The book of First Nephi (in the Book of Mormon) reflects four significant (and similar) additions that Joseph Smith made to the original text before the publication of the second edition in 1837. The changes are indicated by italics in the following:
1830: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God
Now: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God (11:18)
1830: Behold, the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!
Now: Behold, the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! (11:21)
1830: yea, the everlasting God was judged of the world
Now: yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world (11:32)
1830: …the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father…
Now: …the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father… (13:40)
LDS apologists say that Joseph Smith made these “deliberate editorial insertion[s]” himself; he added the words “the Son of,” “as was his right as the translator,” in order to clarify the actual meaning of the 1 Nephi passages. The apologists conclude, “Although some have claimed that the meaning of the text was altered by these additions, a more plausible explanation is that the editorial insertions clarified to whom the verses referred.”
Though Mormons may find comfort in the idea that Joseph merely clarified these Book of Mormon verses, a thoughtful evaluation of the additions reveals that he also altered the meaning of his original English text.
Consider this. I am the mother of a particular human being called Dana, but I am not the mother of the son of Dana; I am the grandmother of the son of Dana. If official documents are altered to indicate that I am the mother of the son of Dana, I am then defined as the mother of an entirely different human being. This would not be a clarification; it would be a radical change. If, however, the original document were in error, the change would constitute both an altered meaning and a clarification (i.e., a correction that also served to clarify).
The Book of Mormon originally said the virgin is the mother of God. Now it says the virgin is the mother of the Son of God. Today’s Mormonism proclaims that the Father is God. The Son is identified as “also a God” (LDS Bible Dictionary, “God,” emphasis mine). Therefore, originally (if we take a literal approach) the passage taught that the virgin is the mother of God the Father; now it says the virgin is the mother of the Son of God the Father. It looks like Joseph Smith’s “editorial insertion” altered the meaning and clarified the subject of the passage. His original translation was in error so he corrected it. Or, as some critics of Mormonism believe, Joseph’s “clarification” became necessary because of his changing theology. They note that early Mormonism was Trinitarian, or perhaps Modalistic, but became polytheistic as Joseph developed his new religion. When one God became many Gods, more precise language was required for Mormon scripture to make sense.
A similar problem is reflected in the other three altered verses cited above. In Mormonism, remember, the Father and the Son are two different Gods. So is the Lamb of God the Eternal Father, or the Son of the Eternal Father? LDS apologists suggest that the answer is both. They say either reading (with or without “the Son of”) means the same thing because in other places in the Book of Mormon “the Eternal Father” clearly refers to Jesus Christ. If both renderings mean the same thing, then why was there a need for clarification through Joseph’s “editorial insertions”? Furthermore, if Jesus Christ is (or can be) the Eternal Father, then shouldn’t we consider the possibility that Joseph made this particular change in order to clearly define the Lamb of God as the Son of Jesus Christ?
An easier (and perhaps better) way to amend the 1 Nephi passages might have been to just use proper noun markers: “the virgin…is the mother of a God” and “the Lamb of God is an Eternal Father.”
Regardless of Joseph’s intent in placing “deliberate editorial insertions” into the Book of Mormon text–whether to alter or clarify or both–it is a curious thing. Did he initially mistranslate the passages and later receive divine instruction for fixing his mistakes? (Joseph no longer had the gold plates to check the accuracy of his initial translation.)
Or did Joseph realize, after the 1830 edition was published, that people were prone to misunderstanding those portions of the Mormon scripture and decide that he could make it easier to grasp by simply inserting words to support his own interpretation?
Or was it God Himself who determined that some parts of this inspired translation that had been accomplished “by the gift and power of God” turned out to be too ambiguous and therefore needed revision?
What seems most plausible to me is that Joseph Smith was not acting under divine guidance or inspiration when he wrote the Book of Mormon–or when he corrected his first published draft. As author of the Book of Mormon he had every right to alter and edit his text as he saw fit. And this is what he did.
All I want to know is, “Was the magic rock used when Smith made the changes to the original BoM text?” That could explain everything. BoM with magic rock translation; editing with or without magic rock, that is the question. Remember, paper covers rock, rock does not cover paper! We may need a ruling on this from the Mormons, because in Mormon logic, rock must cover paper! The magic is in the rock, not the paper. The truth is in the rock! If someone will stare at the rock, with a humble and sincere heart, all of these mysteries will be revealed to them. The rock is in the LDS vault in Salt Lake City. Bring out the rock at the next General Conference and all mysteries will be revealed.
Wasn’t there some kind of deal in the process of looking at the rock in the hat where “done” or “finished” or some such thing was declared to signify that the translation was correct? How can it be changed then? I know why. Smith started free-lancing which would make him a Mormon false prophet.
All truth is in the rock! Or is it in the hat? Where is Smith’s hat BTW! Unlike Frosty the Snowman, I don’t think there was any magic in Smith’s hat.
There’s no indication that Smith used his magic rock in his hat when he “translated” the BoA. Smith started to believe his own press and his ego led him into one huge debacle. Not that the BoM isn’t debacle enough, but at least the “plates” aren’t conveniently around unlike the papyrus; source of the BoA.
It really does make a difference as to how someone looks at who the Virgin Mary was in relationship to Jesus. Was Mary the mother of God? Was Mary the mother of the Son of God? Was Mary the mother of Jesus?
I would have to dig back into my Catholic theology, but I seem to remember that the “Church” went so far as to declare Mary “co-redemptrist” with Christ. That’s where wrong theology can lead if someone is off on the basics.
