes. It has only been translated through the inspiration of God to the faithful who were called to do so. It has not gone through the hands of men. However, I will agree that there are certain errors in grammer or punctuation that show the human error in the unlettered young Joseph in translating it. None of these errors change the meaning of the words however.
Shematwater,
You commented, “One cannot translate scripture without the permission of God.”
Why is this so? Who gave the translators of the KJV permission to translate the bible when there were already acceptable, and arguably better, English translations.
Shouldn’t we take into account that many of the words used in the KJV are not in common use and a more modern choice of language helps to make Scripture more clear to layman?
Does this prohibition of translating Scripture stop us from using the ancient manuscripts of the Bible because they require translation? What about exegesis that starts with the original Greek, Hebrew etc. is this also forbidden?
Shem, I hope you will forgive me answering questions directed at you…
gundeck,
Shem’s comment – “One cannot translate scripture without the permission of God.” – was in response to a question about why the modern prophet hasn’t re-translated or directed the re-translation of the Bible. In that context he is right. The prophet has no business taking upon himself this task unless he is so directed by the Lord.
In broader context, this statement wouldn’t make sense, but I doubt that was Shem’s intent anyway.
The Book of Mormon has been translated into many languages by professional translators, not by prophets. These probably contain some translation errors. I have worked in the translation industry for a number of years, and I can assure you they are pretty much inevitable. They are considered scripture nonetheless, and are invaluable to monolingual speakers of those languages.
The Summer Institute of Linguistics and Wycliffe Bible Translators have been translating the Bible into as many languages as possible for many years. These translators certainly would not claim to be infallible. Many of them have fairly limited understanding of the languages they are translating into, because learning resources are so few and far between. Nonetheless, the translations they produce represent an invaluable, and I would say miraculous, resource to monolingual speakers of those languages. Any possible errors are insignificant compared to the benefit of having access to the scriptures in your own language. They have not been charged to do these translations by our modern prophet, but I am convinced that the Lord wholeheartedly approves of their efforts.
I believe there are many translations of the Bible that “do it justice”. I’ve got a copy of the NIV that I read occasionally and I love my Tyndale translation. Joseph Smith said that the KJV was the best translation at that time. I think the LDS church has stuck with it since then for consistency’s sake, and also because it gives us something in common with other Christian denominations. There is enough confusion as a result of people calling the Book of Mormon the “Mormon Bible”. If there actually was a distinct LDS translation of the Bible, it would probably just make things worse.
I suspect Mormons generally have more reverence for the Bible than most people who call themselves Christian. Attempts to suggest otherwise based on the 8th Article of Faith are largely misguided.
Stephen : I will agree with the following
I suspect Mormons generally have more reverence for the Bible than most people who call themselves Christian. Attempts to suggest otherwise based on the 8th Article of Faith are largely misguided.
not because I’ve seen that the LDS level of reverence for the Bible is very high, but because most people who call themselves christian probably read their favorite magazine or restaurant menu much more often than the Bible. We agree to disagree about the 8th Article being a reflection of a generally low view of scripture (though there are LDS who do not embody my admitted stereotype, IN SPITE OF the article)
confidence and trust to all who love GOD and HIS WORD
GERMIT
How would one go about updating the language of the Book of Mormon? The KJV Bible has been largely abandoned for daily reading by Christians due to progressive changes in the English language – and the new versions have been able to go back to ancient manuscripts and translate them into current English, Spanish, etc. Since no source documents exist for the Book of Mormon, other than the sections which are taken from the KJV Bible, how will it be updated to current English? There have been changes here and there to change the meaning, such as the change from becoming white, to becoming pure. There is probably an undertaking right now to update the language – and I am sure it will be based on ‘prophetic interpretation’ rather than source documents because there is nothing else.
The BOM stands completely and solely alone in offering a unique history of the Americas – there is no one and nothing else which offers any evidence or testimony of this history. There is no source, no other documents, no archeological digs, nothing other than one book from one man which testifies to these things. If Joseph Smith were alive today, he could accurately use the humorous line “Who you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes?”
Stephen,
I am not questioning the general regard that Mormons have for the Bible, that is beyond my area of knowledge and it would be wrong for me to make such an accusation.
My question is why, “One cannot translate scripture without the permission of God.” My pastor does this every time he explains the Greek or Hebrew. On its face I would prefer that the translators have a high view of Scripture but how does a translation body get and prove God’s permission? Look at the NET bible online. With their thousands of translation notes it is a wonderful resource for layman without knowledge of the original languages to understand why certain words are translated the way they are. I regularly consult multiple translations in my own study.
In my tradition translation into the “vulgar” languages is part of our doctrine of Scripture.
…But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8).
If your Church believes that there are identifiable translation errors in the AV and they do not believe that the current crop of translations fits the bill why not order a new translation? There have been more original manuscripts found, vast improvements in textual criticism, and I believe that today we are arguably much closer that the translators of the AV were to having an understanding of the original texts.
Stephen wrote “I think the LDS church has stuck with [the King James Version] since then for consistency’s sake, and also because it gives us something in common with other Christian denominations.”
I welcome the attempt to find something in common with my Christian denomination, but, from my experience, we hardly ever refer to the KJV. I’m not going to tell you which version that you should prefer, but if its common ground you’re looking for, I suggest the NIV, since you mentioned it also.
Stephen, you’ve got experience in the “translation industry”. Given that the Bible was written in “common” language (I’m thinking particularly of the NT Greek), do you think that it should be used in “common” english? If it should, then perhaps the attachment to the KJV does the Bible some injustice.
Whereas I can fully appreciate a desire to respect the text and to give it the gravity it deserves, I am concerned that a “KJV only” approach places the book into a “special” language category that’s divorced from our everyday lives. How can we digest what it has to say if we don’t let it speak to us in language that we would use?
At worst, the “KJV only” approach can be used to lock people out from following the flow of the text, and an obsession with parsing individual words misdirects people from the context and meta-narrative.
One can become so familiar with Biblical terms and phrases, that one can cease to ask what they actually mean. For example, we know that Jesus liked to refer to himself as the “Son of Man”, but what message does the title actually convey? (P.S. I’m using this as an example; its worthy of consideration but its a bit off topic).
I suggest that the best way of understanding the Bible is to read it from the perspective of the authors, as far as this is possible from available evidence. Given the accumulation of archaeological evidence and the development of textual analysis, we enjoy the rather privileged position of knowing more about the environment that the Bible was written it than, say, the translators of the KJV.
