In the early 1500’s, a man named Martin Luther figured out something important — the Roman Catholic Church, of which he was a devout member, was abusing its power. Among other things, the church was selling — for money — forgiveness and passes to heaven.
Luther could see that the Church was in error because Luther had thoroughly studied the Holy Bible.
In Luther’s day, the Catholic lay-people knew little of what was in the Bible. The Catholic clergy used a Bible written in Latin, a language that the common people did not speak or read. The clergy, by keeping the Bible to themselves in this way, were free to misinterpret the holy book to their own benefit — and thus they did.
In an attempt to end the wrongful practices of the Church upon the people, Luther himself translated the Bible into German. Though he did not, at the time, particularly agree that a few of the books belonged in the Bible, he did not presume to add to, nor take away from, the Bible as it was. He translated God’s Word, making it accessible to the masses.
Skip ahead three centuries. In the early 1800’s, a man named Joseph Smith produced a book called the Book of Mormon, which condemned the Catholic Church for its errors, calling it the “great and abominable church”. It should be understood that the “Reformation”, a movement that had started with Martin Luther, would have been widely recognized by Smith’s day.
This is a good time to add just a little more information about the Reformation. According to Theopedia.com,
“The theology of the Reformers departed from the Roman Catholic Church primarily on the basis of three great principles:
* Sole authority of Scripture,
* Justification by faith alone, and
* Priesthood of the believer. ”
In other words, in the view of the Reformers (who had read and studied the Bible for themselves), where the Catholic Church was most errant was in
1- Going above/around the Bible for spiritual/religious doctrine
2- Teaching that justification had more requirements than faith in Christ
3- Claiming exclusive “priesthood” for the religious elite, rather than for each born-again believer (1 Peter 2:9).
Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon claimed that the Catholic Church had erred by taking many “plain and precious truths” from the Bible, and that he was the one to restore those truths. This post is not going to address his work on the Bible, other than to state that it is easy to prove that what Joseph “restored” came from his creative imagination and desire to prove himself a prophet.
The question for this post is, given that Mormonism in its inception considered the Catholic Church to be the church of the devil (or at least the main face of said church), why has it done the exact same thing?
Specifically:
1- The Mormon Church claims that there is authority over and above the Bible: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price (all produced by Joseph Smith), and the teachings of the LDS authority figures.
2- The Mormon Church has added to faith many other requirements.
3- The Mormon Church teaches that priesthood is only for worthy LDS male members.
The Catholic Church was able to keep its people subjugated to the Church, its leadership, and its false teachings by keeping them away from a knowledge of the Holy Bible.
Martin Luther, by exposing people to the biblical gospel and making the Bible more accessible, freed people financially, emotionally, and spiritually from the religious wrong-doings of the Roman Catholic religion.
The Mormon Church keeps its people subjugated to the Church, its leadership, and its false teachings by keeping them away from a knowledge of the Holy Bible.
The LDS have the Bible in their homes, in their own language. But their religion still keeps the Bible truth out of their minds and hearts in at least five ways:
1- The LDS religion insists that the Bible can not be trusted (cf. the 8th Article of Faith).
2- The LDS religion has created and taught new definitions for terms in the Bible, so that when a Mormon reads the Bible, s/he is confused. Some examples of this are the teachings a) that there are two God the Father’s (one above the other), b )that “salvation” equals universal resurrection by grace, distinguished from exaltation by works/merit, and c) that ‘priesthood’ is an authority or power that gets handed down from one faithful (to the church) Mormon man to another.
3- The LDS religion emphasizes Book of Mormon reading over Bible reading. The Book of Mormon contains plagiarized sections of the KJV Bible, with minor wording removed or inserted. It contains Bible stories with new character names and reworked story details. It also contains separated and recombined Bible passages. Because a Mormon is typically more familiar with the Book of Mormon than the Bible, Bible comprehension is negatively affected by the reader’s Book-of-Mormon ‘lenses’.
4- The LDS religion has an official version of the Bible, the KJV. The King James Version, written in Old English, contains uncommon words and phrasing. More modern Bible translations, such as the NKJV or the NASB, are much more easily understood by the modern reader.
5- The LDS Bible comes with chapter headings. These headings look like they are brief overviews of each chapter. However, they are really used to promote Bible-contrary LDS church doctrine. For instance, the chapter heading for 1 Corinthians 8 teaches that there are many real gods, just as Joseph Smith did from this same piece of scripture.
I was a Mormon. Like Martin Luther, I’m protesting that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is keeping their members away from a knowledge of the truth of the Bible. My efforts, and those of people like me, will probably not bring the Mormon Church to its knees. But my prayer is that many Mormons will still find the Bible, and because of it, be freed from Mormonism and saved into the Life of Jesus Christ.
setfree asked
Interesting question, and I get your point about using a chapter heading to summarise what you think the focus of the text is about.
Let’s not forget, however, that verse numbers and chapter headings were introduced to the Bible about 1600 years after it was written. According to Wikipedia, the Geneva Bible was the first translation of the English Bible that used verse numbers (PS I’m using wikipedia because it’s convenient, not because I think it’s the font of all canonical knowledge).
Question, then; does the indexing of the Bible and the introduction of chapter headings reflect a change in how we read the Bible?