But with Mormons it really doesn’t matter if Smith changed the BoM or even if he declared the whole thing null and void. Because that’s the way Mormonism works. Anything works! It’s the desire to believe it that allows the accommodation of changing and even contradicting doctrine. Revelation is fun for Mormons and the object of great entertainment.
I agree Falcon.
You tell a Mormon that the Bible says that Jehovah is the only elohim, and they say “oh, that’s cuz Jehovah and Elohim are used interchangeably”
Ok. Why?
Why are they interchangeable? Cuz they are one “in purpose”?
Ok. How does that fit the bofM problem Sharon just brought up. Does being ONE IN PURPOSE mean that Mary the Virgin had them both?
You know what, everybody, there is a simpler way to understand the Bible, and even the BofM for that matter. You know what you need to do? You need to take the Isaiah verses as A MATTER OF FACT – that there is only ONE GOD, that there has ever only been one, will ever only be one. Jehovah God (elohim) knows of no others, He is the only ONE who can do what a GOD DOES – create everything from nothing, etc etc etc.
Once you do that, then it makes total sense that Jehovah and Elohim are both God the Father. CUZ THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME GOD!!!!!
There is only one God, Mormon friends. Just one God.
Everything else is just rewrite and cover-up of bad rewrites.
Sharon,
You make this issue appear as difficult and confusing as possible.
The question is “was the being referred to in the original manuscripts the same as the being referred to in subsequent editions?
Or more simply, can Christ be considered God?
The answer is yes to both questions.
First, consider that within that same vision recorded by Nephi, he talks of the sacrifice of the “Lamb of God.” I don’t think there is any question but that the Lamb of God was Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus can certainly be referred to as God. He is the God of the Old Testament; the God of Israel. He is God and a God.
He is also the Father of our salvation- we become His children through conversion. In this sense He certainly can be considered the “Eternal Father.” But He is also the Son of the Eternal Father.
Whether Joseph received instruction from the Lord to make the change, we don’t know. Was there controversy or confusion after the first edition regarding the identity of the being referred to, making the addition necessary?
The most obvious answer is that Joseph made the alterations to clarify to all who would read the book just who was being discussed. Given the catholic doctrine on the mother of God as well as the various churches that taught the trinity, I don’t think it surprising that clarification might be desired.
In reality, a person who believes in the Godhead could read the original version of I Nephi and not be confused.
When the text was originally written around 600 B.C., none of the councils had occured, and the doctrine of the trinity would have been foreign, making such a precise clarification less necessary.
Setfree,
The approach you advocate is essentially burying your head in the sand.
The Bible has many verses that seem to define God and the Godhead in different ways. Don’t want to go there, we’ve been down that road before.
You seem to be saying, ignore all the nuances and difficulties in interpreting all the old testament passages on the Elohim/Jehovah- one God/many God issue and simply subscribe to the intepretation that agrees with setfree’s opinion as appears in one particular verse.
That is fine for you. But if a person wants the full truth, they are gonna have to dig a little deeper than that.
Elohim and Jehovah are not “interchangeable” simply because LDS believe those two beings are “one in purpose.” The linguistic background is a little more complicated than that. And the research on that topic is primarily from non-LDS sources.
Interesting that Joseph missed at least one reference that contradicts his “changes.”
Alma 11:38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and ball things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.
OOOOOOPSIE!!
LDSTITANIC,
Christ created the earth and the heavens (meaning the planets, stars, etc.). This verse is perfectly consistent with LDS doctrine.
No oopsie there.
Is it possible to think too concretely? I think so.
This then begs the question…why was it so important to edit references in one book but leave them as originally “Stetsoned” in the rest?
Jim
“Jesus can certainly be referred to as God. He is the God of the Old Testament; the God of Israel. He is God and a God.”
Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, huh?
So, then, where does “Elohim” fit in?
OJ,
See that’s the problem with Christians, we just can’t do nuance like the spiritually superior Mormons. Mormons can nuance anything to fit what they desire to believe. I guess we are just to concrete and intellectually based in our thinking and need to get more into the flow of deep meaning hidden in ambiguity.
Mormons are very creative when it comes to attempting to justify the unjustifiable. Again, it all comes back to the desire to believe something. The Mormon narrative could change daily and Mormons would see it as a positive feature of the religion.
The only thing that Smith and Mormonism need, are people who are willing to suspend credulity in favor of a feeling.
Another related matter is when Smith decided to “update” the Book of Commandments to Doctrine and Covenants and changed things. He lost some folks at that point because they demanded consistency and he was delivering creativity. Again, it was just a matter of folks buying Smith’s claim to be a prophet restoring first century Christianity that allowed him and others like him to flourish.
The evidence of the scam is there and obvious to anyone that hasn’t bought the program emotionally. I’ve never been there so I don’t know what it’s like to have invested your entire life in a con. I do feel sorry for Mormons though up-to-a-point.
“You seem to be saying, ignore all the nuances and difficulties in interpreting all the old testament passages on the Elohim/Jehovah- one God/many God issue and simply subscribe to the intepretation that agrees with setfree’s opinion as appears in one particular verse.
That is fine for you. But if a person wants the full truth, they are gonna have to dig a little deeper than that.”
hahahahhhaaaha don’t make me laugh Jim. All that bluster sounds pretty impressive. But present a real case. Do some Biblical EXEGESIS, and then let’s talk about it
BIBLICAL EXEGESIS????
Setfree……..certainly you jest! The words “Biblical exegesis” and “Mormon” don’t go together. Mormonism was established and survives on creative Biblical interpretation and creative continuous revelation of a particular sort.
