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.
Shemawater,
“This would be all the translating of the Bible from one language to another without the devine command and inspiration of God”
I just do not see what is wrong with rendering God’s word into a language that someone can understand. The Great Commission in Matthew seems to be enough authorization to preach and teach God’s word, which would entail translating, to every people group.
“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 this is exactly what Joseph Smith did with the JST! I know you do not believe him to be an evil man, but one determines if a man is evil or not by his actions. It seems pretty obvious that Joseph Smith merely changed the Bible to fit his pre-existing theological, leanings.
“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.”
I accept that some men will invariably attempt to alter God’s word, but God has preserved His word so that we can tell when someone tries to do it. Also, this appears to be a “poisoning of the well” that I often see Mormons doing with the Bible. They believe the Bible but there is a suspicion of the book in general (hence this post). That is why I wrote this:
“What are some key transmission or translational errors in most Bibles?”
The devil is in the details and if you are going to challenge the reliability of the Bible you got to show who, what, when, where, and how. So, what passages in the Bible have been incorrectly correctly into English?
Ah, the translation of the Bible v. the Book of Mormon.
In the quoted portion of the Articles of Faith we have this thought: ‘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.”
In this very statement there is an assumption that the BoM is translated correctly. Why is it an assumption? We do not have any plates to test it against. Further, we do not have the language it was written in. Finally, there is just the blanket statement that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
I know the test Mormons give is the testimony of the spirit, but that is a topic in and of itself that is subject to many strong criticisms.
But, more importantly also within that statement is a point of emphasis– that the Bible can be trusted only sometimes whereas the BoM is to be trusted all the time.
I have yet to read through the entire list of comments, but I am sure that issue is brought out in more depth. A denial of this emphasis would change the meaning of the words presented, I think, and look forward to working my way through the discussion…
DAVID
“I just do not see what is wrong with rendering God’s word into a language that someone can understand. The Great Commission in Matthew seems to be enough authorization to preach and teach God’s word, which would entail translating, to every people group.”
-I never said there was anything wrong with it. The people who made these translations are, in general, great people. I simply said that they did not have the devine gift for translation that would allow them to translate the message without errors in meaning. Thus, to say their translation is infalible does not seem logical.
“But this is exactly what Joseph Smith did with the JST! It seems pretty obvious that Joseph Smith merely changed the Bible to fit his pre-existing theological, leanings.”
-First, Joseph didn’t have too many pre-conceived ideas, as is shown in his general confusion as a young boy. Second, he made his changes with the inspiration of God, thus it is God correcting the text and not a man.
“The devil is in the details and if you are going to challenge the reliability of the Bible you got to show who, what, when, where, and how. So, what passages in the Bible have been incorrectly correctly into English?”
-This is something that cannot be proven, and should not need to be if one truly has faith. I do not need to know who did it, when it was done, where it was done, or how. All I need to know is that it was done. The only witness I need concerning this is the whisperings of the Holy Spirit.
I do not need the words and records of men to confirm what God tells me. I need what God tells me to confirm the words and records of men.
Shemawater,
“I simply said that they did not have the devine gift for translation that would allow them to translate the message without errors in meaning. Thus, to say their translation is infalible does not seem logical.”
I challenge the idea that someone needs “a divine gift” to render words from one language to another. No one is saying any translation is “infallible” but rather are the manuscripts and translations we have “reliable”.
“First, Joseph didn’t have too many pre-conceived ideas, as is shown in his general confusion as a young boy.”
I do not accept this. Much of what Mormons know about their church’s history comes from church sources. That does not mean it/they are automatically wrong but that they are suspect. I encounter the same issue with Muslims. They try to give me a historical context for some words in the Koran but their context comes from religious histories. I am not saying I flat out reject these, but I do not accept them at face value either.
The Smith family definitely had theological leanings before the “restoration”. They, including Joseph, were very Arminian.
“Second, he made his changes with the inspiration of God, thus it is God correcting the text and not a man.”
I know that is the claim but how would one come to know that if one was not already a Mormon. I have the Holy Ghost telling me that Joseph was flat out wrong in his reboot of the Bible. Furthermore, I have God-made evidences that the JST is wrong in some key places (the list of JST problems I gave was just a taste).
“This is something that cannot be proven, and should not need to be if one truly has faith. I do not need to know who did it, when it was done, where it was done, or how. All I need to know is that it was done. The only witness I need concerning this is the whisperings of the Holy Spirit.”
Isn’t that O so convenient? Again, the Holy Ghost tells me that you are not only wrong but that your position is the handiwork of Satanic forces. I can ask the question a different way:
What parts of the Bible are corrupted, according to what the Holy Spirit tells you?
“I do not need the words and records of men to confirm what God tells me. I need what God tells me to confirm the words and records of men.”
I already assume this about you and every Mormon. You think Mormonism is right and that the Holy Ghost tells you so. Tell me something I don’t know. For the record, the Holy Ghost tells me you are flat out wrong and that God has most definitely preserved His holy words. However, I do not expect you to merely take my word for it, and conversely I do not take your word for it. That is why here at Mormon Coffee we deal with “evidences” and let the readers decide if they are man-made or God-made.
Working my way through, I see questioned the reliability of th 11 witnesses. In the context of the Bible v. BoM, this supposed argument adds little to any evidence supporting the claim made by Mormons that the BoM is the word of God. First of all, they provide nothing with which to test the claim against. Secondly, their opinion on the matter doesn’t make it true. It seems a heopful argument more than anything substantial, which it is not substantial.
I will have to return to review other points, but the 11 witnesses is a side issue and does not address the issue of whether the BoM is word of God when the Bible may be the word of God (only when translated correctly).
If the witnesss had given us something else to work with, ie a copy of the plates and their characters, that’s be a different story. But they have not, and so the discussion is fruitless.
shematwater,
You said, “-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.”
This doesn’t make sense. You are implying heresy with this comment. You are basically saying that God changes His mind, and that His Word known as the Bible is null and void because of what your leaders teach. It’s sad that you don’t see the danger in that logic, and it is dangerous logic to be sure. In fact, it’s not really logic at all, but illogical reasoning.
You also said, “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.”
How convenient that you use this kind of reasoning when it suits your need, but reject it for the discussion of the Trinity. Again, where have you studied biblical exegesis? One can’t “proof text” the Bible and eisegete so that it fits their needs, which is really what Mormon doctrine is all about with regard to the Bible and its teachings. How do you reconcile your take of God being born to a mortal mother with the biblical teaching that He is without beginning and, in fact, created “ex nihilo,” which is ” out of nothing”? How do you view Isaiah 43:10: “..before me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me.” And what did JS teach? That he and you and all Mormons who do this, this, and this, will earn exaltation and become gods. Sorry, shematwater, but you are believing a doctrine that just is not true.