What I mean is, the people in Biblical times (and for 1600 years afterward) would reference a text by stating its opening phrase. For example, the Book of Genesis was referenced by quoting its opening phrase “Bereshit” (In the beginning…). Thus, when someone quoted scripture, all he/she would do was say “Bereshit”, and the full story of the creation would cascade in the audiences’ minds from there.
It’s this approach that leads me to think that in Jesus’ statement on the cross in Matt 27:46, he is giving us a narrative to understand what’s going on. In this way, Jesus does not say “Psalm 22 verse 1”, he quotes the opening line to the text with the expectation that his audience would follow the succeeding narrative in their own minds. This interpretation, I think, gains more weight when you consider that John finishes off the Psalm with Jesus’ last words in John 19:30 (Psalm 22:21c).
Now we have chapter and verse, I wonder if we “hear” the Bible differently. What chapter and verse do is to give us a convenient (invaluable?) referencing system, but it also allows us to condense, reduce and sort. The drawback is that now we don’t need to know the full narrative; we can dice the text into discrete chunks and loose sight of its flow.
…ctd…
One example of this, to which I objected to, was when I was studying OT through the Moore College correspondence course. The course did Exodus by starting with Chapters 1-19, then continuing with Chapter 20 onwards. I suppose they had to make a break somewhere, but to me they had disconnected the 10 Commandments (Ex 20:1-17) from its preamble (Ex 19:3-6).
Another example is the apparent separation of the text at Matt 13:1. Try this; ignore the verse numbers and proceed from Matt 12:46 to Matt 13:9, noting that when the Jews talked about the “seed of Abraham”, they are talking about their own “mother and brothers” and other blood relatives. The question then becomes “who are the seed of Abraham”, and the answer is about a person’s relationship with Jesus (see Matt 13:38).
I’m sure I don’t have to persuade you that your passage “Food sacrificed to idols” (NIV) in 1 Cor 8 needs to be set in the context of the whole of 1 Cor, and 1 Cor needs to be set in the context of Jewish/Gentile relationships in the primitive church. For what it’s worth, I see that it focuses on the believers’ attitudes, rather than abstract theological absolutes, though I hasten to add that the practicalities flow from a coherent understanding of the One God.
I think you’re right. For anyone to suggest that 1 Cor 8 supports the notion of cosmic henotheism, they have to rip it out of context.
Though Joseph seems to have got it wrong, at least we can credit him with ignoring the chapter heading and reading the substance of the text. It’s a pity he wasn’t interested in what anyone else had to say about the text (every one else belonged to a great and abominable apostate church, remember), or he might have kerbed his radical reinterpretations of it.
Parallels with the Spaulding Manuscript and the Book of Mormon …ur…plagairisms
An account of Baska… attended by
his wife and four sons, the eldest
(p. 32 chapter heading; p. 33)
An account of Lehi and his wife Sariah and his four sons… the eldest
(1 Nephi: book heading/summary)
band of about three thousand
(p. 100)
little band of two thousand
(Alma 57:6)
It is impossible to describe the horror
of the bloody scene . . . the blood and carnage
(p. 105)
It is impossible . . . to describe . . . horrible scene of the blood and
carnage
(Mormon 4:11)
the rights of their country
(p. 31)
the rights of their country
(3 Nephi 6:30)
die . . . in the cause of their country
and their God
(p. 79)
died in the cause of their country
and their God
(Alma 56:11)
Crying with a loud voice
(p. 80)
Crying with a loud voice
(Alma 46:19)
they pierce my soul like daggers
(p. 88)
daggers . . . pierce their souls
(Jacob 2:9)
Determined to conquer or die
(p. 91)
Determined to conquer . . . or die
(Alma 56:17)
in a dark, dreary swamp
(p. 12)
in a dark and dreary waste
(1 Nephi 8:7)
Cast up his eyes towards heaven
(p. 75)
Cast their eyes towards heaven
(3 Nephi 17:24)
paleness began to cover her face
(p. 61)
paleness which has come upon your face
(Helaman 9:34)
had fallen by the sword
(p. 111)
had fallen by the sword
(Alma 56:51)
fatigued with a long and difficult journey
(p. 20)
fatigued because of their
journeying
(1 Nephi 16:19)
all . . . who fell into their hands
(p. 97)
all . . . who fell into their hands
(Alma 17:20)
by . . . wild ferocrous beasts
(p. 7)
by wild and ferocious beasts
(Mosiah 17:17)
fled to the army of Rambock
(p. 105)
fled to the army of Aaron
(Moroni 9:17)
he put forth his hand and
(p. 28)
he put forth his hand and
(Alma 30:51)
he… bid her adieu
(p. 113) [cf. p. 19]
I bid farewell… adieu
(Jacob 7:27)
there are 5 or 6 more pages of these…
Go here folks, for the full disclosure … it is mind blowing … http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/vernP2.htm#pg28
oh beresh** martin, you were censored….
…ha ha, thats my LOL for the day.
I never thought the profanity filter would censor my English alliteration of the Hebrew, but I guess it’s got to do it’s job.
For those of you who missed it, the word in question is the first word of Genesis 1, here…
http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp
…(and it’s got nothing to do with any English word that might resemble some components of it).