Christianity is built on the foundation of the Bible. Mormonism is built on a foundation of whatever happened to come into Joseph Smith’s mind and the minds of the leaders that followed him.
“Change” is the operative word in Mormonism. That’s why we see Smith changing the BoM and why there have been (how many?) changes subsequent to Smith. Smith even changed his own “vision” story, what?, five times. What is the latest count. He started out going to the woods to get assurance of forgiveness of sins which was pretty common stuff in his day. By the time he got to vision version five or six or eight we have a totally different god than the god that appears in the BoM.
The magic rock let Smith down obviously or he would have gotten it (BoM) right the first time. Can you begin to imagine how desperately a person would have to desire to believe Mormonism in order to come up with these fantastic explanations?
i know how hard it is to leave that mindset, falcon. I think it falls along the same line as Matt 19:24-26. :{
hey any/everybody!
a while back i remember seeing someone(s) using actual Hebrew lettering out here on MC. If you know how, will you please get in touch with me?
Thanks!!! ([email protected])
falcon,
Do you paste the same statements into every post you make? Sure seems like it.
My 6 year old daughter likely knows more about the BOM than critics like yourself who have never read it.
The answer to finding the truth about this problematic textual variant in the BoM is very simple. We’ll just use the same method we use to determine the most likely reading from the manuscript evidence. The passage was written in about 600 BC according to Jim. Seeing that the Nepholamanitic culture was super godly, literate and spanned the entire North American continent, we need to look at the thousands of examples of their literature that we find strewn across the country. Being a holy book surely the super godly Nephites would have wanted to copy their scriptures so all could have them. Like the bible, surely copying errors crept into the hand copied versions. All we need to do is compare Joseph Smith’s variant translations with the thousands of examples of the book of Nephi we possess to determine which is most likely the original reading (just like we do with the bible). Jim, do you happen to have a Reformed Egyption/ English BoM diglot that you can reference? I’m sure it will contain all of the major textual variants as well as an explanation of Joseph’s reasoning for his original translation.
OJ,
You are sure being your nasty self tonight. It doesn’t speak well for you as a Mormon. Why are you attacking me personally? If you can’t make a constructive presentation, maybe you should go to a Mormon site where you and the other Mormons can do faith building exercises like juggling magic rocks.
Look my friend, there’s a limited “set” of things to present when it comes to Mormonism or any of the cults for that matter.
I’m writing for those who pass by here not for you hardcore Mormons. If you can’t handle it, just ignore me. You’re not going to hurt my feelings. I know who my market niche is and it isn’t you.
Now why in the world would I read the BoM? The very idea gives me the creeps. All I have to know is who your god is. Once that’s established, there’s no need to delve into a piece of false scripture. I know enough about the BoM, Joseph Smith, the LDS church and the modern Mormon “prophet” to know that the whole deal is one black hole of deception. Why don’t you read the Satanic bible or the Koran? For the same reason I don’t read the BoM. It’s a false book and a waste of my time. Read a book that the guy created by putting his magic rock in a hat and interpreted some gold plates that weren’t even there by sticking his face in the hat.
That’s all I really need to know. Why don’t you do your six year old daughter an eternal favor and introduce her to Jesus instead of indoctrinating her into a religious cult. I certainly wouldn’t want to stand before God and have to explain why I taught my daughter to reject Him in favor of a false prophet with a false god. You have a responsibility before God to do right by your family. You’re suppose to be their spiritual leader. You know better when it comes to Mormonism but your stuck and to stubborn to get yourself unstuck. Do yourself and your family a favor and come to Jesus who is the only One who can provide eternal life for you and your family. The road to destruction is wide and your traveling on it. You need to turn it around.
I can generally tell when I’m getting under the skin of our Mormon posters. Let me explain a couple of things. Sometimes I’ll do quite a bit of research when formulating a post. I think most folks who’ve been around here will note that I use a lot of different source material. But I have a few favorite themes I like to bang away at. The reason for that is that these blogs are like talk radio. People are constantly tuning in and tuning out. Some, known as the lurkers, may only pass by this way one time. So with that in mind, I like to make statements that might get a “WHAT?” reaction and get that person agitated to the point that they’ll begin doing some further inquire that will lead them out of Mormonism.
My goal here is not to turn the Mormon posters. The Mormons who show-up and post aren’t going any where. They think they are defending Mormonism but about all they are doing is revealing the mind of the dedicated cultist.
The Evolution of the Mormon Gods
Smith explained in 1844 that he had ALWAYS taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages…” (see, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370)
But did he? Mormons say, ‘Well, he saw The Father & Jesus in 1820 didn’t he?” Did he? That’s not what Mormon History shows. In 1830 Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, and it describes God in this manner:
“And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said; Yea, there is a true and living God. And Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No. Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.” (Alma 11:26-31)
“And now, behold this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen” (2 Nephi 31:21)
Mormons will say the above does not prove anything, but these verses must be taken in their historical context. The above is pretty plain and simple, and for having the fullness of the Gospel the BOM nowhere mentions more than one God. Then there is this verse from the D&C, written down by Smith in 1830:
By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them. . . . Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end (20:17)
Same kind of language, almost Trinatarian in nature. When Smith revised the Bible (1830-31), he translated Genesis this way:
“And I, God said: Let there be light . . . And I, God saw the light . . . And I, God called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night. . . .” (Moses, 2:3-5)
If this was an ‘Inspired Version’, why did it not look just like the Book of Abraham, which uses Gods (plural) for the same verses, less than ten years later?