I wonder why more Mormons haven’t weighed in on this. Stephen does a fantastic job to respond to the questions from the heart and with honesty. His sincerity is, in my opinion, indicative of how most Mormons believe. Stephen seems to have a high view of the Bible, and I can appreciate his effort to express that. The problem I see has nothing to do with Stephen, personally, but everything to do with what the Church actually teaches about the authority of the Bible. Even though they praise it to high heaven, they still teach unbiblical precepts. Wherein the Bible describes God as without beginning and end, Mormon doctrine teaches that God is an exalted man who had a beginning. This teaching is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Now, if Mormons indeed had a high view of the Bible as they say they do, then they would have to reject a teaching that says God is an exalted man. But, since Mormons have a higher view of “modern revelation,” they reject the teachings of the BIble. And, yes, the 8th AOF is fashioned so as to question the Bible in favor of “modern revelation.” However, there is a problem with Mormon “modern revelation” : it seems that subsequent “prophets” cancel out what former “prophets” have claimed to be God’s word, i.e., blood atonement, polygamy, Adam/God doctrine. In any event, the Bible is measured against the utterances of LDS leaders, rather than such utterances being measured against the Bible. I can’t see this as a high view of the Bible, despite the fact that Mormons will insist that the Bible is important to them. This doesn’t take away from their sincerity, but merely reflects the effects of the teachings of JS and his 8th AOF.
Peace and Grace!
Stephen: I would also like to commend you on a very thoughtful, sincere response.
JackG: I think that is a really good sum-up—in practice, it does seem like revelations outweigh what the Bible already says. The Bible should never have to “match up” to revelations.
I am pleased and flattered that so many have actually taken an interest in my opinions about the Bible. I should reiterate that I am not a spokesman for the LDS church and that the opinions I give here are my own; I take full responsibility for them.
I also don’t have any connections at church headquarters, so any statement I make about why the church has decided to do something is speculative at best. Please don’t lend too much credence to such statements. They are just my opinions and guesses.
With that disclaimer…
Mobaby,
Your questions about updating the language of the Book of Mormon sound very intriguing. I know there have been some updated language versions of the Book of Mormon published, but I haven’t read any of them. You could probably get really good answers from those publishers.
Your comment, in reference to the Book of Mormon, that “There is no source, no other documents, no archaeological digs, nothing other than one book from one man which testifies to these things.” is certainly not a new one. You are probably mostly right, although the 11 witnesses who saw and handled the Gold Plates, 3 of whom were shown them by an angel, constitute a significant exception. Still, it shouldn’t matter anyway. Early Christians, most of them illiterate, certainly didn’t have archaeological evidence or source documents to support their belief that Jesus Christ is their Savior. That belief came by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Believers today appreciate having their beliefs reinforced by available physical evidence, but it is always the witness of the Holy Ghost that matters, not the witness of archaeologists and historians. Joseph Smith never asked anyone to assume the Book of Mormon is true just because he said it was. All readers are specifically challenged to ask God if it is true. Once the Holy Ghost has testified to the truth of something, supporting documents are only marginally significant.
gundeck,
I completely agree that if someone has the ability to translate the Bible, and intends to do so for the benefit of others, they should be commended and encouraged to do so. I must have written my post very poorly indeed if you read it and thought my beliefs were otherwise.
I believe that the current translations of the Bible are indeed satisfactory. The fact that the church has not re-translated the Bible seems to me very compelling evidence that the Church’s position is very similar to mine.
Martin,
I totally agree with you about the issues involved with a KJV only policy. I am confident that the church leaders revisit this issue regularly. It is important that readers understand the Word of God, and I think it quite likely that the KJV will eventually lose its preferred status. The Church has invested a lot in the KJV (I mean financially), so they don’t take such a change lightly, but I think it will happen eventually.
Stephen,
There is testimony that the 11 witnesses did not physically see the gold plates, but rather “saw” them with their mind’s eye.
The Bible says not to accept “another gospel” if even an angel should reveal it. So having a personal testimony, ranking somewhat below an angelic visitation, is not a sufficient reason to accept a book that is utterly without any foundation. Reality testifies against the word of Joseph Smith. I have to go with the truth.
Megan and Jack,
I think you have hit the nail right on the head. Mormons don’t see any conflict between reverence for the Bible and reverence for other revelations, and you do.
I suppose it is kind of like a parent who only has one child doubting that a parent of five can love each of them as much as he loves his one. In a way I think my children’s love for each other further increases my love for each of them. It is the same for me with the scriptures. My love for the Book of Mormon and modern revelations further increases my love for the Bible because they support each other. Conflicts are resolved and understanding is increased. I believe it is possible to love them all equally.
To you I would guess it looks more like adultery. How can I truly say I love the Bible if I give my love to someone else?
Those are difficult perspectives to reconcile, so I think I understand your concerns. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Stephen,
I would think it’s more like the children are saying things Dad didn’t say. When “other revelations” are incongruent with biblical teaching, then there’s a problem. The Bible teaches there is not marriage in heaven, and the only “eternal marriage” we read about is between Christ and His Church. LDS “other revelation” teaches that we will be be married in heaven. This is not in agreement with the Bible. When this happens, Mormon Doctrine is a thing that is based on “other revelations,” not the Bible; ergo, a new gospel. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the New Covenant, and the sign of that covenant is baptism. LDS doctrine teaches from “other revelations” that eternal marriage is the new covenant, which would actually mean another new covenant. Again, the LDS teaching is not based on the Bible, but on these “other revelations.” One cannot help but conclude that the Bible is not authoritative–which is different from believing in it–to the Mormon. If the Bible were authoritative for you, then you would have to reject the Mormon theology that is based on “other revelations.” By so doing, it would be clear that you measure the teachings of JS against the Bible as opposed to the other way around. So, it really isn’t an issue of a parent and a doubting child, but more of an issue of children saying Daddy said things He didn’t say.
Peace and Grace!
Mobaby,
Wow, you are just a wealth of standard anti-lds garbage aren’t you?
The 11 witnesses’ credibility has often been called into question, and the credibility of those who questioned their credibility has been called into question, etc., etc. I only said that they constitute an exception to your statement that there is only “one man which testifies to these things” which they certainly do, whether you believe them or not.
As for the reference in Galatians to “another gospel” – if you’ve studied anti-lds literature much at all you probably know that Mormons believe it’s the same gospel that was preached then, so for us there is no conflict.
Even without the 11 witnesses of the gold plates, there are now millions of witnesses who have learned by the power of the Holy Ghost (by their own admission, obviously) that the Book of Mormon is true. In my opinion, this constitutes a far firmer foundation than any archaeological evidence can provide.
Besides, it is a logical fallacy to assume that a lack of evidence constitutes evidence of a lack.
Jack,
You said “One cannot help but conclude that the Bible is not authoritative–which is different from believing in it–to the Mormon. If the Bible were authoritative for you, then you would have to reject the Mormon theology that is based on “other revelations.””