As for your disdain for biblical scholars, it seems to me that most people who aren’t scholars dislike scholars. It’s just a human thing because we feel inadequate. But, God has worked through humanity from day one, and He uses biblical scholars in His work of redemption. I know, you’ll say He used JS to bring to the world the fulness of the gospel; however, the fulness of the gospel is Jesus Christ Himself. He fulfilled everything, which makes what JS peddled a lie.
Ultimately, the only thing you have proven is that the Bible is not authoritative for you. You might believe in the Bible (how, I’m not sure), but are quick to reject its gospel truths when your leaders teach something incongruent with the biblical message. So, I guess you are willing to say that God is not powerful enough or able to preserve His word. Your reference to the BOM and those golden plates does not hold water in a philosophical or theological debate.
The truth is there for you to understand, shematwater. It’s up to you to respond to God’s grace in your life and question the teachings of JS and all subsequent leaders. Those who have have come to the saving knowledge of the biblical Jesus Christ and the grace of God.
Peace and Grace!
DAVID
I believe a spirit has whispered to you, but I can’t agree that it is the Holy Spirit, as to do so would be to deny my faith.
I am perfectly willing to let you have your opinion of the LDS church, our doctrine, and our members. I would simply ask you to try to make it sound more like an opinion and not a fact. I will admit that I have done the same, as a counter to what you said. However, more than once I have stated that all this is opinion, and all I am asking is for you to understand why I believe as I do.
Concerning evidence, I am curious as to the evidence the Israelites had that Moses was speaking for God, as it is generally understood that they had no record and Moses wrote the book of Genesis.
MICHAEL
The value of teh 11 witnesses is that their testimony is admissable in any court of Law, and is sufficient evidence to clear Joseph Smith of fraud.
You believe Christ rose from the dead, and yet all you have is the personal witness of people. You have no hard evidence. Show me his living body. Show me the marks in his hands and feet. This is the attitude that Thomas had, and when he did finally see the resurrected Lord what was he told? “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” We do not need the evidence beyond the witness of 11 faithful and honest men.
(By the way, there were 12 witnesses, though only eleven made signed statements – Mother Witmer also saw teh plates.)
JACK
“You are basically saying that God changes His mind, and that His Word known as the Bible is null and void because of what your leaders teach.”
-He hasn’t changed his mind. Men have attempted to make his words mean what they were not intended to mean, and he has corrected their errors. When I say that God speaks in person to us and that he explains the meaning of the Bible, I mean just that. He speaks, not the church leads. It was his word to begin with so he is the most qualified to tell us what it means.
“where have you studied biblical exegesis?”
-At the feet of God our Father, and at the mouth of His son Jesus Christ.
“One can’t “proof text” the Bible and eisegete so that it fits their needs, which is really what Mormon doctrine is all about with regard to the Bible and its teachings.”
-Which is exactly what you do when you try to make the trinity work, even when the three appear separate at Christ’s baptism. All we do is take apparent contradictions and try to find the correct answer. As it is impossible from the text of the Bible we turn to God.
“How do you reconcile your take of God being born to a mortal mother with the biblical teaching that He is without beginning and, in fact, created “ex nihilo,” which is ” out of nothing”? How do you view Isaiah 43:10: “..before me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me.”
-It is quite simple. We of this world have receive revelation for this world. We are told things that are needed for us, and not those things that are not. For this world there is onlt one God, and there will only be one God. I do not understand all the workings of eternity, but this seems so simple.
“And what did JS teach? That he and you and all Mormons who do this, this, and this, will earn exaltation and become gods. Sorry, shematwater, but you are believing a doctrine that just is not true.”
-Yet in Ps. 82: 6 tells us that we are gods, and Jesus confirms this in John 10: 34. In Romans 8: 17 we are told that we are Joint-heirs with Christ. As a joint-heir we will inherit that which Christ inherits. In 1 John 3: 2 we are told that when he comes again we shall be like him. In 2 Cor 3: 18 we are told that we will be changed to the same glory that God is in. In Rev 3: 21 we are told that if we overcome we will sit in his throne.
With all these telling us that we can be like him, not counting those that call us his children (thus the same species and potential), I find it very easy to believe this doctrine. Whether you believe it or not does not matter to me, but I do wish you would understand that it can be found in the Bible.
“God has worked through humanity from day one, He uses biblical scholars in His work of redemption.”
-But he has always used prophets, and usually from the poor and unlearned of the people. In fact. Paul tells us that few of the wise and noble of the earth are called (1 Cor. 1: 26). Why would he change his tactic in our day; leaving out prophets, and using the wise of the world. I have no distain for these scholars, but I will put God above them.
“I know, you’ll say He used JS to bring to the world the fulness of the gospel; however, the fulness of the gospel is Jesus Christ Himself. He fulfilled everything, which makes what JS peddled a lie.”
-He did not fulfill everything. Even in Matthew 5: 17-18 he says “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Here he tells us that it was not his purpose at that time to fulfill all things, but that they would be fulfilled later.
The gospel is the plan of salvation. Christ is the central part, but the atonement was not all the work he is to do. There are still things to come (second coming, the judgement, ect.)
“So, I guess you are willing to say that God is not powerful enough or able to preserve His word.”
-You seem to like to put words into my mouth, and it seems the only way to dismiss what I have said. I do believe I explained this, but since you seem to be ignoring it I will restate it briefly.
Just because God has the power to preserve his word does not mean he did so. If I did not believe he had that power I would have to reject the Book of Mormon, as it was preserved for 1500 years, as well as the Book of Abraham, as it was preserved for over three thousand years. As I except these I obviously believe he has the power.
The truth is that it is up to you to respond to God’s grace and except his word through all his prophets, including Joseph Smith and all later leaders, and thus begin to question your own wisdom.
shematwater,
Have a blessed day! I pray one day you will open your eyes to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I only need to accept Jesus Christ; I don’t have to accept false prophets to be saved. They only lead men astray, a point you make loud and clear.
Peace to you!
Shemawater,
I would consider turning the Nile to blood and preventing the sun’s light from reaching Egypt to be pretty good evidence (not to mention the other 7 plagues before the Passover). Suppose that Moses had no evidence and the Isrealites believed due solely to the Holy Ghost/ Faith/Testimony. Does that mean we should in no way use the evidences that we have now?
I am still interested in knowing the answer to this question:
“What parts of the Bible are corrupted, according to what the Holy Spirit tells you?”
“I would consider turning the Nile to blood and preventing the sun’s light from reaching Egypt to be pretty good evidence (not to mention the other 7 plagues before the Passover).”
-Yes, but what of when he first returned to Egypt, before he performed any miracles? At this time all he had was his word. The signs came after the Israelites excepted him as their deliverer, not before.
“Suppose that Moses had no evidence and the Isrealites believed due solely to the Holy Ghost/ Faith/Testimony. Does that mean we should in no way use the evidences that we have now?”
-It means we should not need the evidences, nor should we put those evidences above the testimony of the Holy Spirit. What God says in person is much more reliable than what translators have told us that scribes said was written by men who spoke with God.