The answer is obvious.
Joseph Smith did not understand the difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and the teachings of Modalism. Modalism makes the assertion that God exists as one person that reveals himself in different modes, manifestations or dimensions, but God is not three distinct Persons.
In other words, in Modalism, since God is one, but in the Bible the Father is called God, Jesus is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God, therefore Jesus is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. The one person (Jesus) has two natures, divine being the Father and human being the Son. Thus, in this doctrine, Jesus acts sometimes as the Son (human) and sometimes as the Father (God) and yet other times the Holy Spirit. Take this scripture from the Book of Mormon:
“And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself [the Father] shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son. The Father because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son. And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God.” (Mosiah 15:1-5)
This doctrine would be expounded upon in Smith’s Lectures on Faith. In 1835 Smith replaced the 1833 Book of Commandments with a volume titled Doctrine and Covenants. Mormons who believe that the Lectures on Faith were never official doctrine need to read the preface closely:
“The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important DOCTRINE of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work.
The church viewing this subject to be of importance, appointed, through their servants and delegates the High Council, your servants to select and compile this work. Several reasons might be adduced in favor of this move of the Council, but we only add a few words. They knew that the church was evil spoken of in many places–its faith and belief misrepresented, and the way of truth thus subverted. By some it was represented as disbelieving the bible, by others as being an enemy to all good order and uprightness, and by others as being injurious to the peace of all governments civil and political.
.
We have, therefore, endeavored to present, though in few words, OUR belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of this society as a body.” (emphasis Smith’s)
“We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced…”
There are those Mormons who say Smith had nothing to do with the Lectures on Faith, and again I would refer them to the frontspiece of the Book:
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS: CAREFULLY SELECTED FROM THE REVELATIONS OF GOD. AND COMPILED BY
JOSEPH SMITH Junior,
OLIVER COWDERY,
SIDNEY RIGDON,
FREDERICK G. WILLIAMS,
(Presiding Elders of said Church)
PROPRIETORS.
This is why the Book was called DOCTRINE (Lectures) & COVENANTS (revelations). Like the verse from Mosiah, The Lectures on Faith describe the LDS DOCTRINE of who their god [at that time] was to them:
Lecture 5:
2. There are TWO personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power overall things–by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space–They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a PERSONAGE OF SPIRIT, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness:
The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;–he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, AND IS CALLED THE SON BECAUSE OF THE FLESH…”
Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?
A. They do. John 5: 30. I (Christ) can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me. John 6:38. For I (Christ) came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 10: 30. I (Christ) and my Father are one.
Q. What is this mind?
A. The Holy Spirit.
This is Mosiah 15:1-5 in a nutshell. Mosiah 15 also makes perfect sense in relation to this Lecture when it is realized that the early Mormon Church did not believe Jesus was Jehovah, but that the Father was. The Lectures on Faith were selected for that volume by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. The church accepted the committee’s compilation on August 17, 1835 as “the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.” (History of the Church 2: 243-6). So the Lectures on Faith were accepted as Doctrine by Unanimous Vote of the Church and were a part of the Doctrine & Covenants almost 100 years. Dr. Thomas G. Alexander, a Professor of History at BYU wrote in a July-August 1980 “Sunstone” article, “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine,” that:
”.. Revision (of the Doctrine and Covenants) continued through July and August 1921, and the Church printed the new edition in late 1921. The committee proposed to delete the “Lectures on Faith” on the grounds that they were “lessons prepared for use in the School of the Elders, conducted in Kirtland, Ohio, during the winter of 1834-35; but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons.” How the committee came to this conclusion is uncertain. The general conference of the Church in April 1835 had accepted the entire volume, including the Lectures, not simply the portion entitled “Covenants and Commandments,” as authoritative and binding upon Church members. What seems certain, however, is that the interpretive exegesis of 1916 based upon the reconstructed doctrine of the Godhead had superseded the Lectures…”
Joseph Fielding Smith said (concerning the Lectures):
“They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.”
If Smith had seen God & Jesus together in 1820, than just how did this DOCTRINE get in the Church’s Book of Scripture? Why would teachings on the Godhead not be ‘complete’ by 1835? In the light of this, Smith’s first version of the First Vision (written by him in 1832 in his Letterbook) makes much more sense:
“while in [the] attitude of calling upon the Lord [in the 16th* year of my age] a pillar of {fire} light above the brightness of the Sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filld with the Spirit of God and the [Lord] opened the heavens upon me and I Saw the Lord and he Spake unto me Saying Joseph [my son] thy Sins are forgiven thee. go thy [way] walk in my Statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have
Eternal life”
Given Smith’s Modalistic belief at the time, this version of the first vision makes perfect sense when taken with the DOCTRINE set forth in the Lectures on Faith. God the Father was manifesting himself to Smith as the Son. Of course he only saw one personage. But did it really happen?
End of Part I
Grindael,
I can understand why you have formulated the conclusions you have, but yours is one of many possibilities.
You have cited verses that remain unchanged in the BOM which I and the rest of the church have no problem reconciling with our doctrine.
Critics love to claim the first vision story changed. But is it possible to tell certain elements of an event at different times? Consider Paul’s testimony of his vision of Christ- the NT versions are different. Are we to conclude that he was making it all up?
What you quote is consistent with his other writings, just not complete. In the later version found in the POGP, he includes the introduction of Christ by the Father.
And I really have no problem with the Lectures statements. Again, I can see why you could see hints of a trinitarian doctrine, but you have to remember that you and I interpret the Bible passages on the topic differently as well. Your interpretation makes perfect sense to you. Mine does to me as well.
