I have just finished reading through the entire gospel doctrine series called “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church” series, including the newest volume dedicated to Joseph Fielding Smith. Smith was known for being a church theologian, penning the massive three-volume set Doctrines of Salvation as well as the five volumes comprising Answers to Gospel Questions.
Smith, who is a direct descendant of Joseph Smith’s brother Hyrum, is the son of sixth president Joseph F. Smith. He is known for stating things as they were. He didn’t mince words in his writings, an attribute that I believe his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie later picked up and turned into his style.
After having read the 2013 manual made up of Smith’s teachings and how much of what he is quoted as saying is truly innocuous, I was seriously longing for the days of old when the leaders and the manuals were more upfront. From my shelf I picked up Smith’s book Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions, which was “a course of study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums 1972-73.” What makes this book different from Smith’s other writings is that this was published by the LDS Church’s First Presidency backed in the 1970s and was considered “official.”
Honestly, there are so many more “quotable” statements in this older book than what can be found in the newest manual. The church seems so much more cautious in what it prints these days. For example, I turned to Lesson 25 in Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions and, after quoting Matthew 16:13-19 (speaking about Peter and the “rock”), found the following quote in the section titled “The Church is Not Established on Any Man”:
“The interpretation placed on this conversation by the Catholics is extremely absurd. It is contrary to reason to think that the Lord would establish his Church upon any man, no matter how faithful and wonderful he might be.”
First of all, I love how Smith used the word absurd. Can you imagine seeing that word used in a manual today in reference to the Catholics or Protestants? I like it when the LDS leadership throws away political correctness and tells us what they really think rather than hide behind niceties.
What I find even more amazing is how Smith criticized the Catholics for placing too much emphasis on Peter. Yet let’s consider the life of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. This is a person of whom President Heber J. Grant once said, “The whole foundation of this Church rests firmly upon the inspiration of the living God through Joseph Smith the Prophet” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Heber J. Grant, p. 16).
In the Melchizedek manual referred to above, listen to what Joseph Fielding Smith said:
“No one else, but Joseph Smith, has ever made the claim that this restoration and setting up of the kingdom (i.e. Church of Jesus Christ) has ever been revealed. Joseph Smith as proclaimed to the world that power, keys, and authority were bestowed upon him. No one else has arisen to make such a claim; yet, this was revealed preparatory to these momentous and final restorations” (Selections, p. 338).
How important is Joseph Smith to the Mormon religion? Let me share several additional quotes that support my case:
Brigham Young: “I honor and revere the name of Joseph Smith. I delight to hear it; I love it. I love his doctrine” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, p. 345).
“Whosoever confesseth that Joseph Smith was sent of God to reveal the holy Gospel to the children of men, and lay the foundation for gathering Israel, and building up the Kingdom of God on the earth, that spirit is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting Gospel to and through him, is of Antichrist, no matter whether it is found in a pulpit or on a throne” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 435).
Joseph F. Smith: “Where shall we go to find another man who has accomplished a one-thousandth part of the good that Joseph Smith accomplished?” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, p. 18).
George Albert Smith: “Many of the benefits and blessings that have come to me have come through that man who gave his life for the gospel of Jesus Christ. There have been some who have belittled him, but I would like to say that those who have done so will be forgotten and their remains will go back to mother earth, if they have not already gone, and the odor of their infamy will never die, while the glory and honor and majesty and courage and fidelity manifested by the Prophet Joseph Smith will attach to his name forever” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith, p. 34).
Harold B. Lee: “We must accept the divine mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith as the instrumentality through which the restoration of the gospel and the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ was accomplished. Each member of the Church, to be prepared for the millennial reign, must receive a testimony, each for himself, of the divinity of the work established by Joseph Smith” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee, p. 71).
I’m not suggesting that Mormons somehow worship Smith any more than Catholics worship Peter—that’s not my case nor my point. What I am saying is that, according to LDS leaders, Mormonism truly has been established upon the name of Joseph Smith.
Eric,
It’s funny I was just thinking this morning about how the Mormon church has as its foundation, Joseph Smith. Paul tells us that we can’t build on any foundation other than Jesus Christ. He is the cornerstone. At the very least Mormons of the LDS/FLDS sects revere Joseph Smith in something more than hero worship.
The LDS church has done a masterful job of creating a myth around Smith. He’s referred to as the “prophet”. I watched the movie they produced about him and show at the Carthage Jail site. I mean to tell you, it’s the greatest whitewash job you’d ever want to see. A young couple sitting in front of my wife and I were in full-on ecstasy mode watching it. I’m thinking what a crash-boom it would be if they ever came to an accurate understanding of who Smith was.
There’s a reason why there are so many sects of Mormonism. Some folks figured out early on that at the very least, Smith was a lost prophet who veered off the path of the original restoration. Then of course came Kirtland, Ohio and the debacle there with the bank. Finally when Smith got to Nauvoo and went really off the tracks, those who had the spiritual discernment and courage called him on his immoral behavior.
When we look at Mormons teach about Joseph Smith , and the way he is viewed in their
religious life , it appears that something is definitely off kilter . There’s just way to much
Smith , and that comes through loud and clear when Mormons give their testimony , for
one example .
Great article Eric.