PS I was just reading the Hebrew at http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp
My Hebrew is very rudimentary, but I noticed the phrase for the “Spirit of God” in Gen 1:2, which is transliterated as “veruach Elohim”, or וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים
(I trust I’ve got the right Hebrew words in that quote)
We have debated here before whether Elohim means a plurality of Gods, chiefly because the word ends with the masculine plural “…im” (if it were feminine plural, it would be “…ot”).
I’m wondering then, that if Elohim means “gods”, then we should also expect to see a plurality of “spirits” (breaths), as in “veruachim Elohim”.
However, the Hebrew text for “Spirit/breath” appears to be plainly singular (“veruach”, not “veruachim”). Therefore, as there is only one “spirit/breath”, there can only be one being whom it (technically, He) animates, which is the One God.
Anyone else care to comment?
(PS, I have retained the “ve” construction, which I understand is akin to “and”. The earliest Hebrew scripts were not as strict with their word-boundaries as modern English, or even modern renderings such as the website above)
Martin,
This is not all that complicated or maybe my mind runs to the simplistic but all we need to ask is what set the Hebrews a part from their neighbors. It was that they were monotheistic. So Mormons can play their word games but we know that the tradition of the Jews was one God. That’s the whole point of the religion. Mormons are always trying to make their aberrant and just plain wrong ideas fit the Joseph Smith narrative.
I have suggested several times that Mormons go and find themselves a orthodox Jewish rabbi and ask him the most fundamental questions regarding Mormonism and see if that’s what the Jews believed and practiced. The fact is that Mormons have to cast about creating scenarios that support their emotional commitment to Mormonism. That’s why we get these fantastic explanations about magic rocks, polygamy, anything dealing with the BoM, and claims by Mormon prophets that men are living on the moon and the sun.
If someone wants to believe something badly enough, any explanation will do. As long as Mormons are stuck in their wards repeating historical and doctrinal jibberish to each other, they will continue to believe and process information like the dutiful cult members that they are.
The article posted by setfree caused me to go back this morning and look at two back issues of Christian History magazine which were devoted to Martin Luther. One dealt with his early years and the other with his latter years. Luther was a very impressive guy with an incredible intellect. Before he became a friar he was on his way to becoming a lawyer and had earned both bachelor’s and master’s degrees in the shortest time possible.
His story is all the more intriguing because of how he struggled in his personal life to come to grips with the fundamental aspects of his faith, especially salvation. He had entered a monastery and for all of his conviction to the monastic life, couldn’t find any peace. “He did not simply engage in prayer, fasts, and ascetic practices (such as going without sleep, enduring bone-chilling cold without a blanket, and flagellating himself), he pursued them earnestly. As he later commented, ‘If anyone could have earned heaven by the life of a monk, it was I.’ (pp. 10-11, Issue 34)
The superiors of his order had him undertake the study of theology so he could become one of the order’s teachers. Luther had attacks of doubt regarding his salvation and he approached his theological studies like a mathematician studying a difficult problem.
The bottom line was that no matter how much he confessed his sins; because of the human tendency to sin, one couldn’t confess enough. Romans 1:17 provided an invaluable insight. His eyes were drawn to the word “righteous” not the word “faith”. Who could live by faith? Only someone who was already righteous. Luther knew that he couldn’t live by faith because he wasn’t righteous. Despite the reassurance of his superior: “Yet my conscience would never give me assurance, but I was always doubting.” (his righteousness) (p. 12)
Finally, guided by Psalm 72 he began to understand that God gives us righteousness. He asserted that all the attributes of God, “truth, wisdom, salvation, justice”, “were “the things with which he makes us strong, saved, just, wise.” (p. 13)
So the point is, we can’t make ourselves righteous. As Christians we understand righteousness is a gift that God offers us through faith. Now Mormons will never understand this because their god demands much from them in order for them to be part of the pantheon of gods. Is it any wonder that we get no where in our discussions on topics such as grace, faith and righteousness. We’re not talking about the same god. The god of Mormonism is a pagan god that Mormons worship in their pagan temples. The Mormon god is a god that was conjured-up by the founder of Mormonism, the occult practitioner Joseph Smith. So the context of Mormon righteousness is the end result of their achieving deification.
Those who believe this fable of Smith’s, don’t trust the Bible. That’s because the Bible reveals God, His Son, his mercy, love, righteousness and His plan of salvation. God is a jealous God. He doesn’t tolerate false gods or the people that worship them. He especially takes exception to those who malign His Word and twist it to achieve the blasphemous ends that Mormonism teaches.
God has made Himself evident to all men. Mormons choose to reject Him in favor of a belief in a multiplicity of gods. Their hearts are hardened against God. Their pride will end in their spiritual destruction.
Martin,
I have no doubts that there are people who have heard that “elohim” is used, in the Bible, both for the one true God, as well as for false gods and idols – but don’t know why the translators chose “God” in some cases, and “gods” in others. I wanted to say thank you for bringing that out.
Falcon,
Too bad every LDS person does not have the ability to walk through a Hall of Fame, of sorts, of all persons on earth who have been extremely good at commandment keeping. In this way, they could get an idea of what it might be like at their judgment.
“Are you seriously going to tell me this is the best you could do?”
“Um, um, well…um, but…”
setfree,
Honestly I’m saved, washed in the blood of the Lamb; justified, being sanctified and will be glorified and I’m still embarrassed that I haven’t done more to live out my faith in Christ in a more effective manner. And I realize that my works have nothing to do with my salvation, that I’m saved by grace a part from my works, but still……I take my commitment to Christ very seriously, might I say most seriously and as such I still see a gap between what I am and what I think I should be.