There really is not inconsistency, which I think is ultimately what you are arguing. If we are to insist on absolutely no nuances in meaning of any words, then we also must conclude that the Bible is inconsistent as well.
Good work grindael!
You ask, “But did it really happen?” No! Smith knew how to spin a yarn and use the religious language of the time in an attempt to give credibility to his story.
What about the story told by Charles Finney known at the “Father of American Revivalism”. Christian History magazine Issue 20 relates this:
“According to the account in his Memoirs, around this time he decided that he must settle the question of his soul’s salvation. Having gone alone into the woods, he knelt by a log and wrestled with God in prayer, and was instantaneously converted. The event was so dramatic that Finney later recalled that he experienced what seemed like waves of liquid love throughout his body; it so affected him that he explained it in intimate detail when he was at an advanced age. The drama of the event may have made him impatient in later years with those who could not testify to a similar experience.”
Finney’s experience, BTW, happened in the autumn of 1821.
Finney goes into the woods to seek God for assurance of salvation and the forgiveness of sins. Does that sound familiar?
In the book “From Sea to Shinning Sea” this account of Finney’s experience in the woods.
“I made up my mind that I would settle the question of my soul’s salvation at once, that if it were possible, I would make my peace with God…..Wednesday he started for the office as usual, but just before he got there, he stopped dead in the street. An inward voice asked him: ‘What are you waiting for? Did you not promise to give your heart to God? And what are you trying to do? Are you endeavoring to work out a righteousness of your own?’ Finney reports:
‘I think I then saw, as clearly as I ever have in my life, the reality and fullness of the atonement of Christ. I saw that His work was a finished work; and that instead of having , or needing, any righteousness of my own to recommend me to God, I had to submit myself to the righteousness of God through Christ….
After this distinct revelation had stood some little time before my mind, the question seemed to be put: “Will you accept it now, today?” I replied: “Yes, I will accept it today, or I will die in the attempt.”
The account goes on in detail but here’s the important part of what happened when he returned to his office that night after the day in the woods:
“Nevertheless it appeared to me as if it were perfectly light. As I went in and shut the door after me, it seemed as if I met the Lord Jesus Christ face to face….It seemed to me that I saw him as I would see any other man. He said nothing, but looked at me in such a manner as to break me right down at his feet….I fell down at his feet and poured out my soul to him. I wept aloud like a child, and made such confessions as I could with my choked utterance. it seemed to me that I bathed his feet with my tears, and yet I had no distinct impression that I touched him, as I recollect.”
Finney was laid out on the floor until the vision faded. God had not finished with him at this point as Finney made his way to a chair by the fireplace.
“The Holy Spirit descended upon me in a manner that seemed to go through me, body and soul. I could feel the impression, like a wave of electricity, going through and through me. Indeed it seemed to come in waves of liquid love, for I could not express it any other way. It seemed like the very breath of God. I can recollect distinctly that it seemed to fan me, like immense wings. No words can express the wonderful love that was shed abroad in my heart. I wept aloud with joy and love….I literally bellowed out the unutterable gushings of my heart. These waves came over me, and over me, and over me, one after the other, until I recollect I cried out, ‘Lord, I shall die if these waves continue to pass over me!” Yet I had no fear of death.”
As a side-bar here for our creative Mormon friends. Finney related that the feeling was “like electricity” not that the Holy Spirit “was like electricity”.
Finney had a restless night’s sleep after his day’s experience. Doubt would creep into his mind. In the morning when he awoke the rising sun was pouring into his room. He says:
“Words cannot express the impression that this sunlight made upon me. Instantly the baptism that I had received the night before, returned upon me in the same manner. I arouse upon my knees in the bed and wept aloud with joy….It seemed as if this morning’s baptism was accompanied with a gentle reproof, and the Spirit seemed to say to me, ‘Will you doubt?’ I cried, ‘No! I will not doubt! I cannot doubt!’ He then cleared the subject up so much to my mind that it was in fact impossible for me to doubt that the Spirit of God had taken possession of my soul….My sense of guilt was gone; my sins were gone….I felt myself justified by faith…’
Finney makes a good contrast to Joseph Smith since they were contemporaries and both came from the same geographical area. Finney was led by the Spirit of God and Smith was deceived by Satan.
Finney’s early work in 1830-31 in Rochester, New York, transformed the area. It was called the greatest year of spiritual awakening in American history. Shops were closed so people could attend his meetings, and as a result of the changed hearts, the town taverns went out of business. (Christian History, Issue 20)
Finney led people to salvation through Jesus Christ. Smith led people to spiritual destruction through his occult inspired second sight visions, scrying and the resulting implementation of such abominations as polygamy, Free Mason temple rituals and a doctrine of god that rejected God in favor of the deification of man.
So why would someone believe Finney’s account and reject Joseph Smith’s. That can be summed-up in one word, “credibility”. Finney had all sorts of it and Smith had none, zero, zip! As a young man Finney decided to study law, and he did that in the office of lawyer Benjamin Wright in Adams, New York. At the same time Joseph Smith was running about the countryside bilking ($$$) gullible farmers into thinking he could see buried treasure in the ground by the use of his magic rock.
I heard an interview done with Mormon Grant Palmer author of “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”, and the question of where Smith came up with the BoM was asked. Palmer said that it was a combination of the Bible, evangelical revivalism, Smith’s own creativity and things that “were in the air” at the time. The in-the-air part dealt with the idea that the American Indians were descendent from a lost tribe of Israel.