“What parts of the Bible are corrupted, according to what the Holy Spirit tells you?”
-I cannot answer this because I have not been given the Gift of translation. I can point out places that are obvious contradictions to what the spirit has said, but I may simply be misreading the text. Like God sending lieing spirits, or God being a spirit.
However, as has been said before, the JST does give us a lot of information concerning this, and the Holy Spirit tells me that it is more accurate than any other translation (though it is incomplete). This is the only answer you are likely to get.
Shematwater:
You say this: “The value of teh 11 witnesses is that their testimony is admissable in any court of Law, and is sufficient evidence to clear Joseph Smith of fraud.” But that is a different issue than the one I address. It says they saw something, but it does not help us know what they saw. It does not help with the translations, and it does not help determine which is the better source for God’s word.
So, again, if another had made copies of what he saw, that might change some. But as it stands, the 11 witnesses do not help in this discussion.
Oh, and another term I have seen thrown around here is “the gift of translation.” What exactly is it and who has had it? Will anyone else get it? Seems an important gift if God continually speaks to us…
David,
I do not need the Holy Spirit to tell me what parts of the Bible are corrupted or if the Bible is corrupted when I have the Bible itself showing that it is corrupted. There are at least 3 inclusions in the Bible that I know of with a possible fourth. These are the Johaninne comma, the last half of Mark 16 and the Adulterer pericope. These 3 have been found to be added to the Bible after the original manuscripts, in fact the Johaninne comma was added in the fourth century. The possible fourth is the 2 verses in one of Paul’s epistles where it talks about women keeping silence in church. This one is being debated at the moment because some of the older manuscripts do not include these verses and some do. So it is thought that IF it is an inclusion it was a margin note within the original manuscript placed there by either Paul himself or an associate of his. Do these classify as corruption of the Bible? Yes they have been found now, but its taken how many centuries to find them? I do believe that the Bible is becoming more correct as they find older manuscripts and identify these corruptions, but how many more are there? The answer is, since we do not have the originals – we do not know.
As far as the claim that plain and precious truths are missing, we know that there are books/epistles referred to in the Bible that we do not have within the current canon. These are – book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14). NOTE there are 3 possible epistles written by Paul to the Corinthians, Ephesians and Laodicea. How do we know what he has written in these? He could have expanded on his thoughts about baptism for the dead and either outright condemned it or condoned it – in the Bible at this point in time he is neutral. He could have expanded on what heaven is like and either outright taught against the 3 degrees of glory as we have, or he could have been fully in favour of it. As it stands, there is noting really in the Bible about the 3 degrees of glory, we balieve it because of modern revelation and we have found a verse in the Bible that can be interpreted to mean something similar. How many other books/epistles are missing because they have not been found or they were decidedly left out for one reason or another?
So there are problems with the Bible. I personally find it authoratative, but not SOLE authoritative, and I do not believe that it is 100% accurate. Like I said earlier, I read text books for my work and treat them the same – they are authoritative but not 100% accurate.
Ralph,
This does not necessitate corruption of the entire compilation. Rather, it dictates careful study and consideration. What is interesting in your claims is that we have documents and a history to compare the documents to. For the BoM, we have no such ability. All you rely on is the testimony of JS that it is the more reliable book. I know you include the spirit in that, but you will need more than that to make credible claims. This is only amplified when you look at the other failings of Mormonism.
BTW, I do acknowledge the strength you give to the testimony of the spirit. It is powerful in your faith, and it sounds like it is the only constant you have. This is the only thing you can ever point to get guidance. The Bible is not reliable. The BoM is not determinitive. The D&C have been disregarded, and your other books are largely irrelevant or only take you so far. This leaves you only with the spirit and the advise of other men who supposedly hear the spirit.
Also, your discussion of authority of a given work is a bit misleading. Here, the question is essentially which book is the better and more believable work of God.
MichaelP,
I agree, not all of the compilation is corrupted which is why we use the Bible – it still testifies of Jesus Christ and has relevant doctrine/information for our salvation. But still, one needs to admit that there is corruption within it, and where we do not know until further study is done and findings are made.
We have the testimonies of JS and at least 12 other witnesses that the plates were from a spiritual source – be it which ever you wish but I believe that it is from God – and that they were real. So its not just JS testimony. Plus as you stated, I have my witness from the Holy Ghost that the BoM is true, thus meaning that the plates were real and from God.
From what I understand, this is all we have for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The witnesses written many centuries ago by a couple of people (namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul) and your own spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost. What makes your claim that the Bible and Jesus Christ are more true/valid than the Muslims and their Koran and Allah? It is the Holy Ghost, is it not? So you follow your ‘spirit’ and I will follow mine and we can both have hope (which is part of faith) that we are following the true path.
Ralph,
The trouble with your position is that you state that because a small few may have tampered with the documents over a course of thousands of years, you say that you need another set of documents to rectify the error. This logic is not necessitated in that you can still get all of the truth from the one source and not have to get more.
Secondly, what you are saying about the witnesses is that they give you reason to believe, but it still does not give you any more insight into exactly what was in what they say they they saw. You can believe they are from God, but you do not know what was in them and cannot go back and check his work.
While we do not have the original letter from Paul to the Philipians, we do have many, many, many copies that all say the same thing. We can see anomalies in the documents to gather what was in them. This is different from what is claimed to be the BoM in that there is absolutely NO historical document to back it up, and that includes any evidence the language it was written in existed.
For more, in the Bible, we can look to historical norms as well as geographical evidence to know that what they present is accurate. No such evidence exists for the BoM.
You speak also of the resurection of Christ and the lack of evidence to suggest it is true. Here’s a big difference: we know Christ lived based on outside sources and we also know that the Bible does give an accurate history. Yes, it is faith, but it is faith based on something that is reasonably verifiable. Contrasting with the BoM, again, there is nothing reliable to test it against. In other words, you have your word, and I have mine, but I also have a lot more to go off of.
As I said before, I do understand the power of the spirit in your faith. And for that reason, it will take more than I can give to convince you of your error. But let me end by asking if you understand my point about how the witness do nothing to prove the BoM is the better translated book.
Shemawater,
“the testimony of the Holy Spirit”
He has told me that Mormonism is wrong and that the Bible is reliable. Besides, no where in the Bible has it said not to use evidence, reason, or logic. In fact it says the opposite:
“let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).
From everything that stated, is it fair to say that you trust what you believe the Holy Spirit tells you more than the Bible, or even that the Holy Spirit tells you which translations are correct?
Ralph,
“These 3 have been found to be added to the Bible after the original manuscripts, in fact the Johaninne comma was added in the fourth century.”
Then it is not “Bible”. It is because we do have reliable manuscripts that you can know that those texts are (possible) interpolations. Just as people can add to the Bible in modern times (like Joseph Smith did) they could in the ancient world as well. But that does not add or change the God’s Word.