This is a good comment. It’s very illustrative of our differences. To a Mormon, all revelation needs to be given its due consideration. If I’m reading something in Matthew that doesn’t jibe exactly with something in Luke, then I assume there is something wrong with my interpretation. I believe that both are true, so I try to find an interpretation that reconciles the two.
No one book in the Bible is the sole authority on the gospel, but all are authoritative. Mormons extend that approach to modern revelation. We don’t “measure” one against another, we reconcile them, and continually call upon God to help us gain a better understanding.
I personally make a great effort not to put too much faith in any one interpretation; I try to keep an open mind. There have been many times when a subsequent reading of another book of scripture has changed my interpretation. That’s why we are strongly encouraged to engage in personal scripture study on a consistent basis.
On those rare occasions when we can’t find reconciliation, we do consider the possibility that a mistranslation may have occurred, but this is not something we take lightly. Usually we figure it’s just something we don’t understand yet and hope it will be revealed at a later time. Pretty convenient, huh?
Stephen,
I read here on Mormon Coffee about the “mind’s eye” vision of the plates – but it really comes down to whose word you believe I suppose. I would hope considering these things when the fate of our eternal souls hangs in the balance is not something to be dismissed out of hand as garbage. When there are 2 conflicting accounts, 2 views of the Book of Mormon, one must look at the supporting evidence. The BOM comes up empty, devoid of any supporting evidence. The Bible on the other hand can be seen to be true – you can go walk in the holy land today – visit Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Numerous ancient manuscripts have been found testifying to the accuracy and authenticity of the Bible. Of course this does not mean the religious truths found in the Bible are true, but it is a foundation for truth, for without this testimony, without the foundation of the Bible being a real authentic document shown to be true through both documents and archeology it could possibly be nothing more than a fictional account of a people who never existed. But we know this is not the case as the evidence for the Bible being an authentic document is insurmountable. I would say the evidence against the Book of Mormon being authentic is insurmountable for nothing outside of it’s pages testifies of the people it describes, not one city, not one document, nothing. It has not proven useful for archeologists or historians. An internal personal witness of it’s truth is not a good enough reason to abandon all thought and accept it as truth despite the contrary evidence.
I also do not accept the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran as both of these books are mythology – works divorced from reality and yet accepted as true by those devoted to them. Hindus perhaps accept the Bhagavad Gita as mythology, yet believe it contains truth. As more evidence mounts against the BOM, maybe more Mormons will come to believe in a similar manner – that while not literally true the BOM is a fictional book which contains truths. I know there are already some Mormons who hold to these types of views – they have come to see that the BOM is not a real account of an actual people, yet they hold onto it and hold on to being Mormons.
As a Christian, I am persuaded that Christ is able to save me completely and wholly through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, apart from any good works or personal merit. In fact, he saves me despite my personal sin and depravity. I can see this truth taught throughout the Bible and believe the Bible, by divine intervention, has been kept by God’s mighty hand. God has preserved His Word so that we may know the truth of Christ and be freed from the burden of our sins. Anything contrary to the truth revealed in scripture is another gospel and not to be believed even if an angel should come and personally tell me it is true.
About the claims of the 11 witnesses seeing the gold plates, did anyone know that there was actually a 12th witness? I didn’t until I was teaching my Primary class the other week. I asked around after that and found out that 2 of my sisters knew but my brothers-in-laaw (who are my bishop and stake president) didn’t know either. It was Mary Whitmer, David Whitmer’s mother. JS, Emma and OC went ot live with the Whitmers for a while and she did all the extra work without complaining, so the story goes she went to milk the cow one morning and an elderly gentle man was in the shed. he introduced himself as Moroni and told her because of her tolerance to the extra work she will be given the gift of seeing the gold plates, and then he showed her. i have read another story about Emma – she saw the plates on the table covered with a cloth because JS and OC were taking a break. She went over and touched them and from that she knew that it was a metallic book. So there are other people who have had interaction with the plates and can vouch for them.
As far as the questions go about the Bible, I had a 2 and a half page answer prepared but the moderators do not like long answers.
To try and shorten it, we all know that there are problems with translation and no translation is 100% accurate when it comes to a work that size. this by no means that it cannot be authoritative. In my research, I take the text books and papers I read as authoritative on the subjects they are written about (unless I know that it is flawed or wrong from other books or papers). There are still mistakes in these and they may be shown in the future to not hold everything on that subject. The same is with the Bible. It does not hold all that God has to say to us. It holds the basics for us to gain salvation but ot all that God has to say to us in these last days.
The Bible talks about prophets and prophecies in the last days, thus allowing for us to have a prophet and continuing revelations. So our beliefs like eternal marriage, baptism for the dead, etc, does fit in with the Bible’s teachings in this respect.
One of the reasons I believe that the clause about the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly” in the 8th article of faith and not about the BoM is becauase in JS times everyone thought the Bible was 100% perfect (and many people today do too). In the BoM it states clearly that there will be errors within it but these are due to the imperfections of men, not God. So the BoM already states that it is imperfect but the Bible has nothing – thus its just letting the members know that there are errors in the Bible but it is STILL the word of God.
When it comes to the corrections in the BoM, we get these from the original hand-written text from JS and OC. The church still has these documents. Depending on what you wish to believe, these were translated directly from the gold plates, thus they are the first translation; or these were the first manuscript written by JS and OC. Either way, e do not need the gold pplates to correct the BoM as we have the original manuscripts in OC’ss hand-writing directly from JS’s dictation.
Stephen wrote “Early Christians, most of them illiterate, certainly didn’t have archaeological evidence or source documents to support their belief that Jesus Christ is their Savior. That belief came by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. ”
Stephen, thanks for your posts.
I’d agree with your statement that it is the Holy Spirit who ultimately “reveals” Christ to us. However, I’d have to qualify the implication that this is all the early Christians had. We need to recognise that they were living in what we now regard as archaeology. In particular, they could see the Temple in operation, whereas we need to imagine what it was like.
The implication that the Holy Spirit operates in a kind of evidential vacuum also worries me. Consider the testimony of Stephen to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:1-53 – its all history.
If the Acts account can be trusted, then the Sandhedrin thought it was OK to let Stephen lecture them on their history. Stephen obviously thought it was appropriate to do so in order to tell them about Christ. In any case, there was no contention over the “facts” of the History, because it was a History that was shared by Stephen and the Sanhedrin. What caused the uproar was Stephen’s assertion that this History found its fulfilment in the one whom they had murdered.