Finney also had a pretty conventional theology although his “new measures” were seen as a radical departure from the popular Calvinism. “His new measures included allowing women to pray in mixed public meetings; the use of an anxious bench at the front of the church-special seats for singling out persons who felt a special urgency about their salvation; the adoption of protracted meetings-daily meetings, as opposed to regular weekly meetings only; informal, instead of reverential, language especially in prayer; and the hasty admission of new converts to church membership” (Christian History).
Smith, unlike Finney, wasn’t radically saved. Smith was guided by his own lusts, ego and fascination with creative religious ideas rather than the solid foundation of the Bible. While Finney called people to Christ, Smith called people to himself through his powers of persuasion. In Christianity it’s all about Jesus. In Mormonism it’s all about Joseph. In Mormon lore, Joseph Smith must give a man the stamp of approval before he can move on down the path to becoming a god. What fools these Mormons are. Everything they need is in Christ, yet they reject Him in favor of a false Christ and a false promise.
terrific work, grindael and falcon. thanks again for your research and contributions. i learn all sorts of stuff out here!
Jim
A Mormon sent this link to me, and I couldn’t help but notice something
http://en.fairmormon.org/Elohim_and_Jehovah
“Conclusion
The conviction that Elohim was anciently the Almighty God and Father of us all, and Jehovah was and is Jesus the Christ, his Son is based on modern scripture (D&C 110:1–4) and not Biblical exegesis.”
Now, that’s interesting coming from FAIR, especially, but let’s consider the gravity of it.
The truth (even according to LDS apologetics) is that you can’t separate “elohim” and “Jehovah” into two gods (the Father and Son) by way of the Bible.
The truth is also, according to Sharon’s article, that originally (and still in some verses), you cannot separate “elohim” and “Jehovah” into two gods (the Father and Son) by way of the Book of Mormon.
So, in order to do so, you are relying on Joe Smith, his rewritings and additional writings, and the LDS leaders since that time. But more importantly…
The Bible teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE –
calling Jehovah “elohim” (most of the time)
calling Jehovah “el”, “el Shaddai” (God Almighty), “el olam” (everlasting God) (i.e. Genesis 17:1, 21:33, Psalm 18:2)
calling Jehovah “eloah” (i.e. Psalm 18:31, Isaiah 44:8)
calling Jehovah “God of the spirits of all flesh”(i.e. Numbers 16:20-23)
calling Jehovah “elyon” (the Most High God) (i.e. Genesis 14:22)
The Bible is clear that any god label/word you want to use, the truth remains – the only God is Jehovah!
Joe Smith wanted a book that sounded like the Bible, even quoted it. But before he wrote it, he had no idea that there were different Hebrew words for “god”. Not until he got a Hebrew Lexicon from Cowdery, and hired a Hebrew teacher.
And that got him started on the book of “Abraham”, which led to his eventual dismissal of his claim that Jehovah was Jesus’ dad, and instead, Elohim was.
Setfree,
Your characterization and summary of the BOM and BOA is about as simpleton and fanciful as one could imagine.
Ezra Taft Benson once said that “the Book of Mormon is the great sifter.” I could not agree more. It is meant to call those who hear the voice of Christ.
Your assertion that the Bible is perfectly clear in support of your view of God is wishful thinking. It is OK to believe what you believe while also acknowledging that not all things are crystal clear in the Bible. Insisting that such clarity exists makes you look naive or threatened.
Ah, Jim, it’s just so sad. It’s all so very easy and plain once you drop the pretensions of Smith.
Referring back to the link I gave above (which was given to me in an attempt to show how there ARE two gods, Elohim and Jehovah), the article says:
“…The Israelites who returned from the desert with the Mosaic religion referred to El’s son as Yahweh. Some evidence of this distinction still survives in our Old Testament scriptures (see Deuteronomy 32:8–9; Psalm 82; Proverbs 30:4)”
I just LOVE IT! Are these guys serious? Check out Proverbs 30:4 for heaven’s sake!
“Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?”
This is supposed to be “evidence” of El and his son Yahweh?
Three things:
One- Yahweh = Jehovah = LORD (all caps) in the Bible
Two- Jesus’ (Yeshua) name means “Yahweh/Jehovah becomes Salvation” (You know, God with us? Emmanuel?)
Three- Jesus said: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:13)
Argh, FAIR… so lame, I’m sorry
BTW, Dr. Seuss said there would be no Christmas this year. You gotta pick your sources carefully.
I’m sticking w/ Jesus, forget ole Joe and Ezra.
OJ,
As usual you use words like “simpleton” and “fanciful” but don’t provide anything but emotional clap trap. I have noticed that you run out of ammo real fast and then resort to broad bush strokes of linguistic jibberish. It all works for you down at the wards were Mormons can entertain themselves with sloganeering and surface level platitudes.
It all works for Mormons within the closed system of Mormonism where feelings rule and folks aren’t really interested in spending some quality time in research and study. Those who do, don’t remain Mormons long.
Joseph Smith was a tale teller who changed his mind often and hid behind the smoke screen of continuous revelation, which in effect means he was casting about for the next idea to scam his followers.
I don’t think I would object so much to Mormonism, if it’s message was something like “we’re trying to figure it out, just like everybody else” (which seems to be thought underpinning modern Mormon apologetics).
However, is this how Joseph Smith and his prophets want us to receive them?
Short answer:
No
Long answer:
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.
(To borrow a phrase from the Macalope).
No. They claim to be the only human beings who have access to the absolute truth. It’s not a case of “we’re giving you our best understanding of the situation”, but “I have a revelation from God, because God speaks to me”. (Exacatly which god remains unexplained).