That’s why I get more than a little cranky when Mormons intimate that Christians don’t care about their spiritual walk and think they can sin with impunity now that they are saved. They obviously haven’t read the Bible especially where Paul says in Romans 6:15 “….Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” Despite what the Bible says and despite what orthodox Christianity teaches, we keep hearing from Mormons that Christians believe they can continue to sin because they are saved. I’m thinking that’s what Mormons want to believe (about Christianity) because it fits more perfectly with the Mormon narrative.
Luther had the intelligence, curiosity and drive to go to the Scriptures and find out what God said and not what the Catholic Church said it said. Luther had to work a revolution in his own life that contradicted everything he’d ever been taught.
If Mormons really want to know God, they must do the same. That takes boldness and a desire to think outside the established norm. Many Mormons have come to Christ through a serious study of God’s Word. These folks risk a lot in their personal lives by doing so, but they reap the reward of the upward call of God on their lives.
It’s been awhile folks. I am not sure I will be back like before but I could just not resist this one; there is a lot to unpack here. Setfee, you seem like a nice guy but I am going to lay into you a bit.
Prior to the Reformation the “Catholic” church was not all there is and all of Christianity was not “catholic” at least in the modern sense of the word. The early church fathers and other pre-reformation clerics and theologians were not Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Protestant, etc. – though their words are often pressed into service as though they are.
The Reformers did not see themselves as breaking away from the catholic church (big “C” or little “c” take you pick). They were calling out that which they saw as unbiblical – and it was. The often used phrase “it didn’t/doesn’t work that way” applies here.
The Protestant Reformation is/was a primitivist movement (Mormonisms are other such movements) and as such it tried to get back to a faith that was closer to its primitive roots. The Reformers could read (most people, Christian or otherwise, in the 16th century could not read the Bible because they could not read) the books of the Bible as well as the writings of ancient councils and theologians. They knew that not only were there abuses of power going on, but that the entire framework of church authority was out-of-whack.
Scripture stands in authority over and above tradition (small or big “T” take you pick). The church of any age did not posses the level of catholicity (universality) that modern, or even 16th century, Rome claims that it did. Consider Bishop Augustine. He is/was the greatest theologian in church history and probably the greatest shaper of western civilization. His views greatly influenced Calvin and Luther and they were most certainly at odds with 16th century Rome. He did not even believe in transubstantiation.
His views on salvation greatly influenced the Council of Orange. Reader, take me up on this challenge – read the Council of Trent and read the Council of Orange and ask yourself if they are saying the same thing.
Take me up on another challenge – read the NT and show me where it mentions a monarchial episcopate. A single head for all of Christianity was a theological development, even the office of bishop (in the modern sense) was a development. The NT and the primitive church only knew/know of diakonoi and prebytoi (deacons and elders). Papal supremacy and infallibility were further theological developments (along with transubstantiation, the Marian dogmas, Treasury of Merit, etc.) that went against the governance of the church in ages past. Even a bishop of Rome was excommunicated and anathematized (posthumously) by the sixth, seventh, and eighth ecumenical councils. That, along with the Council of Orange, are considered part of the magisterium.
I believe that many Christians of various stripes have the faulty impression (same as I used to have) that the “Catholic Church” was it (and only it) and the reformers were “catholic” and then broke away. Again, it doesn’t work that way and history is not so clean cut. It appears that J. Smith and Mormonism has/had this view. The apostles (allegedly) appeared to Smith and setup a church structure that did not appear until almost the middle ages.
The Mormon Church commit’s a similar error to the modern catholic church in that an individual must go through the church in someway for “salvation” (I know this is a flexible term to use in conversations with Mormons). The Catholic must have the sacraments and the Mormon must have some of those (like baptism) plus be in someway connected to the church’s “priesthood authority” -or as Martin once put it “totem”. The church is necessary and has a unique function but it does not grant absolution. A sacerdotal priesthood is another theological development.
Absolution is God’s job and He handles it without an intermediary . . . that is unless you consider the second person of the Trinity a priest.
One of the greatest achievements of the Protestant Reformation was the subsequent advances in literacy that accompanied it. As Martin Luther once put it he had made theologians out of “milk maids”. Only one other group rivals the reformers in devotion to the Book – Jews. In no other culture could Jesus walk around and say “It is written” and people would know what he was talking about. The Tenach was quoted freely by Jesus and his disciples and are we not all better for it?
Aaron,
Thanks for being blunt about the state of Catholicism. Dead Puppies?
Falcon,
I have seen you post the same thing before about the debate between Walter Martin and the priest – his name is Mitch Pacwa. He is an educated guy and knows what I stated above – that many of the theological distinctives of the Catholic Church were not handed down buy the Apostles but are the result of a (sometimes long) development.
I have seen the show you are referring to and they were not saying the same thing. I like you man but I got to keep it real.
David Whitsell wrote
Nicely put.
Now, when we hear Jesus say “it is written” in the Gospels, I suppose our challenge, then, is to start by asking not “what does it mean to me“, but “what did it mean to them“.
Anyway, I am convinced that a better answer to the latter question will give you a better answer to the former.