The study of of variants, interpolations, etc. is called “textual criticism”. It is not only applied to the Bible but any book written before the printing press (even some books written after the printing press have variants). This does not make the Bible unreliable, if it did then any ancient text would be unreliable. And BTW, the Johannine comma was added much later than the fourth century (as far as the latter portion of MK 16 goes, I could go wither way on it being authentic).
Is it fair to state that your position is that the Bible has been corrupted? It seems that your issue is not just with the “translation” of the text (2nd article of faith), but also with the transmission of it as well. Also, You make a leap between books referenced in the Bible (that are not in it) and a corruption or removal from the inclusion in the canon of scripture. It is possible that these books were never included in the canon, and it is possible that they were. However, their absence does not mean what we do have is tainted. I believe in an open canon, unlike many Christians, so if a lost book were found I could see including it. But just as the OT is scripture in its own right, and untainted, so the presence of the NT adds but does not invalidate or make tainted what was previously written.
So David,
You said “I believe in an open canon, unlike many Christians, so if a lost book were found I could see including it.” What if we were to find one of the epistles referred to in the NT written by Paul and it is found that in it he very strongly condones baptism for the dead. The epistle was authenticated by dating and comparison to others that have been found, etc, so it was definately from Paul to some saints in Corinth. Would you then readily accept this epistle and what it teaches even though it contradicts what you believe now? Or would you try and dismiss it because you believe that it is teaching some heretical thing and quote the “angel teaching another gospel” verse from the Bible?
Ralph–
I’ll answer your question to David, too. First of all, we do have other letters from the same time that are not in the Canon. These were not included because they did not meet standards of being authorized by God. I am not sure what all of that was, but I do know they were very meticulous in considering the narrative, source, dates, message, and purpose of the writing to determine what was to be included in the canon. Much study, time, and prayer went into the effort. (BTW, why did they have to do this? because some of Old Christendom was divided on which books were to be used as holy scripture. It is important to realize the most of the books were well agreed upon).
Why is the above important to this hypothetical– because it would require more than just giving it an author and dating it.
But, assuming it was deemed to meet the requirements for canon, I would consider it equal to the other books and accept what it has to say. But, I am doubtful such a book would come because the standard would be very high, and the doctrine would have to be consistent with what is in the Bible.
I will also say that it would be interesting to get that insight if such a letter were found and if it said what you say.
MichaelP wrote “[other scriptures] were not included because they did not meet standards of being authorized by God. I am not sure what all of that was..”
We’re at a discadvantage here because, it seems, nobody wrote down a list of criteria for what should, or should not be included in the Canonical Bible (if ever such a list existed). What we do have is contextual evidence on the evolution of the Canon, in particular, the story of the Marcionite heresy, which attempted to strip away the “Jewishness” of Jesus (if I recall correctly).
We also have a stack of competing “Gospels” from the Gnostic camp, in particular the Nag Hammadi sources (the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary etc etc). Usually, the discussion about the Canon revolves around the inclusion or exclusion of this Gnostic stuff, with protagonists such as Elaine Pagels. They would say “why don’t we include these ancient texts in our Bibles”, or even “the Nag Hamadi texts are more reliable than the texts that form the basis of our Canonical Bibles”.
What the modern Gnostic-promoters fail to acknowledge is that the early Christians may have discarded these other “Gospels” because they thought they were wrong. Or, to put it another way, the early Christians “suppressed” this information because it was actually mis-information that mis-represented and distorted the Gospel that the Christians subscribed to.
Furthermore, though the Gnostic Gospels claim to present the teachings of Christ, they typically fail to put it into any sort of historical or cultural context. Note how the Canonical Gospels refer to the people, places, and events that surround the story (look at John’s vivid account of the trial of Jesus, for example, and note the details such as the names of the players, the time of day, the layout of the temple etc). This kind of connectivity with the “real” or “physical” world was something that the Gnostics did everything to nullify.
Here’s a thought; the Gnostics try to present the teachings of Christ as the most important thing, but the Canonical Gospels present the person of Christ as the most important thing. What’s more important, our reliance on our knowledge (gnosis) of the teaching of Christ, or our reliance on the person of Christ?
Anyhow, we can only surmise what process the Bible-compilers went through, but there are good indications that what got included complied with the following;
* It came from a source that was close to Jesus (e.g. the letters from Peter, John, James, and Paul and Luke-Acts), in other words, it looked authentic and it sounded like something that these people would actually say
* It was already widely accepted by the Christian community as something that promoted Christian growth
I also suggest that the lack of authentic context would put a “treat with caution” flag on many of the competing texts.
So, probably there was a dynamic between the writers of various scriptures and the acceptance of the Christian community about what they should accept and promote. Given that this happened within the first and second centuries, it seems that there was a rapid and decisive dividing of the sheep and the goats in the primitive church.
Its an interesting question as to whether the Church created the Bible, or whether the Bible created the Church. I tend to think that they both created each other. I also tend to think that this is exactly how God intended it to be.
MICHEAL
This is the same issue. The three testify that it was an angel that showed them the plates. The eight testify to what the plates looked like. So, by the testimony of eleven men we know they existed. By the testimony of three we know that the translation was done by the power of God. We do not need to see or compare. That is the point. Their testimony makes this unnecessary.
To say otherwise is to deny the authority of personal testimony. It is to say that no matter how many witnesses there are if you don’t have physical evidence they don’t count.
The gift of translation is just what it says it is. It is the gift to translate from one language to another. It is given when ancient records, written in an unfamiliar language, are need for modern men. Joseph Smith had this gift. In the Book of Mormon we read about King Mosiah having it and translating the Jaredite plates. I believe Abraham and Moses also had it. Daniel had it, at least for a short while, as he translated the writing on the wall. It is a rare gift, and only given to great men when it is needed.
Now, Ralph does a great job at outlining known corruptions that I did not know. I would then ask the question, if these things are corruptions how do we know there are not more corruptions, and where these might be? I agree that all these old manuscripts help, but as stated before, without the originals we cannot be sure.
Do we?
“By the testimony of three we know that the translation was done by the power of God.”
We do not actually. We only have your belief that this is so. Again, there is nothing more than this that is passed down. We do not have ANY evidence, other than their word, that what they say happened– not even the language. This will not work.
In response to my assertion, you say we do not need to see or compare. And this is a huge point of contention. When I read the Bible, I see the instruction to check the scriptures to see if what is taught is true. So, if I do not have anything to go check, huge red flags go off.
I know you, like Ralph, rely on the testimony of the spirit, and that there is nothing I can do here to show you anything different short of explain things rationally, clearly, and in good faith. Really, because you are taught to follow and not think about what is presented (broken down, this is what it amounts to, and I have seen this in your posts, too, ie following fully governmental leaders b/c they will get the blame) it will take more than what I can give you hear to break this unfortunate pattern.