In this latter context, changes to the genealogy of God matter. Its not as if we can blur the distinctions, either; the Mormonism of the prophets teaches that these gods are “separate persons”, who breed and give birth to other gods, just like us. Mormonism revolves around the Heavenly Family, Joseph Smith saw it, so it is of prime importance to know who is the father of whom. Or at least, Smith should have got his genealogy right first time.
Why the need to correct it?
Why the modern embarrassment in discussing the inter-relationships in this heavenly family?
…oh, I see. It’s because Mormonism would like us to believe that such ideas are supported by the Bible, so it resorts to using Biblical names (YHWH, Elohim) to differentiate between these “personages”. Big problem, they’re not.
I’m with setfree on the Biblical message of God.
It becomes profoundly simple when you jettison Mormonism’s spurious notions of the genealogy of God.
There is one God.
He is there before all things, and He is there after all things. (Incidentally, you can mix tenses with God, because He isn’t constrained by time). He is the beginning and the end. He also “dwells” within our time, yet He is in all things in time and space.
This is the God I see in the Bible.
He’s not the God you’ll hear about from Oprah Winfrey, Ricky Jervais (The Invention of Lying), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), or even Joseph Smith (BoM).
So, it’s a bit of a stretch for us to begin to understand who He is. In some ways, He is completely alien to us (consider the time/space thing), but in others He is instantly recognisable (Jesus was fully human).
It takes nothing less than a monumental revelation to get us to re-think our ideas of God.
Thank God, we have such a revelation in the Bible. Thank God, we see the ultimate revelation of God’s self-expression in the person of Jesus Christ.
Sharon & All,
With all do respect I think you got side tracked on this one. This issue (changes in the BoM) is one of those “smoking guns” that Mormonism is not true. You seem to touch on it towards the end.
‘Or was it God Himself who determined that some parts of this inspired translation that had been accomplished “by the gift and power of God” turned out to be too ambiguous and therefore needed revision?’
If one byes into the “official version” of events surrounding the translation process (hat, rock, new words not appearing until the older ones were properly transcribed) then there is absolutely no warrant for the changes. Either God got it right or he didn’t.
Some Mormons throw out the canard about “printer’s mistakes” – as if all (or even the majority) of changes are can be attributed to that. No, the numerous changes to the BoM, some during Joseph’s lifetime, were authorized by the LDS church.
I could get a room full of high school freshmen to see the problem here – that is if they were not Mormon. Seriously, this stuff is not rocket science and the theological implications are ancillary issues (though profound). Obviously the changes carry theological implications or else they would not have been made in the first place.
There are so many facets to Mormonism that when added together present a very damaging case for the veracity of the Mormon religion. This is not one of those; one does not need to “build a case” here. Joseph Smith changed text that should not have been changed if it were true to begin with. It really is that simple.
Martin, you have a real clear, well thought-out way of writing things. I really appreciate that about your comments. Thank you :]
David! Nice to see you back!
Hey, are you one who knows how to put hebrew lettering out here? I was thinking you used it a while back…
I’ve been reading a thread on godandscience.org’s forum where this one LDS guy is trying to defend against the trinity. Naturally, the response was To show the biblical evidenece, but also to show the madly polytheistic views Joseph Smith taught and doctrinated. After being showed the quotes, the guy seemed to start throwing out support for polytheism in the bible. It must be difficult having to defend for a theology that evolved over time from monotheism to polytheism.
While we’re on the subject of changes made to the BoM, what are the excuses for King Benjamin? That’s as much of a smoking gun as it gets! I recently read something off of a Mormon site over this research a guy did on the original manuscript vs. the current book. ‘Lo and behold, King Benjamin was in the original, and (what’s the current guy’s name?) is there in its place.
I’d understand if a mistake came from centuries of passing down a document, but the very first one Smith wrote? Even if it was the second document, that’s a pretty big testament of un-inspiration, considering King Benjamin died by then.
setfree,
Regarding the Hebrew…
You might be referring to some earlier posts of mine, eg
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
(Gen 1:1 from http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm) (just Google “Bible in Hebrew”, or some such)
There’s no magic trick here. I’ve just highlighted the text and done a copy and paste into the comments dialog box on MRM (both in Firefox, on a Mac – that’s command-C, command-V). I can’t get more technical than that because I don’t understand the technicals myself.
PS,
I’ve just seen how the text has been rendered, and all those jots and tittles (there’s a technical name for them that I can’t recall) have got a little jumbled.
You might be better off without the jots and tittles from a site like this…
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/hebrew/Bible/
e.g.
ץראה תאו םימשה תא םיהלא ארב תישארב
PPS, Yes, they are the jots and tittles that Jesus refers to in Matt 5:18 and Luke 16:17
What astounds me is that people continue to believe in Smith and Mormonism despite the over-whelming evidence that it’s all a very bad hoax. It would be different if it were difficult to unravel, but it’s easy. What does that tell us about the desire of people to believe in something/someone. Again, if it were close, a slight shade of the true color, it would be explainable. But Mormonism is way off of the bubble.
If we look at the bubble of the bell shaped curve we can see what is considered within normal limits. Well in that sense, Mormonism is more than two standard deviations from the norm or mid-point.
So why can’t Mormons see it? This whole discussion on the changes to Smith’s view on the nature of God is a good example. The excuse making (printer’s error) and the incredibly poor interpretation and application of the Biblical text are examples of how far people will go to maintain a fantasy. It’s really not unlike what is observed in abusive families as the members try to find any excuse to justify and cover-up in order to maintain the family “integrity”.