David,
It’s been several years since I’ve watched that debate but honestly I couldn’t hear the difference. What I mean by that is I didn’t hear either one of the debaters say that we can work our way into eternal life. I do recognize a difference after the fact but I don’t think a Catholic would say that they can or need to justify themselves a part from Christ finished work of the Cross. I’m thinking it has more to do with the process of sanctification. But I’m willing to be corrected if wrong.
I’ll check it out further. Thanks for the input.
David,
Check this out. I hope the link works. It’s worth the two minutes 14 seconds it takes to watch it. It’s about the joint declaration on salvation by the Lutheran and Catholic churches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtfVgY2AVU
falcon
“Now, when we hear Jesus say “it is written” in the Gospels, I suppose our challenge, then, is to start by asking not “what does it mean to me“, but “what did it mean to them“.
Anyway, I am convinced that a better answer to the latter question will give you a better answer to the former.”
Amen to that!
I had some further thoughts, following from David’s comment about the high value placed on “the writings” at the time of Jesus and in the Reformation. I think the comparison is apt, because the reformers in both periods (I’m counting Jesus and his followers as “reformers”) appealed to “the writings” as the place to go to for “the truth”, as opposed to someplace else, like a person’s conscience, or the incumbent religious leadership.
For me, simply quoting 2 Tim 3:16 doesn’t “nail” it because it was written before the completion of the NT. But it does underscore the high value placed on “the writings” by the NT authors and the majority Jewish people they were writing to (at the time the Gentiles would have heard the Christian Gospel through the Jewish community). This respect for scripture runs through the entire NT. The NT also assumes that its audience is familiar with “the writings”.
For example, I read the whole of 1 Cor yesterday (following from an earlier comment here). In 1 Cor 4:6, Paul writes “…so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, Do not go beyond what is written.”
The saying itself is not quoted from scripture, so it must have been part of the vernacular of the Jewish/Gentile community of believers at Corinth at the time. In other words, they would say to each other “do not go beyond what is written”. In order for the saying to have any meaning, there must have been a common knowledge of what was written (or at least the knowledge of where to go to find what was written) and a common respect for what was written.
The Corinthians didn’t get it all right, as Paul’s letter demonstrates, but without the common knowledge and respect for scripture, Paul would not have had any basis for his appeals.
Fast forward to the Reformation, and we see Martin Luther and co. framing their appeals in the same way. Fast forward to today, and this should be the basis of our appeal to anyone who places any sort of value on “the writings”.
In the lead article, setfree wrote
setfree is an ex-Mormon, and I can’t help but contrast her reading of 8AoF to mine. She reads 8Aof to mean the Bible cannot be trusted; I read it to mean that it can (provided the translation is good).
My problem here is not whether I am right or whether setfree is right. My problem is with the ambiguity of the statement. If two people can read it and come up with mutually contradictory meanings, what’s the point of the statement?
Either;
1 Joseph Smith just wrote it badly, though we should note the author’s demonstrated skills with the English language and his claims to divine giftings in other languages;
Or;
2 It’s deliberately misleading; it can be “spun” to appeal to a non-Mormon like me, whilst at the same time, it can be “spun” to appeal to a Mormon like setfree, in her previous life.
It’s rather like McConkie’s (?) public statements about the Mormon doctrine of men becoming gods.
Aaron posted much earlier something about the Christian preoccupation with words as an overflow of meaning. Without doubt, the NT authors and the Reformers were concerned with the meanings of words. They used words to bring things to light. How different from the Mormons who use words to hide things in the darkness.
The Police, De Doo Doo Doo De Da Da Da.
Falcon –
Not everyone in “the” Lutheran Church was pleased with the joint declaration – many considered it to be a betrayal of the gospel. You can read more about it here:
http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/04/21/a-betrayal-of-the-gospel-the-joint-declaration-on-the-doctrine-of-justification/
The way the video ended with we “cooperate with God in our good works” opens the door wide for people to think they are justifying themselves and earning their salvation. Some Catholics understand the nature of salvation and are trusting Jesus. I saw a video online one time where a guy stood outside a Catholic Church and asked the parishioners why they believe they would go to heaven. Most focused on being a good person, helping others – but then one lady said “because of what Jesus did for me on the cross – he took my sin” or something very close to that. She got it. My thought after watching the video was that it is sad that so many do not understand. HOWEVER, I would like to see the same test run outside of an Evangelical Church, a Lutheran Church, a Presbyterian, etc. etc. I think you would get about the same thing from many people going in. Some how a lot of people miss the essence of the gospel and revert to a man centered, works centered religion – where you’re working your way to some eternal reward. Work all you want, you’ll never get there that way.
Martin,
The 8th AOF was brilliantly written to cast doubt on the Bible and open the door to the heresies taught by JS. I agree with setfree’s presupposition regarding this.
Blessings…
David, believe me, I appreciate your comments –
Let me ask you just one question, which is really central to my post. Do you believe that if Mormons were able to really read/study their Bibles – and by that of course I mean that they were able to shed the brainwashes of reinvented definitions, contra-Bible study helps, general distrust of translation, etc etc — they’d (at the very least) see that their religion and the Bible oppose one another?
mobaby,
I think the point was that good deeds/works demonstrate the faith by which we are saved.