My reading of this tells me that real dynamic of the Holy Spirit is not so much about the revelation of “facts”, but how we receive those “facts” and, in particular, whether we allow these evidences to point us toward Christ. I see a similar dynamic in Jeremiah 1.
To me, faith is about keeping my mind open to the Holy Spirit, not letting my predelictions take control and keeling my eyes open to “reality checks”. Someone else summed it up by saying that faith is not a leap into the dark; its a small step into the light.
Martin,
If my post implied that history was unimportant, then you were absolutely right to point out the error. The New Testament is full of scripturally historical references to the Old Testament that testify to Jesus’s divinity. Among history’s other benefits is the fact that it gives us great insight into the scriptures, by helping us understand the world in which they were written.
You are also right to point out that some early Christians had a great deal of history and source documents to support their beliefs. Paul is an excellent example of this. He was a well educated Jew before his conversion and had access to a great deal of history. However, my impression is that this sort of knowledge would have been the exception. The Jews, especially the educated ones, were slow to accept Christianity. They were soon outnumbered by Gentile converts in other parts of the Roman Empire who, other than the Holy Ghost, only had the missionaries’ words as evidence. It’s almost as though the history and source documents available to the Jews served as a stumbling block. Their stubborn insistence on their false interpretations of prophecy made it more difficult for them to accept the gospel.
I especially liked your later comment about keeping an open mind to the Holy Spirit. That’s exactly what these men who knew their history failed to do. I think keeping an open mind while taking full advantage of all the resources the Lord has provided is absolutely key to understanding God and His plan for us.
(MoBaby’s wife)
How do Christians view the OT? I read it every day. I consider it in lock step with the NT in presentation of the Character and Nature of God and the Character of Man and the Means of Salvation.
An examination of other texts claiming to be revelations of God, the Koran and the BoM reveal they both contradict the Bible on these three fundamental points.
How do believers in these different gospels get around this?
1. Simply not dealing with the fact there are contradictions on fundamental elements.
2. Denegrate OT and NT Scripture’s authority, purity, or, sufficiency or dependability.
3. Abrogation, the NEW Revelation(be it Koran or BoM) displaces the OLD. (The Koran is considered to abrogate parts of itself. Liberal “Christian” theologians do the same saying the NEW displaces the OLD. Interestingly, they do not often accept the blood atonement of Christ either.)
4. Denegrate the Blood atonement of Christ and dumb down the standard of Righteousness so that many can appear to attain it by works.
Then what is the Christian view of the OT as regards the NT.
1. There is no contradiction of the fundamental teachings of the OT regarding the Nature of God, the Nature of Man, and the means of reconciliation which changes in form, but not substance.
2. We regard Sacred Scripture as ultimate in sufficiency and authority.
3. The NT FULFILLS the OT prophecies and law-there is no abrogation. (Gentiles are not and have never been required to fulfill Jewish feasts and ceremonial law.) There is a consistent trail of the blood covenant from Genesis to Revelation- it cannot be ignored. If you read the Bible all through several times this becomes clear.
4. The power of the Blood of Jesus sanctifies us to live holy lives. When we say holy we MEAN holy. Perfect and pure in MINDand HEART, as well as action. That is why we do not ever claim to be Holy except by the covering of the Blood of Christ. Nevertheless, he not only covers us, but he gives us power to obey. Continual dIsobedience and unrepentance is a proof of being an unbeliever.
Examination of BOTH OT and NT reveals that a high percentage of both books concerns presenting evidence that God is God and his Word is True. In so saying, I recognize God himself understands our need for evidence. He is not pleased with those who worship a God they do not KNOW. (Use of heart and will, not mind.) Why! it is easy to pervert the nature of God so much that you are now worshiping that which is not God at all.
Even the disciples of John, who most certainly had the Holy Spirit (Scripture says from birth) were instructed by John to ask, “Are you the one or shall we expect another.” What was the answer given them? The lame walk, the blind see . . .etc.
Fact is we are commanded to “test the spirits” when we feel something coming from a spirit. Why? Because there are deceiving angels and spirits and our heart itself is described by Scripture as deceitful and untrustworthy. To accept something on the Holy Spirit alone is, in fact, a direct violation of what we are commanded to do in the Law of God.
I have tested the Scriptures. They have passed my every test.
I challenge you to examine these various books which claim to be revelations of God carefully, you will find they do indeed present very different gospels. Which is correct? OBEY Scripture and TEST the spirits. Love God with all your MIND, all your heart, and all your will. To skip any one of these is to not love God aright. Why is sexual love between a man and a woman described as knowing? Because knowing is an intimacy of the mind. Intimacy of both physical act and heart’s passion are seriously inadequate loves when divorced from the intimacy of the mind. If you use your mind along with the heart and and acts of will, you will be loving God the way he commanded, the way he wants to be loved.
Glory to God alone,
Regards to all.
Sorry I don’t have time to read all the posts, but I do want to respond to the following.
GUNDECK
“Why is this so? Who gave the translators of the KJV permission to translate the bible when there were already acceptable, and arguably better, English translations.”
-Stephen was correct on the general point that I was talking about the LDS church. However, I will add this. When I say it must be done with God’s permission I mean that to do so without his permission is to do so without his help. Anyone can translate the scriptures into any language, but without the permission of God you will not have the insperation to do so as accurately as he could.
“Shouldn’t we take into account that many of the words used in the KJV are not in common use and a more modern choice of language helps to make Scripture more clear to layman?”
-I agree, and this is why we also puplish study guides and other material to assist people in reading. In all Bibles printed by the church there is an extensive foot note system, as well as a Topical Guide and Bible Dictionary that explain many references and events that occur in the Bible, as well as cross referencing versing that speack to the same topic. Because of all this a complete rewriting is not necessary.
JACKG
“Even though they praise it to high heaven, they still teach unbiblical precepts.”
-As I have mentioned to others, I know of no doctrine taught by the LDS that I cannot find in the Bible.
“Wherein the Bible describes God as without beginning and end, Mormon doctrine teaches that God is an exalted man who had a beginning. This teaching is nowhere to be found in the Bible.”
-I have read this teaching in the Bible, but you do not express it accurately. God is without beginning or end. Yes he was once a mortal man (of sorts) and was exalted. However, he was a spirit before this, and an itellignece before this. He has always existed as the being that he is. He just didn’t start as our Father.
“Now, if Mormons indeed had a high view of the Bible as they say they do, then they would have to reject a teaching that says God is an exalted man.”
-Christ said that he could do nothing, except what he saw his Father do (John 5: 19). I understand you have a different understanding, but I see this as telling us that the Father was once as Christ was then; a mortal man and the savior of his generation. Thus, we hold the Bible is high regard, and can still keep our doctrine.
“But, since Mormons have a higher view of “modern revelation,” they reject the teachings of the BIble.”