You ask about corruptions. Do you wish to bring up the changes in the BoM, or more of the portions of your scripture you deny now? What about BY’s Adam/God teachings? How do we know that every thing else written down is not to be thrown out tomorrow, or be changed tomorrow? You may say faith. And this is a fair answer, but again, we have mountains of documentation to back us up. You have nothing, except your witness.
Hate to post another so quickly, but in thinking about witnesses proving the BoM was translated correctly– wasn’t it only JS who translated? Others may have assisted in that they wrote down what he said, but it was only JS’s head in the hat. So, no one but him knows what was on those plates. No one else copied them to come back later and review. No one double checked his work. No one. So, again, their “witness” means nothing.
Michael P,
Those who walk in faith have the miracle of faith: knowledge. Some would say that our testimony is based on an ethereal burning of the bosom…when in reality, our willingness to listen to that burning of the bosom by acting on its’ promptings provides us with knowledge after the trial of our faith.
This is true of the bible and book of mormon…both books testify of Christ. The reason we believe the book of mormon was necessary and why God provided us with another testament is to provide context to the other scriptures we have. So a conversation about which one is more valid is really irrelevant since we use them hand in hand, alongside modern day revelation and personal revelation. We do not believe any finite book could teach the mysteries of an Infinite God. Believing that the bible is the beginning and the end of scripture/revelation is equating the finite with the Infinite Being it testifies of!
All of the gospels help us understand the events of Christs life–they are different than each other in many ways—a different perspective of events, you could say–such is the Book of Mormon–it is a different perspective of the coming of Christ–not a different doctrine. You could no more divorce the book of Mormon from the bible than you could divorce the gospel of Luke from the gospel of John.
Amanda, were the Bereans wrongly searching the scriptures to test what they were told?
Why do we need context to the Bible? It is all pretty clear, really.
The conversation about which is more valid originates from your statement of faith: the Bible is good when translated correctly, the BoM is good. Why is this the case and what does it say, on its face, about the books? One is to be viewed skeptically and the other is to be taken as true. What was it JS said about the BoM? Most “correct book ever”, I think it was? Didn’t he try to give his own translation of the Bible? Again, what was that message? Old one no good, but I will make it better?
“You could no more divorce the book of Mormon from the bible than you could divorce the gospel of Luke from the gospel of John.” Yes, I can.
Michael P,
The real question is why you would reject further context if it is of God?
Do you honestly believe it is all there? all of God’s mysteries? His word cannot be limited to the bible…God cannot be limited to anything, even thousands of pages! There were whole cultures that based themselves on the OT who rejected who the OT testified of (Jews rejected Jehova/Christ). Do you think it is also possible for Christians to rely on their traditions of NT teachings rather than Christ revealing Himself in modern times through the organization of His priesthood on the earth? Surely we cannot be so secure in our traditions without risking the pride of the Pharisees.
The bible didn’t fall out of the sky, it was put together somehow..by people you do not know! Who put the bible together? What version is the most accurate? Any perceived flaws of the book of Mormon could easily be turned around on the bible! You reject prophets translating from original plates, yet you put complete faith in a book that you don’t know its’ practical origins– who had a hand in copying copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of ‘originals’ that were written hundreds of years after the death of Christ? Why do you have more faith in that than a direct translation of the ORIGINAL record from a PROPHET…you know the bible does talk about prophets…?
So if you believe the bible was divinely brought about, regardless of scholarly evidence that suggests the serious opportunity for flawed translation and preservation…why reject the notion of another testament of Jesus Christ divinely brought about through His servant, Joseph Smith?
Amanda,
“Do you honestly believe it is all there? all of God’s mysteries?” Yes. I can. I can and do believe that everything God intended for us to learn from him is in that collection of books and letters called the Bible. Of course, there are things we will see anew in the world, such as the strength of temptation, the true power of sin and its consequences, and the joys of living a life in communion with others and in Him. We can experience God anew every day, and learn new things from Him every day. We do this through study of the Bible and through constant communication with Him. Thus, we do believe in modern revelation, to us that revelation is based on what we learn from the Bible, not in any other source. We even test the revelation against it. And yet, we continue to talk to God and learn from Him. And we do it all without another source.
“Do you think it is also possible for Christians to rely on their traditions of NT teachings rather than Christ revealing Himself in modern times through the organization of His priesthood on the earth?” I laughed a bit at this one, because it is such a lead in question, phrased in such a way to only have one answer. A better question would be to leave off the priesthood on the earth part. You never define who that is, and you assume one exists. But the first part of the question is good: yes it is possible for Christians to rely on “Christianity” rather than on Christ. But to rely on Christ, we do not need a priesthood, rather, all we need is, well, Christ. Remember, he still speaks to us, and we do not need a priesthood to hear him.
You then say this: “Surely we cannot be so secure in our traditions without risking the pride of the Pharisees.” Be careful not to follow your apostles and risk the pride of the Pharisees. Be careful not to be so secure in your own traditions that you fail to see that Christ is King, not Monson or Smith or Young. Be careful to follow your own admonission to me.
Your next paragraph you urge me to reconsider a Bible (which you essentially just through to the wayside right here) that was written thousands of years ago by people who I do not know and who may have made mistakes (in good faith or intentionally) thereby destroying its value today, especially given the wonderful book translated by your loving and benevolent prophet. You ask why I have more faith in the older translations. Well, to start, what we have behind these old letters are thousands of copies throughout time. In other words, we have copies of copies of copies. And the consistency is really quite remarkable. Then, we do not have a thing from your benevolent prophet except his word to say he translated them (oh, and the words of those who saw the plates, or saw his head inside of a hat). No plates. No copies, nothing. And shall we compare the timing? Thousands of years and thousands upon thousands of accurate copies vs. 170 years and not a drop of anything except the translators words or those who saw him translating something. Which makes more sense?
You get in a little jab about prophets. Who said we believe prophets are done forever?
Why reject the notion of another testament of Jesus Christ divinely brought about through his servant, Joseph Smith? Because his servant, Mr. Smith, was a lying cheat who practiced black magic. Because there is no evidence the plates ever existed, except the testimony (which may well have been through their mind’s eye) of a few others. Because Smith instiuted many practices directly against the Bible under the name of a restored Christianity. Because the church founded by your servant has already abandoned too many positions once thought to be everlasting and your salvation depended on them.
And heck, the Spirit tells me your faith is patently false.
So, Amanda, will you answer my question: were the Bereans wrongly searching the scriptures to test what they were told?
MichaelP,
You said “Then it is not “Bible”. It is because we do have reliable manuscripts that you can know that those texts are (possible) interpolations” about the insertions into the Bible. Yes, of course you can say that now but think of those who lived BEFORE these were found/known – they used these as true and Biblical. They believed in them. This was as it was in JS and BY times. So despite what you say now, back then they were in the Bible and considered in every way part of the true canon. These are corruptions because they were inserted by man into the Bible. This means that JS and BY et al. were correct in saying that the Bible was corrupted.