I was involved in the Evangelism Explosion program and that’s the question people are asked. My guess is and my experience was that most people would focus on getting into heaven by being “good”. I would guess that most of them believed that Jesus’ died on the cross to save sinners of which they are one. That’s why I found myself questioning the approach. What I mean is if someone can’t answer the question right does that mean they aren’t saved? Some folks just need to be better instructed.
wow, just saw this tonight, and it could not be any more clear
Psalm 116:6 “The LORD preserves the simple; I was brought low, and He saved me.”
That is my whole salvation story, right there.
He preserved what was simple, He brought me to it.
He brought me low, He saved me.
‘course, it goes on to say..
“Return to your rest, O my soul, For the LORD has dealt bountifully with you. For You have rescued my soul from death, My eyes from tears, My feet from stumbling. I shall walk before the LORD In the land of the living. ”
Hallelujah!
Hi all, I’ve been lurking for a while, and I thought I’d pop in and throw this out. How much of the works/grace issue comes from Philippians 2:12, where Paul says to “…continue to work out your salvation…”? I know a big part is semantics and the definitions applied to the terms by various groups, but I was wondering about your various takes.
Rae, thanks for chiming in!
I think the very next verse is important:
“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13)
So we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling, but only because God is working in us to will and to work for his good pleasure. Like Ephesians 2:8-10, it ends up being his workmanship and glory on display, not ours. And we can work out our sanctification knowing that “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6)
See these two articles for more info:
http://www.theopedia.com/Perseverance_of_the_saints
http://www.theopedia.com/Lordship_salvation
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron
Setfree,
I think there is a lot to your question, but I think you kinda answered it already. IF a Mormon could do what you described (shedding Mo spin) then “yes” I think a Mormon could see the dichotomy.
However . . . However . . . I think your post assumes (though rightly so) that the Bible is right and that contradiction with it is bad. For some Mormons, I do not think they would think that their religion (or at least a portion of it) being in some way at variance with the Bible as a bad thing. That may sound weird or counter-intuitive but I could think of a couple of ways that a Mormon could spin the situation.
Also, I do not want to single Mormons out like they are the only ones that twist the Bible and that they do it greater than any other group. Many people, and many groups, in at least one way get something in that book wrong and obviously so. I think there is a degree to which the Holy Spirit graces an individual by not letting him/her twist the word of God the way fallen humans are prone to do. Maybe, my monergist stripes are showing but the gospel really is simple and many (though not all) smart people fail to get it for emotional/spiritual reasons and not intellectual or even cultural reasons. In short, their (fallen humans not just Mormons) hearts get in the way of their heads and it takes a loving God to prevent that so His creatures can function “normally”.
Also if you are a “gal” and not a “guy” then sorry. Maybe I should just use the gender neutral word “person” 🙂
Thanks Aaron. I like that site. I got the perserverance of the saints , that makes sense. I’m going to have to did a little deeper into both sides of the Lordship salvation business though. Ahh, research, research, research. 😮
jackg wrote
Yup, I’m beginning to think it was a work of genius. I shouldn’t have underestimated Joseph Smith’s enviable command of the English language…
…which points quite conclusively at the second of the two options that I previously suggested.
David,
“For some Mormons, I do not think they would think that their religion (or at least a portion of it) being in some way at variance with the Bible as a bad thing.”
I agree… but… the church holds on to the Bible as if they do believe it, knowing they don’t. This, for one thing, gives the Mormon the impression that they are Christian. I always felt as though the leadership knew what was in the Bible, and whatever problems it had, and was passing the truth on to us as needed. Not so. The church only steals from the Bible whatever it wants to, while neglecting the central message, and the main ideas – like there being only one God. It’s the same thing as the 8th AofF. It’s a trap. Do we believe it? Um.. of course, it’s in our Standard Works, right? But in reality, no.
And of course other people do the same – however, this is MORMON Coffee. lol
Your question on my gender – I guess I should answer that and put the issue to rest. “gal” is correct. To be honest though, it doesn’t matter to me if someone uses the wrong pronoun. :}
gal,
I’m glad you’ve come out as a female and put all of the speculation to rest. I, on-the-other-hand, have chosen to keep my gender a secret. I will say, however, that I competed in the shot put for the East German women’s track team in the Olympics in the 70s. Well, I guess that doesn’t give much of a clue. Anyway, although it shouldn’t matter, it’s nice to have the perspective of a female exMormon. We don’t get a lot of that market niche out here. Give us a little of your “testimony” some time.
As to Mormons and the Bible, my experience here on MC tells me that Mormons have no idea, at all, about proper Biblical interpretation/exegesis. They are a warehouse of misinformation on not only the history of the Bible but what it says. The major problem is that they massage the text to reinforce a Mormon point-of-view. They don’t go to the Bible to determine what the Bible teaches. They go to the Bible to find any link, no matter what the stretch, to find anything that might support their aberrant and heretical doctrine.
Grindael,
Holley’s list of similar phrases used in Manuscript Found and the BOM is only convincing to individuals who have not read both books. There are several good articles that deal with this issue.
First of all, none of the similar words or phrases are distinct terms or words- they could be found in a multitude of other books. It would be different if they were place-names or other unique words like cureloms, etc. No such similarities are found in these two books.
Have you read Manuscript Found? If not, I invite you to do so and then tell me if Joseph plagiarized from Spalding. The language from the two books has so little in common, it is amazing that people still claim the BOM came from MF- most of the more academic arguments against the BOM make no such claims.