-It is not a higher view of modern revelation, but a more personal one. After all the Bible was written 2000 years before we were born. As much of it uses references to things we do not know or understand (such as ancient agriculture) it does not have the same personal feeling that the modern revelation, that speaks of things that are more familiar has.
“And, yes, the 8th AOF is fashioned so as to question the Bible in favor of “modern revelation.”
-It is not fashioned to question, but to caution. As it has been 1500 years since there was the priesthood there have appeared many inaccuracies in the Bible.
However, there is a problem with Mormon “modern revelation” : it seems that subsequent “prophets” cancel out what former “prophets” have claimed to be God’s word, i.e., blood atonement, polygamy, Adam/God doctrine.”
-Never has a prophet declared the revelation of an earlier prophet to be wrong, or changed it. Blood atonement was never denounced, as implied, simply stopped actively teaching it. Polygamy was discontinued for political reason, but was never denounced, and it is still taught that we will practice it again. The Adam God theory was never taught by any prophet.
“In any event, the Bible is measured against the utterances of LDS leaders, rather than such utterances being measured against the Bible.”
-This is true, only because the Bible has been mistranslated over nearly 2000 years. Thus much of what it teaches was lost, or obsured in the mistakes. We use modern revelation to clarify what has been confused.
“I can’t see this as a high view of the Bible, despite the fact that Mormons will insist that the Bible is important to them. This doesn’t take away from their sincerity, but merely reflects the effects of the teachings of JS and his 8th AOF.”
-The teachings of Joseph Smith tell us to put more trust in a Living God who speaks to us at this time. We take his current word over the manmade translations of his ancient word. The eighth article of faith reflects this belief.
I would also say that the New Testiment also reflects this, giving more heed to modern prophets than to the manmade interpretation of ancient prophets.
Mobaby,
“The NT fulfills the OT prophecies and law-there is no abrogation. … Examination of BOTH OT and NT reveals that a high percentage of both books concerns presenting evidence that God is God and his Word is True.”
AMEN brother mobaby! This is exactly the right attitude. I agree with you 100 percent.
There are many who claim the Bible is riddled with contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html or http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html for examples). If you want to find contradictions, you can easily interpret the biblical text in a way that makes it appear to contradict itself.
I hope you see that your treatment of the Book of Mormon is exactly the same as their treatment of the Bible. If you are looking for contradictions, you will successfully interpret the text so that it contradicts the Bible.
Readers of the Book of Mormon aren’t instructed to pray about it and then leave it alone. They are invited to continue studying all the scriptures to increase their knowledge and understanding.
I suspect we both take the same basic approach to scripture study: the evidence of their truth has been compelling enough to motivate us to study them further, and the result has been that God has blessed us with even greater evidence and understanding.
The only difference I see is that you have drawn an arbitrary line to distinguish what you will keep an open mind about and what you will not.
Mormons are routinely challenged to apply the same scrutiny of which you speak, and they come to the same conclusion that I have come to – that “Redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah” and that the Bible and the Book of Mormon together testify that this is true.
Shemawater,
“This is true, only because the Bible has been mistranslated over nearly 2000 years. Thus much of what it teaches was lost, or obsured in the mistakes. We use modern revelation to clarify what has been confused.”
This is exactly the type of thing I was trying to nail down. Where are the mistranslations? When did they take place? What and where are the proper translations? What was lost or obscured? Why hasn’t your church given the world a Bible with the missing info included? The Roman Catholic Church gave the world the NAB. Scholars from Biola university gave the world the NASB/NASV.
What is this? – “manmade interpretation of ancient prophets”.
Translations and copying of the text (transmission of the text) was a way of preserving the text in the ancient world. It is only bad if you get the translation wrong or commit a scribal error. But it is not the end of the world. With many manuscripts in existence, it makes it easier to catch mistranslations and scribal errors. What are some key transmission or translational errors in most Bibles?
David,
The Joseph Smith Translation is a good place to see what Joseph thought needed re-translation or just clarification. You can find them at http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/contents.
I am not under the impression that these constitute every possible place that that a mistranslation might have occurred, though.
To be more concrete, I’ll try to address each of your questions one by one, although I don’t think you’ll be satisfied with the answers.
Q. Where are the mistranslations?
A. Some are identified in the JST, but there are probably more that have not been identified.
Q. When did they take place?
A. I don’t think anyone knows specifically. I would be surprised to see anyone claim to know the dates, even in very general terms. Any such indications would be complete speculation.
Q. What and where are the proper translations?
A. We have a few of them in the JST, but most are probably lost along with any other lost prophetic writings through history. If we knew where they were, they wouldn’t be lost. 🙂
Q. What was lost or obscured?
A. Once again, the best clues are in the JST. We assume there are others we don’t know of.
Q. Why hasn’t your church given the world a Bible with the missing info included?
A. It isn’t necessary, I think. If we are content with the JST despite the presence of mistranslations, why would we need to publish something new. I suppose that doing so would also imply that we had fixed everything that might have gone wrong with the Bible translations of the past, and that would be a false impression.
On the other hand, the LDS published version of the Bible with JST footnotes and appendix is certainly akin to what you are asking for. I’ve also seen another version of the Bible called the “Inspired Version” that was published by the RLDS church that had JST translations in the main text. We don’t really use it though.
In short, we don’t think it needs to be perfect, so we’re happy with it the way it is. We’d welcome additional corrections, of course, but we’ll get along just fine without them. What we have now is miraculous, and I thank God for it. To do otherwise would be kind of like looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Stephen,
Are you any relation to the Shelton or Lewis families of the San Bernardino area? Just a stab in the dark.
Anyway, most of your answers amount to “look at the JST” which is actually alot .This raises many issues. First, do you remember the thread with Bill McKeever warning Christians not to wrongly use Revelation 22:18? Joseph Smith added the BoM, added to the Bible, and he added to the book of Revelation. If the last one is not a problem then the verse is meaningless.
Also, you must see how at its face it is difficult for Bible believing Christians to just accept Joseph’s translation when it has zero textual support. The validity of these changes/additions rest and fall on how one perceives Joseph Smith in general.
The changes Joseph brought to the Bible generate more problems then they help to clear up. Here are a few of the problems I have seen.
Joseph does seem heavily dependent on the KJV for his “translation” of the Bible as well as the BoM. He follows the KJV in some erroneous translations like some of the “King Jamish” mistakes in the BoM. In the 1830 BoM, races of angels are translated “seraphims” and “cherabims” which are double plurals (like in the KJV). The Lords prayer in the JST and the KJV reads “deliver us from evil” when it should read “deliver us from the evil” or “deliver us from the evil one”.