Now I have said this in an earlier post – in the BoM it states clearly that there will be imperfections in the text because of the imperfections of the men writing the text. The Bible has nothing like this in it and thus people have the wrong impression that it is 100% perfect. So that is why there is that clause about the Bible being the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.
As for what you said about there being other ‘letters’ and books from that time but they were decided not to be included in the Bible – who decided? How did they decide? In my original question, if we found a letter by Paul teaching for baptism for the dead would it be accepted? What is in the Bible is neutral toward that practice, but it goes against Traditional Christian practice today. So what would it be – scripture or not? And if you decide to use the ‘angel teaching another gospel’ scripture, then we would have to disregard all other of Paul’s writings. So it would be a Catch 22 situation for Traditional Christianity.
Finally, we have the original english text of the BoM in OC’s hand writing to check the text against. That is how the many corrections to the text have been made – by comparison to the hand written text. Just in case you did not know, JS had OC make a copy of the BoM before he sent it to the publisher so it could be proof read in situations like this. It does not matter that we do not have the original plates because we have these hand written manuscripts. I do not know if what the church has are the original and the copy was sent to the publisher or the other way around, but does that really matter?
Ralph,
“Would you then readily accept this epistle and what it teaches even though it contradicts what you believe now? Or would you try and dismiss it because you believe that it is teaching some heretical thing and quote the “angel teaching another gospel” verse from the Bible?”
I have the options you listed here and others. First, the question of “did Paul really write such letter” would always be open to debate. Much like if the body of Jesus was found there would inevitably be people who would challenge the identity of the corpse. If a discovered Pauline epistle were made known and some how it could be verified that Paul wrote it and the early church used it . . . then, yes I would be open (key word) to accepting it as scripture as well as the theology it would give me. Another option you did not mention would be to drop Christianity all together. If a verified Pauline letter was found that radically contradicted what Paul taught in other portions of the NT then that would be a big problem for me. I could also take the cop out and say that Paul was not speaking as an apostle, which Mormons do frequently with their leaders.
Ralph, if a text by a known Old Testament prophet was found and it contained a smoking gun case for monotheism would you believe it? This has already happened! It’s called the book of Isaiah.
Your words here were directed to Michael P but I am the one who wrote them. As such I will address your comments.
“You said “Then it is not “Bible”. It is because we do have reliable manuscripts that you can know that those texts are (possible) interpolations” about the insertions into the Bible. Yes, of course you can say that now but think of those who lived BEFORE these were found/known – they used these as true and Biblical. They believed in them. This was as it was in JS and BY times. So despite what you say now, back then they were in the Bible and considered in every way part of the true canon.”
Some people believed them and counted them as scripture. Honestly your view of history seems a bit off or lacking in this area. I believe JS and BY and most religionists had the view you are saying they did, but these types of textual problems have been known before the NT. The ancients lived in a world where every text and translation had some form of variation. The early church father Justin Martyr discusses differences between the Hebrew text of the OT and the Septuagint (concerning the virginity of Mary). So, your view is flawed and definitely the product of a modern era that has the benefit of the printing press.
Michael P,
“These were not included because they did not meet standards of being authorized by God. I am not sure what all of that was, but I do know they were very meticulous in considering the narrative, source, dates, message, and purpose of the writing to determine what was to be included in the canon. Much study, time, and prayer went into the effort. (BTW, why did they have to do this? because some of Old Christendom was divided on which books were to be used as holy scripture. It is important to realize the most of the books were well agreed upon).”
The NT book that is usually referred to in these kinds of discussion is Clements letter to the Corinthians. It is usually dater earlier than some books that in are the Bible now. A letter like Clements does not automatically make it in, because Clement was not an apostle (even books by non-apostles are in the NT). A letter written by Paul to a church would automatically be up for strong consideration because (some of) Paul’s writings are already considered scripture.
The canonical issues surrounding the early church were usually centered around the deutero-canonical books of the OT. The Jews kept religious books around that were spiritual but were not on par with with the Tanach. Some church fathers and lay members accepted the short canon of the OT (the ones Protestants and Jews use),
while others accepted some or all of the deutero-canonical books. The early church was all over the place on which books of the apocrypha it did or did not accept and how they viewed these books. There are various reasons put forth for this but I believe it is because Greek speaking Christians (which was alot for the early church) relied on the Septuagint. The Septuagint copies varied in which deutero-canonical books they contained.
The NT on the other hand was much less debated. James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Revelation, and Jude were at times disputed or excluded. However, the NT canon found in most English Bibles today is and was the generally accepted one. Even though they had differing canons of scripture, the early Christians believed in their Bibles and I do not think they would say the same things about it that some Mormons have said.
Amanda,
The Bible contains everything anyone needs to know for salvation and eternal life in the presence of God. I pray that you will one day come to accept the Truth of this matter and shed yourself of the false doctrines JS taught.
Peace and Blessings!
MICHEAL
What you have said is that personal testimony is worthless. It does not matter who saw what, or what they did, if they cannot produce evidence than it never happened. So, Moses never say the burning bush, Paul did not have his vision, Christ was not raised from dead, and visions written by Daniel and John are their own imagining.
None of these accounts have any actual evidence. You believe them because they are recorded in the Bible, and you believe the Bible. Where is your evidence. Show the bush that was on fire but did not burn. Show me the resurrected Lord. Show me the angels that apeared to Daniel and John. You can’t.
In like manner I cannot show you the plates. But I have the words of honest men testifying to the truthfulness of the work. I believe them, for the same reasons you believe the words of these ancient men, ad regardless of the lack of physical evidence.
“Do you wish to bring up the changes in the BoM, or more of the portions of your scripture you deny now?”
-There is nothing in our scripture that we deny, and only those who do not have a full understanding of our faith would make such a rediculous claim. As to the changes in the Book of Mormon, none of them changed the meaning of the text. I have read many of these, and found this to be so. They have changed grammer, punctuation, and in some cases language structure to fit more correctly with modern english. However, the meaning has never changed.
“What about BY’s Adam/God teachings?”
-Again, this was never truly taught. The idea is a misunderstanding of a few quotes made by early leaders, but this is not what they were teaching.
“wasn’t it only JS who translated? Others may have assisted in that they wrote down what he said.”
-Not true. Oliver Cowdry also translated for a breif time. He was unable to do it for more than a few sentences, but he still did it.
“So, no one but him knows what was on those plates. No one else copied them to come back later and review.”
-There is actually a small sample of characters copied from the plates that Martin Harris took to professors in New York for authentication, which he received. This, and others copies of the same, are still in existance, and modern scholars agree that the characters are Egyption, chaldean, arabic, and other languages, and that they follow a logical thought (or complete sentence). So we do have other documentation, but I still say we do not need it.
As to evidence in the America’s that supports the Book of Mormon, we have plenty, and more is turning up as time passes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6bgHHm_Ubc This is a short video that explains the progress. While I know this is from an LDS source, I still think it is worth watching.