Just think of the degree to which Mormons have to suspend credulity and ignore (the obvious) evidence that Joseph Smith was a fraud and his revelations a total farce. Just hearing the basic story will elicit a basic “Yea, right” from the average person. But then if someone is interested and begins to unwrap the Mormon narrative and what it takes to continue to believe something that’s blatantly false, we see a dynamic that’s both easy and difficult to explain.
Easy to explain in that some folks are attracted to stories of a certain type. Difficult in that there is a spiritual battle being waged in the heavenlies that we can’t see but the results are observable.
Spiritual dynamics, generally speaking, can come from different sources. The Law of Attraction says that we get what we think about. If someone has rejected God for another god then they will be attracted to and attract that which supports their desires, wishes, hopes, and dreams. The Bible says that God eventually just turns people over to their desires. It also says that a hardened heart begets a more hardened heart.
The Law of Attraction, as it is promoted, goes far beyond that idea that we become what we think about, but the basic premise has a shred of truth. This new age philosophy would have some appeal to Mormons as they contemplate their future lives as gods.
There’s another principle that “we master what we practice”. So Mormons, practicing very poor Biblical exegesis, master the ability to reinforce lies with more lies. It’s a twisted form of thinking.
So Joseph Smith saw fit to change the basic foundation of his religion and reinvent his notion of who God is. This is no problem for Mormons in fact it’s proof to them that Smith was a real prophet. Figure that logic out!
The Bible tells us that we are without excuse because the nature of God is apparent. Mormons have rejected what is apparent. The result is a pagan form of religion which attempts to shroud itself in secret ceremonies that it claims are sacred but come from a place in the spirit world that traffics in ignorance and deception.
Thanks Martin!
Martin,
Not to get side tracked but I am not so sure what Jesus was referring to (jots and tittles) were what we today refer to as vowel pointings that exist in Semetic languages. To my understanding (if someone here has more knowledge on this topic then correct me if I am wrong) but vowel pointings did not show up in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic until much later – like 9th century A.D. I know in Greek (the language the gospels were written in) capitalization, accent marks, and punctuation did not come about until well after the first century A.D. This is true not just for Greek or Semetic languages but languages in general. They developed well after the first century.
My knowlege for this comes mostly with my dealings with Islam and the little I know of the Masoretic text. I have heard the same idea before put forth for Matthew 5:18 and it seems to be a bit of over reaching. I think Jesus is saying that not even a small portion of the Torah will pass away.
However, this is a different animal than the issues surrounding the BoM. There is simply no explantion that can reconcile the Comprehensive History of the Church and the changes in the BoM.
What have we got, something like 6,000 years of history of the Jewish and Christian religions? The hallmark of the Jews/Hebrews was, that unlike her neighbors, the Jews were monotheists. That can’t be disputed, yet the Mormons dispute it with their creative revelations and pronouncements of their false prophet.
There is no doubt, Joseph Smith was creative and persuasive but he was also a dunce! The book of Abraham proves the point. The changes in the BoM, along with Smith’s evolving “theology” of the nature of God, prove that he had no clue what he was doing. He was making it up as he went along.
There are always people, however, who will be taken by someone who can spout nonsense, but do it enthusiastically.
Mormonism thrives on ignorance driven by desire to believe. To paraphrase Walter Martin, as I often do, “A Mormon can think rationally about every aspect of their lives, but not when it comes to their religion.”
“People try to persuade us that the objections against Christianity spring from doubt. That is a complete misunderstanding. The objections against Christianity spring from insubordination, the dislike of obedience, rebellion against all authority. As a result, people have hitherto been beating the air in their struggle against objections, because they have fought intellectually with doubt instead of fighting morally with rebellion” – Soren Kierkegaard
Mormonism is a ME religion. It doesn’t even matter what their highest “authority” guys say, if the individual Mormon doesn’t agree with it, the individual Mormon gets top authority.
I suspect that we are beating the air, fighting intellectually against people whose real problem is laying down the weapons they’ve carried all their lives against God and His Sovereignty. How can they know the truth of the Bible when they refuse to acknowledge the One who brought it into existence. To them, He is a figment of our (or Christian, or Biblical) imagination.
David,
You may be right, but I thought they appeared earlier than the 9th Century AD…
…also, I understand that the word in the KJV for “jot” may be related to the name of the Hebrew letter “yod”, which is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.
…hhhmmmm…
…in any case, you’re observation about the reverence for scripture that we see displayed in Jesus and the NT writers is to the point (pun intended). Even if Jesus’ “jots and tittles” (Matt 5:18, KJV) might relate to some other feature of the writing of his day, it doesn’t change the trajectory of what he was saying.
Jesus and his followers believed that changing the scripture was a terrible sin.
PS, setfree, I should have noticed it earlier, but there’s still a problem with the second sample of Hebrew that I posted – it’s written backwards (left to right). We might need to find another site that we can copy from to get the text to render properly here.
Martin, thanks for noticing and pointing that out.
I just now went to the blueletterbible site, and got this from their concordance. יְהוָה
setfree,
Here’s something for you:
“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5) The verses in Ephesians 6:10-18 explain further the spiritual battle we’re in.
If we’re dealing with a Mormon in the contemplative stage, the “intellectual” material will be of some benefit because they are ready to challenge their Mormon belief system. But in the end it’s all about pulling down spiritual strongholds that take people captive and keeps them in the grips of a spiritual force that won’t easily give-up its prey.