There is a non-problem for Joseph in that God did things that seemed wrong to him. The JST says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, were ever other manuscript says that God and Pharaoh hardened Pharaohs heart. The JST also changes the instances in the OT where God sends an evil spirit to someone. The problem is he doesn’t go all the way in “cleaning up” God’s activities. Compare 2 Chron 18:22 and I Kings 22:23 in the JST. This is an account of God commissioning a lying spirit to deceive the kings of Judah and Israel to go to war. The JST changes the account in 2 Chronicles, but not the one in I Kings. Also, the JST softens the language in the BIble where God says that He repented/was sorry/changed his mind.
Many people have already picked up on the huge theological shift that Joseph’s changes in Romans 4 represent. In the JST it says the opposite of what the manuscripts say. Also, the changes in Romans undercut Paul’s argument for grace, and do not make sense in the immediate grammatical context. The “original” flowed much better and maintained consistency.
Lastly, the addition in Matt 18:11 is very telling. In the JST it states that children have no need of repentance (but Jesus “will save them”?). Joseph is showing his theological leanings which are Pelagian. Take his statements about Methodists and Presbyterians coupled with the 2nd article of faith (and don’t forget the additions in Romans 4) and it seems to me that Joseph just changed parts of the Bible he did not like. He softened the monergism in the Bible for his brand of synergism.
So Stephen (and all Mormons), on big issues like the changes in Romans 4 do you go with the JST or the KJV? Is the BoM translated correctly? Why have there been so many changes to the BoM both during and after the life of Joseph Smith? Don’t changes by your church to the BoM contradict the official/historical account of how the BoM came to be (the new words would not appear in the hat until the scribe got the rest right).
shematwater,
The sad thing is that you don’t see that the teachings of JS teach you to trust more in false leaders and to question God’s authoritative, God-breathed Words. As for Adam/God doctrine, I guess you don’t know that BY taught this as church doctrine. I wonder how much you actually know about the origins of your own church.
I have always found it interesting how Mormons like to say that we follow “manmade” translations, then follow truly man-made doctrine (one can’t even place LDS interpretations as translations). The thing that Mormons do when they make such statements, and they will deny this, but they actually deny the power of God to preserve His Word. That’s the root of JS teachings: God is incapable of preserving His Word; therefore, trust in me and in living prophets. So, shemwater, are you willing to say that God is not powerful enough to preserve His Word? I’m willing to say that He is. I also find it appalling for Mormons to relegate God to a mere mortal who worked His way to godhood. You can go ahead and believe this is true, and even try to say you have read it in the Bible (where have you studied Biblical exegesis?), but it is pure heresy.
I know Mormons get all bent out of shape when we start saying they believe in heretical teachings; however, it is the calling of the Christian to point out heresies. This is what the NT is all about–fighting heresies.
Peace and Grace to all who seek to know the Truth!
Stephen,
Yeah, I’d say that’s pretty convenient, although true in some cases. However, when talking about salvation, the ontology of God, Christ as the Only Way to Heaven, the Bible gives us everything we need to know. The plan of salvation is faith in Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected. There is no need for the temple ritual, temple marriage, family sealings, all those things Mormons tie to salvation. They are additions to the plan of salvation that contradict biblical teaching on those subjects (even if it is through silence).
In order to understand the Gospels, one needs to know who the writer is and the audience he’s addressing, and the purpose of his writings. This would explain most differences you would come up against. This holds true with the epistles as well. However, the purpose of the Bible is to lead us to Jesus Christ. If you are willing to say that it doesn’t, and that’s why you believe “other revelations” are necessary, you are free to do so. However, I must testify to you that the plan of salvation is complete and found in the Bible: Jesus Christ died for you, and all you have to do is believe that! What one finds in the rest of the Mormon canon is the foundation for “another gospel,” which creates a God who is not without beginning and incapable of preserving His Word. Think about it, Stephen. The grace of God is sweeter than one can even imagine–and it’s a biblical truth taught throughout the entire Bible!
Peace and Grace!
Jackg,
“Jesus Christ died for you, and all you have to do is believe that! ”
Its curious how many fundementalist christians say that, or something similiar. Someone posted a link to a ‘jesus is lord’ webpage. The author says that lot, in addition to saying that every other philosophy is evil. That even many fundmentalist christians in the public are influenced by evil and express evil.
In any case he goes on to say that one must make an honest effort not to sin. And then quoted some passage about something about ‘you will not sin, if you have the holy spirit’. Apparently if you sin you aren’t really saved, as good works and avoidance of evil are signs of having the holy spirit. He came remarkably close to the mormon phrase, ” its by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”
This is my first time posting here, and I hope I don’t replicate any previous comments on this subject. Thank you for the invitation to post here.
Second Nephi 29:3 mocks the trust of the Bible believer by having him say mindlessly, “A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible,” with the Lord responding by calling such a man a “fool” (v. 6). Actually, says the Book of Mormon, the Bible is so imperfect that, instead of leading men to God, it actually causes them to stumble and gives Satan power over them (1 Nephi 13:29).
The Eighth Article of Faith formulated by Joseph Smith states that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. To this might be added, “And as far as it seems to agree with current LDS theology.” In my experience, there are only two places where the LDS Church will directly say that the Bible is mistranslated. The first is found at the end of Deuteronomy where the death and burial of Moses is recorded. This doesn’t fit with LDS doctrine that states that Moses never died, but was taken to heaven as was Elijah. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956), II, 107. See also Alma 45:19.)Secondly, the words of John 4:24 where Jesus declares that “God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (KJV) appears in the Joseph Smith Translation as “For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth,” supporting the LDS contention that God the Father has a physical body.
Latayne C Scott
http://www.latayne.com
Enki,
It’s always interesting how Mormons like to focus on more than grace (works-righteousnes), and then ask questions that seem to imply “fundamental” Christians don’t really know what they’re talking about. I have found that most Mormons don’t take the time to learn about justification by grace, which means we are saved and come into a new relationship with God simply because we believe in Jesus Christ. Here comes the problem that Mormons think they find in this doctrine, which is a purely biblical doctrine; I mean, you really can’t get away from the preaching of God’s grace and being justified by faith when you read God’s Word.