Holleys geographic map is ridiculous as well. Some of the New England towns he places on the map were not even in existence until the 1850s or later.
Many other place-names on the map are biblical names- so if Joseph were lifting the names from others, he simply could have done so from the Bible.
In addition, the placement of several of the BOM towns in relation to eachother are obviously incorrect in Holley’s map.
The link your posted is only “mind blowing” if a person knows nothing and does no research.
Jim, any comment on 1 Cor 8?
Jim.
I did. It’s still mindblowing.
This is off topic, but what if anything is said in the Bible or BOM about finding purpose in life? Or helping one find a good job? For some reason I never found the advice on being ‘saved’ good enough, specific enough or or any help.
Grindael,
I think it is interesting that you think those parallels are convincing, yet you place no signficance on the impressive parallels between the BOM and MesoAmerica.
Or the prallels between the BOA and the extra-biblical traditions and writings about Enoch and Abraham.
Seems a double standard to me. You can’t have it both ways.
What does plagiarism have to do with extra biblical traditions? It is not a double standard. Smith plagiarized from the Bible, so there would be a lot of similarities there. No, there is no double standard here, just common sense that so many blatant plagiarism that it blows the mind. Maybe you forget who you are talking to, I am someone who is intimately familiar with Mormonism and the BOM. I never make ‘light’ claims. That is why I posted the site, to let the reader make up his own mind. The problems with the maps is Smith was so vague (considering the BOM is a ‘historical document’) that it is hard to pin anything down with him. But the names and the similarities with New York contemporary names is indeed striking, and mind blowing.
Once and for all- what is the definition of plagiarism?
Joseph did not plagiarize the Bible. Does the BOM quote prophets and not give them credit? No. So use some other term other than plagiarize or you sound uninformed.
Grindael- honestly. I can recognize controversies or problems that a person might find with the BOM. The Holley material is not a threat to the BOM in the slightest. What I do give him credit for is he does not make big, outlandish conclusions- which is not something typical of people who write anti-BOM material.
Seriously- some of the names of New York towns he claims that Joseph borrowed came into existence after the BOM was published. Are you saying you think Joseph saw into the future?
And many are Biblical names. It is not exactly a slam-dunk proof that cities with Hebrew names happen to be found in a book that claims to have been a record of people of Hebrew descent.
And the geographical association is way wrong on many of cities on Holley’s map.
He made so many simple yet huge mistakes, it is hard to take him seriously.
Olsen Jim,
It would be interesting to find out if those NY towns that came into existence did not get their names from names already being used for that region – they just had not been incorporated? I don’t know – just a thought I had.
Holley explains your point in his book:
The following modern place names are actually located in the area of Spaulding’s Manuscript Story setting. All but a few can be found in gazetteers published prior to the Book of Mormon. Also shown is all companion list of Book of Mormon place names that are either identical or similar to the modern names listed. Some of these modern place names are located north of the Great Lakes in Canada.
You see it one way (the plagairism) others see it differently. Perhaps it would have been looked at differently if Smith had not included the same translation errors that the KJV translators did. Kind of looks suspicious, no?
But I was not focusing on the map, I was the word combinations I found fascinating.
enki asked
Its a fair question, and its not easily answered.
The reason I can’t answer it easily, is because my concerns with my Bible reading run to the “reason why” something is done, or the “reason why” something should be done. To my way of thinking, if we understand the “reason why”, then the specific applications will become clear, like finding a good job, who to marry, eating pork and all the other mundane decisions of life, big or small.
There’s a thread of thought here that has shaped our world so profoundly that its easy to miss; our lives become “better” if we understand our place in the universe. Think about it; what difference does it make if we understand it or not? Would we be happier or more fulfilled just by getting this knowledge? Being ignorant might be a tad irritating, but does it actually make a difference? What would happen if we said “we’ll never know, but so what?”
Finding the meaning, then is fundamental to how we make decisions, but the underlying assumption is that if we find the meaning, we’ll make better decisions.
The Good News is that God is intimately involved and interested in us, as a real person in your real situation. What God did in the Incarnation was to enter into our fleshly world and fill it with His eternal glory. Now, whatever mundane and ordinary tasks fill your daily life, they can be transformed by His presence. Its not that the tasks will change; rather that they become meaningful and worthwhile.
Having this sense of God’s presence will also affect your decision-making. For example, I find it hard to do something grandiose and self-glorifying when I’m sitting next to the humblest servant who ever lived.
Not a complete answer, but a start, perhaps.
Following on from Enki’s comment, there’s a bigger topic that I’ve been wanting the Ev community to address for a while;
What does it mean to be saved?
What I mean is, I’m concerned that we have too often tolerated shallow, existential thinking on the matter. “Outsiders” (I don’t mean the term in a perjorative sense) might be forgiven for thinking that we’ve got to “my sins are forgiven, so I’m going to heaven” without going any further.
Salvation is a future hope, but it’s also a present reality. My question is about what that present reality looks like. Never mind what will happen tomorrow (and who knows for sure?); what does it mean for today, in the here and now?
As for me, I know that Christ brings meaning and life into my “here and now”, which is why I bang on about the Incarnation so much. I also see the Bible being much more preoccupied with “today” than “tomorrow”.
I’m curious, though; what do other people think?