David, thank you for that clarification. It is very helpful.
Shematwater–
No, I do not say that personal testimony is worthless. Rather, I say we need to test the testimony against what is written in the Bible. If it is true, it will be confirmed with what is written. It is not confirmed if you need to go outside of the Bible to get the answer your testimony says, and that includes reading into things that are not in the Bible like the regular practice of baptism for the dead. This difference is key. Do you understand it?
Actually, the accounts of supernatural events in the Bible has evidence to suggest it is true. Its evidence comes from the very source of the stories, and here is why: the Bible is historically accurate. In other words, it is very accurate archeologically, and what it says about historical customs are true. It has also proven accurate in determining future events, ie prophecies have come to fruition at an astonishing rate. So, while it is true that we do not have proof that Moses parted the Red Sea, we have enough evidence elsewhere to reasonably rely on the story as truth.
You say you have the words of honest men. I ask you to answer truthfully whether or not JS was a tresure seeker before becoming a prophet. Also, is it not possible that he practiced black magic to some extent, using sticks and stones to find such treasure? Finally, was he or was he not well read? Is it not possible that he read and understood much of religion and cult belief? What about these other men? How did he translate the book? What did he use? Remember the time period and geography when and wheresuch spiritual belief was strong when answering.
All of that gets us really to the most important question one can ask when discussing Mormonism: was Joseph Smith really an honest man? To assist with exploring that question, we can look to all he did after he became a prophet.
I know you will answer these through a Mormon lense. You will continue to defend the man. But at what point do you start to get tired of defending each and every aspect of him? At some point, the evidence must become so over bearing that it is clear what he said is false, and that he was not an honest man.
As to Cowdery, wasn’t he excommunicated? Didn’t he also use a diving rod? Do we have his copies? If we don’t, then its no help. If he used a divining rod, he’s as suspect as Smith.
What’s funny about the document to NY, which I now remember, is that it is seen as a fraud, too. And the language has not been accepted by any serious scholar.
I know you constantly get info, as you get creative in the story. But the truth of the matter is you have hope for a story.
shematwater,
You were asked, “What about BY’s Adam/God teachings?”
You answered-“Again, this was never truly taught. The idea is a misunderstanding of a few quotes made by early leaders, but this is not what they were teaching.”
This the thing that is so deceiving about the Mormon Church and how it presents its past leaders and their teachings. I just praise the LORD that He led me out of the darkness and into the Light. He wants to do the same for you, Shematwater, but you first have to be humbled to the point that you actually admit that you don’t know whether or not JS was a prophet or that the BOM is true. I’ve been there, Shematwater, and it is the moment of deliverance!
Peace and Grace to you and yours!
Amanda,
Can you please explain the list of verses you have at the end of your post? I am sure it is just me but I cannot see a relevence to your position that the BoM tells us anything from God.
Amanda asks: …why reject the notion of another testament of Jesus Christ divinely brought about through His servant, Joseph Smith?
Two reasons. First, the Bible has not failed me yet. And second, Joseph Smith was a con man.
Michael P asked if Joseph was well read.
I think he didn’t need to be. His family were steeped in freemasonry. When it came to inventing a new, restored freemasonry (read “Gospel”), he ransacked the nearest, most convenient source of religiosity, which he found in his family’s traditions.
I’ve got to laugh at some of the debate above.
I mean, we’ve got supporters of Joseph Smith trying to persuade us that the Bible has been unreliably transmitted or translated.
Judging from the travesty that goes under the header “Book of Abraham”, the unfinished “translation” of the Kinderhook Plates, and the alterations in the “Joseph Smith Inspired Translation” of the Bible, I am compelled to conclude that Joseph Smith had not got the faintest glimmer of understanding of what a translation of the Bible actually is.
Its like Ghengis Khan criticizing the world for not maintaining world peace.
There are men who are more ignorant of the Bible, but none has so brazenly attempted to sell their ignorance to the public under the guise of “continuing revelation”.
Linda,
You make a good point. I know my Masters voice (John 10:3-5) and it doesn’t sound like Joseph Smith.
Martin,
I agree, he didn’t have to be. But I brought it up because so many Mormons think of him essentially as a dumb farm boy who would have no way of being able to put together something like the BoM without the help of God. But you are right a solid knowledge of Masonry might just do it, too…
David,
I worship and revere only one person as my true God. I do not worship or revere anyone or anything else as my god. If that makes me polythiestic then so be it. And that is not misleading that is the truth. What is misleading I the way you try and make it sound as lf we worship and revere other beings/things as gods. As you know we teach that there is only one God for this earth and as you know that is how we interpret that verse. It still fits in with our faith.
“I worship and revere only one person as my true God. I do not worship or revere anyone or anything else as my god. If that makes me polythiestic then so be it. ”
Sounds confusing…
Care to expand?
MichelP,
I made that remark in response to a comment by David in which he used the Isaiah verse t point out that we LDS are polytheistic. I am just stating that we do not worship more than one god – we worship and revere only one being as our God. There is no other God for us to worship. So as I said to David, if that makes us polytheistic then so be it.
I watched a very interesting show on TV last night called “The Real Jesus – the hidden story of Jesus”. It was research done by a British theologian Robert Beckford. He was born into a Christian family and raised Christian and still believes in and claims to be Christian. He went to 4 different areas in the world that were centres of a certain religious belief and looked at the stories of those gods. They were very iinteresting and eye-opening. He looked at the stories of Krishna, Buddah and Mithras which all started centuries before Jesus Christ.
Krishna was considered god incarnate and was born by immaculate conception. His birth was foretold by an angel to an evil king, who in the propphecy was told that the child would kill him. So he went about and killed all the children in that area. Krishna’s birth was heralded by angels and shepards stood by witnessing the birth. His father was warned about the king and told to flee.
Buddah was also an immaculate conception. During his life he performed many miracles like healing sick, walking on water and feeding a multitude. He defied and taught against the current religion and his message was about peace.
Not much is known about Mithras because it has been defunct for centuries, but much of it is very similar to the story of Jesus’ life so it is unknown how much was borrowed by which religion by none believing researchers. But the birth date for Mithras was around the Winter solstice December 25th, which the evidence points to the Christians borrowing.
All of these 3 religions believed that these people were saving gods – ie they were sent by a higher god to save the people of the world and teach a better way of life. Now it has been asked many times on this site by the Evs about why shouldn’t the Krishnas be included as Christians because they believe in Jesus Christ. After watching that show the head Krishna that was interviewed said that they believe that Jesus was an incarnation of Krishna. Now I remember that some one made the comment that they believe that Melkezedic in the OT was an incarnation (or something to that effect) of Jesus. So yes why don’t you accept Krishnas as Christian?
The fourth religion touched on was Muslim. They believe in Jesus as a very holy being and that He will have a tomb beside Mohummad after resurrection. He didn’t say much else about the Muslim religion.