First of all, I would not consider myself a fundamentalist–too legalistic. Now, I know you think you’re making a point by saying some fundamentalists come close to saying “saved by grace after all we can do” in an effort to make the claim that the LDS Church is true, and this view of grace is also held by others, etc. Once again, this is a backward view of grace. Evangelical Christianity holds the position that good works don’t save a person, but a saved person will naturally show forth good works. That’s a huge difference in theology. Naturally, you will want to use James and say that faith without works is dead, etc. Again, James is teaching us that our works will be the evidence of our faith. If we do not show forth good works, then it’s obvious that our salvation was not authentic, but merely something that we claimed for ourselves without truly accepting the Holy Spirit into our lives. I think this maintains the integrity of the claims you say some fundamentalists make. No matter how you approach this subject, the Mormon perception of grace as an appendage to good works is not biblical by any stretch of the imagination. Martin Luther said the same when he said that “good works don’t make a person good, but a good person does good works.” Therefore, one cannot help but conclude that the gospel of Jesus Christ is faith in Him and His righteousness, which is imputed and eventually imparted to us. Our holiness is His holiness, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in us. If a person claims to be a Christian but does not show evidence of such a claim by changed behavior, then it is probably accurate to conclude that the conversion was not authentic.
I know this is hard for Mormons to grasp, because the desire to count our works into the equation has been ingrained into them in such a way that it’s a root to the belief system. It’s all part of the fallacious teaching that man can make themselves “worthy” and eventually become gods based on their works. Unfortunately for Mormons, this simply is not biblical. In pursuing a course of action as this for their lives, Mormons basically say that the Work of Jesus Christ was not enough to save them, that all Jesus did was make it possible for them to earn “exaltation” through their own works. Again, this doctrine is clearly unbiblical, and it takes believing in the teachings of JS and not the Bible in order for one to make such claims.
Hope this helps you to understand the biblical view of grace.
Peace and Grace!
Yes, As Far As it translated correctly. Many changes have taken place, and not all in correct order, as man has changed it to suit thier time, and when king James did it , he ommitted several books. Part of the dead sea scrolls are actually scriptures, yet, are not included in the Bible….
It is my comment I should be able to edit anytime, and post anytime.
Joe
1 Corinithians 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
Thus until that time we are just man, and may become GODS and praise him…
it must be able to pass the test and be shown to be a historical real document. Then you may examine what it teaches, knowing that it is not a mythology but based on real occurrences
It has been to 19 University, not including the BYU Campus. It is world wide and read into 162 languages. And the BOM is considered a “”Another Testimony of Jesus Christ.””….
Mobaby, you say the following…As a matter of fact, there has never been found a single other document in North America written in reformed Egyptian. This is one of the things that reveals the Book of Mormon to a fabrication of events, not a historical account.
In fact,it was written in Hebrew,(Moses parting the red sea), not Egyptian (where Joseph was sold to). And the BOM is of the people from Jerusalem. and was told to make a ship (just like Noah was told before the flood), and come to America. And the BOM was in the old language, and was translated by Joseph Smith Jr., through the urium and thuma, and the seer stone, which Jacob of Old Testiment passed down through generations to Nephi of the BOM. As Joseph Smith could not translate so had those instruments to help in his translation of the BOM.
Have you read the title page THE BOOK OF MORMON an account written by The Hand of Mormon “UPON PLATES.”””…….Nephi came after the fall of the Tower of Babelon” And an angel came and brought it to see with their own eyes, the plates…. Please read the full three witnesses testimony, and then the Testimony if the eight witnesses states: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator (not writer author), of this work has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold, … we did gandle with OUR OWN HANDS; and also saw the engraving theron,……
Please read full contents before talking about it.
Thank you
Joe,
According to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon was written in reformed Egyptian. No other document written in this language has been discovered in America. I suppose reformed Egyptian is supposed to be a type of the ancient Egyptian language and nothing has been discovered on this continent written in this language. So Joseph Smith stands alone in history by maintaining that plates were engraved in this language here in the Americas, no documents have ever been found in reformed Egyptian in the Americas. All we have is Joseph Smith’s word that the BOM was written in this language. We also have the witnesses which Joseph Smith wrote up and placed in the BOM – and there is some question as to exactly how they saw the gold plates, whether in reality or in their mind’s eye. There is absolutely no historical foundation for the Book of Mormon, it is completely unsupported by history and archeology. All we have is one man’s word. At one time, Joseph Smith also gave his word that he was not practicing polygamy.
JackG,
Wasn’t it also Martin Luther that said once a person has confessed belief in Jesus they can commit 1000 + murders and adulteries a day and it would not rob them of the grace given to them from Jesus? If that is true then it does not matter what a person does once they claim belief in Jesus, they do not have to ‘lead a good life’ as you have stated. If you disagree with this statement then you do believe that works do factor into ones salvation regardless of how it fits in.
Enki,
I like your perspective on things here as you are an outsider per se of things. You are an ex-LDs and you said you had tried Traditional Christianity and because of this, you have called out a number of points from both sides that do not make sense or are contradictory. Some of your points make me think deeper about things. And sometimes they help me understand the otherside of the conversation better.
Mobaby,
I have pasted this web address that has a small article about the possibility of Egyptian paraphenalia in ancient America. There have been some items found that are being argued over whether or not they are Egyptian in origin. These sources are from a non-LDS site, so they are not trying to support our ideas. But it does show the strong possibility that there was a ‘reformed Egyptian’ style in the ancient Americas.
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf098/sf098a01.htm
Latayne,
Thanks for sharing the quotes from 1st & 2nd Nephi. I had no idea that the Book of Mormon mocked Bible believers. I even went and looked it up myself and read it in context. I am sure Joseph Smith was aware of the Church doctrines on the sufficiency of scripture and built into the Book of Mormon a refutation of this creed. It is so transparent. Kind of like how Joseph Smith had Jesus directly address the mode of baptism – I don’t remember where I read it in the BOM, but he obviously tried to settle any differences among Churches by adding to Jesus words about exactly how one is to be baptized. Joseph Smith was responding to the religious culture of his day byv responding to both the Christian high view and belief in the sufficiency of God’s Word and by having Jesus respond authoritatively on baptism. He continued this practice of responding to current religious issues in the Book of Abraham, where he took things that the Mormons were dealing with at that time in their history and addressed them in a new “scripture.”
Ralph,
You are taking Martin Luther completely out of context and thus distorting what he said. Martin Luther valued morality – he remained true to his wife. More than can be said about Joseph Smith.
Mobaby,
Am I taking the words out of context? Whether Luther was faithful to his wife or not does not mean that he did not teach what he did, nor believe in what he taught – it just was not in his nature to do those kind of things. What he has said opens the door to anyone who does have murder or adultery/fornication in their nature and said that if they decide to believe in and accept Jesus then they can till go and do what they want to and be saved. He was teaching that works were totally irrelevant to ones being saved, that it was only a belief in Christ. That was one of the issues that he had with the RC church. Or can you supply another context? And don’t just say that he was using ‘strong language’ or hyperbole to make his point. What he meant is supported by other writings of his about how it is only belief in Christ is what saves us despite what we do. So he has always supported the notion of no change in life style is needed and no works are needed, as far as I can tell.