Olsen Jim said:
Once and for all- what is the definition of plagiarism?
Joseph did not plagiarize the Bible. Does the BOM quote prophets and not give them credit? No. So use some other term other than plagiarize or you sound uninformed.
As a believing Mormon I’m going to disagree with my brother here, at least on a matter of definition. And in doing so I must admit tht I consider OJ to be one of the fairest critics to frequent this site. That he endures patiently in this community is beyond me. In the same breath I will admit that I generally agree in full with what OJ has to say, and have learned several times from his insights (even though since we’re both just regurgitating FARMS stuff, really he’s just reminding me of stuff I’ve probably read before, but was just too dense to get the first time from Nibley, Petersen, Sorenson, etc. 😉 )
Anyway, with tht I’ll admit that I’m a bit surprised that OJ has trouble accepting that the BoM in many instances “plagiarizes” the KJV Bible. To plagiarize a text is simply to reproduce it without citing or crediting it as source (generally in a verbatim, or near-verbatim way, but not necessarily). And in that case the BoM no doubt plagiarizes the KJV to a fairly large extent.
While there are cases in which BoM prophets do credit the biblical source for the KJV text tht’s reproduced (like Nephi of Isaiah, or Jesus of Isaiah and Malachi), very often the KJV reproductions in the BoM go uncredited. That any Bible-believing Christian would have a problem with this is beyond me, as Jesus and Paul’s sermons freely plagiarize the Old Testament—most typically Deuteronomy & Psalms. In Jewish thought, the verbatim reproduction of scripture wasn’t considered plagiarism largely because the audience was familiar enough with the biblical text that there was no need for a formal acknowledgment of source. There is ever much plagiarism within the Old Testament – with prophets plagiarizing those who had gone before them, particularly text from the Torah. To think the BoM wouldn’t use scripture in more or less the same way would be to assume the BoM has no connection to the ancient Jewish world.
I’m certainly not saying that biblical plagiarisms prove the ancient authenticity of the BoM; rather, I simply pointing out the inconsistency of pointing them out as proof to disqualify the text’s antiquity. Really, the BoM’s use of biblical plagiarism is right in line with what we should expect of an ancient text with a biblical pedigree. And if God were to wish the biblical texts appearing in the BoM to reach the minds and hearts of its modern Christian audience as they were intended to reach the minds and hearts of its ancient audience, would we not expect God to convey that reproduced scripture using the biblical language familiar to the people? In early 19th century America the KJV had a clear monopoly as the people’s Bible. All other versions were at best novelty.
But what of the biblical plagiarisms in the BoM that are plainly anachronistic? For example, the section of the 1 Peter sermon recorded in, I believe, 3 Nephi; as well as the significant sections of Pauline writings (particularly 1 Corinthians) appearing in Mormon’s sermons recorded by his son in the very last chapters of the BoM? If you want to discredit the whole BoM on the grounds that men in 3rd century America couldn’t possibly have quoted Paul from 1st century Levant, then that is certainly your choice. And it’d be a rational choice, for sure. However, in doing so you’d be closing yourself off to a much larger and utterly original scripture that is right in the same playing-field as all the scripture that has come to us from early Christianity (scripture that has been preserved both inside and outside the biblical cannon). That is what the Book of Mormon has always offered to modern Christianity. And the text itself has never asked for anything more than that its readers seek its authenticity from God directly. That is, to ask for knowledge in the name of Jesus Christ – as did both Joseph Smith and Martin Luther. And as did I.
Sincerely, mutu.
Martin, for what it’s worth, I’d say “Spot on”, and also, thank you for being able to put such things to words so beautifully, and also for doing so!
Martin,
Thank you for attempting to answer the question. I have never understood being ‘saved’ or having a testimony in mormonism. Neither one really addresses my immediate concerns. I don’t consider my fincial/physical needs to be selfish. Or if selfish its for my continued existance. I was reading about judaism how these general needs are not inherently bad. Something that I never read before in reguards to abrahamic religion. (this was from the webpage judaism 101)However, I don’t know if any religion can tell me what contributions to the world of work will be the best for me.
Grindael,
You mention the parallel KJV verses in the BOM. Many critics point out verses in the BOM that read verbatum like the KJV.
But what is not spoken of or appreciated is the fact that of all the verses in the BOM that are also in the Bible, the instances in which they are exactly the same are the minority. The majority of “Bible verses” in the BOM are different than the KJV.
Studies of the verses that are not exactly like the KJV reveal some interesting things. Some of those verses parallel more closely older Bible manuscripts, or those that are “more correct.”
It is clear in analyzing all the BOM verses that seem to quote the Bible that it is not a case of simple plagiarism. It is much more likely that the text came from an ancient text that perpetuated some of the same mistakes that we see in the KJV as well as retained much of the meaning of some ancient copy of the text.
Much has been written on this for the interested researcher. Of those who invest the time in this pursuit, many come out saying that in the end, the BOM’s usage of Biblical passages is strong evidence for its authenticity.
Mantis- my main point is that the word “plagiarism” connotes a dishonest use of another document- to pretend to produce something of your own mind or intellect without giving due credit to the original author. And this is the meaning which BOM critics usually attach to the word.
If is fine for them to claim that the BOM claims to be authentic and is not. But saying it plagiarizes causes problems for the New Testament as well.