So Christianity do not have a monopoly on their god coming to earth to save the people, it is in a number of other reigions older than Christianity.
Why did I put this here? Part of the question above was about the BoM. Some of you say that JS just borrowed stories from the Bible and changed them and placed them in the BoM. Well that is what this person is implying about the Bible and the stories of Jesus’ life. He uses the verse by Paul when he says that he has become all things to all people and says that it means that Paul has adopted stories and other religious things from otther religions to get all to convert to Christianity easier without having to give up their religion fully. I thought it was interesting even though I disagreed with some of his comments.
Ralph– nice histories. You do realize that if accepted as true that would destroy Mormonism, too? My understanding is that the timing of these stories is off, ie that they did not precede Christianity as they claim to. His inclusion of Islam in there is a bit interesting, but alas.
But even still they don’t really address the issue of your polytheism, because as far as I know, you worship the son and the father as separate beings.
Of course, that is really off topic from this post: the Bible or the BoM as the better and more reliable word of God.
MichaelP,
Sorry for the confusion, the last part about the TV show had nothing to do with ‘monotheism/polytheism’ it was just out of interest. As for your statement about if the stories were true they would also destroy Mormonism. It depends on your meaning here. If they are true – as in they actually happened – then it would destroy all of Christianity, including Mormonism, yes I agree.
If you are saying that if it is true these stories do predate Jesus’ life, then I disagree with you there. We LDS teach that all religions are based on the one true religion that Adam and Eve had, but that they are mutations of it. We know that the prophets in the OT testified of Christ and knew much about His birth and life. Maybe somewhere a group splintered off from the Israelites and carried some of these ideas with them and incorporated them into thier ideology. This would give the appearance that these stories came out before the NT thus predating Jesus, when infact they are based upon the prophecies of His coming. In this case it does not destroy Mormonism, NOR does it destroy the rest of Christianity.
This show does not distract off topic as it is addressing a comment made by many who try and prove the BoM incorrect. As I said, they try and say look at the similarities of these stories – JS had tyo have taken from the Bible and changed them slightly. Or even, that JS copied pretty much word for word from the Bible and plagerised it. If this show is true then the Bible can be under scrutiny for plagerism.
Here is a link to a summary of the show – http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/hidden.html
Wikipedia has a biography for him and it says he was raised Pentacostal and he is now an academian with an appointment at Oxford Brookes university and has studied and lectured at Houghton College, NY; London Bible College, Middlesex; and Queens Colloege, Birmingham, He was studying and lecturing in Theology – so he is not just some ‘crackpot’ but a very well studied theologian. He does draw controversies from Christian groups because of his work – and as I said, I do not agree with some of the comments he made in the TV show. But it was interesting and shows that the Bible has the same criticism against it as the BoM.
So the question heading of this post – Do I believe in the Bible – the answer is YES. Why – because I have had a spiritual witness about it and I know that witness was from God. Do I believe in the BoM – YES. Why, because I have had a spiritual witness and I believe that that witness was from God. This is despite any proof/evidence against both books.
OK, so lets review these charges: JS plagerize the Bible. The Bible plagerized other religious texts or stories. Ergo, JS still plagerized the same sources the Bible did, and is not better off, and it kills Mormonism just the same.
Now, you do say that Mormons beleive that all religions point to a common God identified by different names. I have said before that Mormonism has an element or relativism in it and this point supports my theory. Relativism essentially says that there is no one truth because everyone views the world from a different point of view (vastly simplified, but it makes the point). This is similar to what you say here– all religions talk of the same God even though they come from different points of view.
The problem from a Christian’s point of view comes when you start talking about who that God is. The same God cannot, if he speaks to his creation, necessarily cannot say so vastly different things while claiming to be the one truth and offer one way to Him, through Christ. In other words, Christ cannot be God if he claims to be the same ‘I Am’ of the OT nor when he says the only way is through HIm. This precludes any possibility of Buddha or any other as a way to heaven.
So, in that sense, the film can refer back to our discussion because it all comes back to the Bible there. The Bible supposedly holds all we need to know in order to get to know God on a real and personal level, and to give us the wisdom to be able to spend eternity with him. If that is true, then the BoM cannot add anything else to the equation and is not the ‘better’ book.
MichaelP,
I did not say that all religions point to a common god – I said that all religions are mutations of the true religion that Adam and Eve had. They have changed their gods to different ones and thus do not worship the one and only true God. Please do not misquote me or misrepresent what I have said.
If I misquoted, my aologies. My understanding, though, is that Mormon’s do believe all religions contain some truth. I also know that you give them an opportunity to choose correct matters after death. I have also heard Mormons say it is very possible Christ appeared to other peoples throughout the world.
If these are incorrect as well, please advise. And I hope you then see why my comment made sense when I wrote it, given these other impressions. Quite frankly, it is such impressions that lead to the accusations that Mormonism will never settle onto a single presentation of the truth.
Think about it: some say Jesus could have gone to China 3000 years ago, then to India, for instance, before (or after) going to Jerusalem. Some Mormons say that all faiths have some truth, and you all leave open the opporunity to come to Christ after they die. So, differentiating my comments above and logically putting these others together leads to a bit of confusion, does it not?
All that said, I do welcome some clear answers bringing these things together in an understandable and consistent way.
MichaelP,
Just been thinking about your comments on the relationship between the Bible and BoM. The LDS teach, and it is written in the BoM, that the BoM is a complementary volume to the Bible – ie they are both necessary; it is not an either/or situation. In that respect, if the Bible is false then so is the BoM, I agree with that – but that does not make the Bible ‘better’ than the BoM. If the BoM is true, then it is the ‘better’ book as it was translated by divine authority whereas the Bible was not; it was preserved better than the Bible as there was only one author (Mormon abridged the plates, thus he is the author) and one transmission – ie the gold plates. We have the original hand written translation by OC et al. to go back to to check for mistakes, which has been done. This is not the case for the Bible – we have old manuscripts but not the originals and some of these do show differences/corruptions/discrepencies.
Some faults with your logic: First, if Mormon abridged the plates, he summarized them. If he summarized them, he was not the author, rather, he acted more like an editor. Second, on its face having an original translation fails. I hope you can see why. It is a translation, orginal or not.
So, you now state that some plates that no one else has seen or verified because they no longer are present on this earth were edited by a source no one has heard of outside of the plates. The only record we have of the plates are the original translation of these edited plates.
So, we only have a translation of something that that a) was edited and b) is no longer here for us to compare. And, there have been several rewrites of this original translation already.
All of that compared with the vast amount of consistent copies of copies of copies through centuries and centuries.
The truth is, you do not have any more of an original than what we have. You’ve got a story with nothing else to suggest it is true except a few scholars (vast majority are Mormon themselves) who give a stretch of a possibility to the claim of its veracity. We have loads of supporting historical, archeological, and literary consistency to the loads of consistent documents providing the information.
Is there a choice to which you want to say is more valuabe? Yes.