Ralph,
Luther’s theology is a bit of topic for the thread. I am not one to speak for the dead, however, Luther (and the rest of the Reformers) would probably say something to the affect that if a man is truly “in the Lord” then nothing, not even his own sin, can separate him from God. Works are needed but not for salvation. If someone is a sheep, then he/she gets into heaven; if he she is a goat then it doesn’t matter how “good” goat, one does not get in. Luther probably (key word) had a view similar to perseverance of the saints which is different than a once-saved-always-saved Arminian position (which is what you seem to be alluding to). I think many a Lutheran would argue that a true Christian would not do the things you mentioned. I would have to see the the actual quote to make a determination.
Also, keep in mind that how you view authority and how we view authority are different. While Luther and his words are weighty and authoritative they are not the highest authority. Luther was wrong about somethings just like you will freely admit that some of your leaders had wrong “opinions” about somethings (like Adam-God).
Ralph,
We’re talking about authenticity of conversion. Somehow, you have missed that point. Your works don’t save you, no matter how much you want them to; rather, they show evidence of your conversion. Now, the focus of this thread is whether or not you believe in the Bible. Actually, I think the better question is: Is the Bible authoritative for you? It’s more than merely believing in the Bible. Naturally, Mormons will have to answer that it’s not authoritative. JS is authoritative; Thomas Monson is authoritative. They represent your leaders past and present, and Mormons generally reject plain biblical teaching if LDS “prophets” such as them teach contradictory doctrine. The Bible teaches we are justified by grace and saved by faith. It also teaches that works are evidence of our faith. Pretty simple, really. Our works don’t factor into the salvation equation as you suggest, but are the sum of the factors of faith, salvation by grace, and Spirit-empowered living. The root of salvation is faith; the branches of salvation are grace; the fruits of salvation that blossom and bloom forth are our works. God’s grace is manifest throughout the entire process. I hope this helps you understand where works stand in the equation–and it’s not what JS and subsequent church leaders taught.
Grace and Blessings!
Stephen wrote “The Jews…were soon outnumbered by Gentile converts in other parts of the Roman Empire.”
Stephen, I liked your post.
I find the subject of why the Jews did not accept the new “Christianity” very intriguing. Judging by his express comments in Romans 11:26 Its not what Paul wanted. Judging by Rev 7:9, its not what the other NT authors wanted either. Judging by the Abrahamic covenant in Gen 12:3, the whole purpose of God’s revelation was to bring a blessing to all peoples through the Jews, so we’d end up with a reconciled humanity.
My take is that, as a whole, the Jewsish community rejected the Christian Gospel because they could not accept that their God would become human and die on a cross (See Phil 2:5-11). Some Jewish scholars have noted that its not that they see Jesus as a false Messiah; rather that they see him as a failed Messiah. Why? Because he got himself killed before he could set up an earthly organisation, or movement. or even Kingdom.
(P.S. with a true sense of Jewish subversive irony, some medieaval Jews referred to Jesus as the “Messugah”, meaning the “possessed one”, which sounds very close to “Messiah” and might not be spotted by the non-Hebrew speakers. This play with word phonetics goes right back to the Book of Daniel and the names given to Old King Nebuchadnezzar, which means, if I recall rightly, Donkey-head).
Now, if the Jews rejected the Christian message because the first century Christians had exalted Christ over all things, we need to be careful not to relegate Christ to the status of some created being.
If the LDS church claims to “restore” the message of the early Christian church, then it should stick to the reason why the Jews did not accept the Christian message, namely the full and undiminished divinity of Jesus, the Christ of God.
DAVID
I think Stephen did a fair job answering these questions, but let me add this.
“What is this? – “manmade interpretation of ancient prophets”.”
-If I said interpretation I was wrong, but I think I said translation. This would be all the translating of the Bible from one language to another without the devine command and inspiration of God (such as the KJV, the NIV, the New World Translation, and many others). In general it does not include the copying of the Bible in the same language that it is in (such as scribes would do) unless they acted in an attempt to correct what they thought were past mistakes in the text.
“Translations and copying of the text (transmission of the text) was a way of preserving the text in the ancient world. It is only bad if you get the translation wrong or commit a scribal error. But it is not the end of the world. With many manuscripts in existence, it makes it easier to catch mistranslations and scribal errors. What are some key transmission or translational errors in most Bibles?”
-It is also bad if it is purposely changed to align with the designs of evil men. As to the manuscripts, we do not have most of the originals anymore, so we cannot make a full comparisson. It is easier to catch mistranslations with all the manuscripts we have. But if you except the idea that the original was changed, and done so purposefully to alter the teachings of God, than you can also except that what we have now is not necessarily infalible.
JACK
“The sad thing is that you don’t see that the teachings of JS teach you to trust more in false leaders and to question God’s authoritative, God-breathed Words.”
-He taught us to rely on God’s current word, on his voice spoken to us in personal conversation. I will take the interpretation of the author over scholars anyday.
“As for Adam/God doctrine, I guess you don’t know that BY taught this as church doctrine. I wonder how much you actually know about the origins of your own church.”
-I know of a few quotes, and I have read them. I see how people can get the idea, but it is not what he is teaching, and only by learning all the intracate details of LDS doctrine could you understand this.
“So, shemwater, are you willing to say that God is not powerful enough to preserve His Word?”
-Did I ever say he couldn’t. He preserved the Gold Plates for 1500 years. He preserved the scrolls for the Book of Abraham for even longer. He has this power. However, he does not always use it. God gives men revelation and scriptures. With it he gives them the responsibility of preserving it. The Gold Plates were preserved through obedience to the commands of God, as were the scrolls of Abraham. The Bible was not preserved because the people fell into wickedness and became lax in their duties. For this they will ahve to give an acount.
In like manner God can prevent a man from dieing, as is seen in the translation of Elijah, or John th Beloved. However, he does so only on a few rare occassions.
“where have you studied Biblical exegesis?”
-Christ told us that he only did what he saw his father do (John 5: 19). So, the Father was born to a mortal mother, experienced mortal life, and was the savior for his father’s children, just as Christ is our savior. Thus the idea is there.
“but it is pure heresy”
-Luther was accused of Heresy, as was Calvin, and all the great men of the reformation. If you believe in any church other than the Chatholics you are believing in heresy (at least in some peoples view). More importantly, Christ was accused of heresy. I feel it a priviledge to keep such company.
“I know Mormons get all bent out of shape when we start saying they believe in heretical teachings.”
-Personally, I don’t care. As you teach heretical doctrine in your concept of the trinity as well as God being a spirit, we all stand accused.