I joined the church when Jos. F. Smith was president, in 1971. I was twelve years old. Joseph Fielding Smith was very full of himself. I think he got that from his father who was very hot headed and prone to anger. The senior Smith beat his first wife. He also almost stabbed someone because he thought he was going to badmouth his uncle Jo. He once called Jacob D. Whitmer, (son of John Whitmer) a bigot for simply calling his uncle “Joe Smith”. Jo was not well liked by the Whitmer descendants, after all, he kicked John and David Whitmer out of the church on trumped up charges and then later said they were “too mean to mention”, which included Reed Peck, John Corill and Oliver Cowdery.
Both Smith’s made their living off of the church, and yet would condemn Bishops who told poor widows that they shouldn’t pay tithing when they were receiving church welfare. The Elder Smith perjured himself at the Reed Smoot Hearings over polygamy and other things, said that Adam-god gave him “great joy” and yet had Charles Penrose attack the doctrine publicly while in private calling it “a pearl too precious to be cast before swine”, and chose and ordained his own son, (Fielding Smith Jr.) to be an apostle so he too, could someday run it. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree it seems.
I read all of Fielding Smith Jr.’s books when I was a member of the church. I particularly like “The Way to Perfection”. It was a hard hitting doctrinal book. Pulled no punches. Especially about the blacks and the Priesthood. Smith wrote,
As the tide began to turn in America, and the civil rights movement was gaining ground, Joseph Fielding Smith (as President of the Quorum of the 12) said in 1962:
How’s that for lying for the Lord? His father trained him very well.
What, precisely, was Peter? Was he the same as Smith?
I am curious LDS thought on this question.
I guess Peter was a polygamist who wore “sacred” under garments, dressed-up in a costume and went to first century Christian temples to perform rituals borrowed from the Free Masons. He was the first prophet of the LDS church in the first century.
The fact that the Church sings a song called, Praise to the man, tells me everything I need to know.
It’s quite simple really, take Peter out of the equation & you may not have a Catholic Church but you would still have a Christian Church. Take Joseph Smith out of the equation & you would have nothing. The Christian Church is built on what Christ revealed, He is the founder of our faith. The LDS was built on what Joseph Smith revealed & Smith is the founder of the LDS faith, to say otherwise is to deny the glaringly obvious. If Mormons are now going to tell me that I’m wrong to say this & if they wish to claim that the LDS is built on Christ then I say to them
“Prove that is built on Christ by removing the foundation laid by Joseph Smith.”
The reverence shown by Catholics to Peter is nothing compared to the reverence shown to Smith by the LDS. We as Christians worship the founder of our faith, LDS as non-Christians hallow the founder of their faith in a way that would be close to blasphemy for a Christian,
RickB said,
“The fact that the Church sings a song called, Praise to the man, tells me everything I need to know.”
He’s so right, that song is very little short of worship.
I should have added, ‘If the LDS can lower God to the status of an exalted man then it is a very small step to take in elevating a man to the status of a God, hence the honour (worship) accorded to Joseph Smith.
I don’t remember Peter having a lot of status in the Catholic Church. Now Mary, that’s another story. The veneration of Mary is a way big deal to Catholics. They even claim she was assumed bodily into heaven upon her death. I think she was even named “co-redemptrix with Christ” or some such thing.
I don’t mean to hijack the thread here, but what I find interesting, is that when the Catholics write something, it actually has some intellectual heft to it, unlike Mormonism which sounds like amateur night.
“The term “co-redemptrix” is properly translated “the woman with the redeemer” or more literally “she who buys back with [the redeemer].” The prefix “co” comes from the Latin term “cum” which means “with” and not “equal to.” Co-redemptrix therefore as applied to Mary refers to her exceptional cooperation with and under her divine son Jesus Christ, in the redemption of the human family, as manifested in Christian Scripture.”
“All Christians are rightly called to be co-workers or “co-redeemers” with Jesus Christ (cf. Col. 1:24) in the reception and cooperation with grace necessary for our own redemption and the redemption of others – personal subjective redemption made possible by the historic objective redemption or “buying back” accomplished by Jesus Christ, the “New Adam,” the Redemptor, and Mary, the “New Eve,” the Co-redemptrix.”
http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php
It’s not a long read, but I find it interesting. There are references to the early Church Fathers which provides some sort of tradition to the concept.
Now understand, I’m not advocating for any of this, but if a person has an interest in early Church history and how certain beliefs develop, it’s a good topic.
Thanks for the article, Eric. As usual, it was well written, informative, and took the Church to task with an appropriate tone.
I would point out that the Jews, even though their religion was based on God, could easily have been accused of basing their religion on Moses, who was known as the Great Law Giver, and through whom all things from God were directed. Joseph Smith has played a similarly signifacant role in these last days, and is honored for that. But out foundation is still Christ.
MJP
Peter was the head of his dispensation, and he will lead Christ’s twelve apostles in judging the twelve tribes of Israel. He stands as one of the seven greatest prophet to have ever lived, known as the heads of the Dispensations, or the times in which God has revealed anew his gospel to man. He held the pre-eminant position of his dispensation and was given greater power, authority, and knowledge than anyone else of that time. In this Ensign Article http://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/06/joseph-smith-among-the-prophets?lang=eng it explains very well what a dispensation head is and what their role in God’s plan is.
To put it simply, Peter was the Joseph Smith of his day, and to the people of his day was rightly revered as we now revere Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith was no Peter. Not even close. He was just another megalomaniac and child abuser like David Koresh and Warren Jeffs, and since there was no dispensation after Christ, we can confidently reject him as just another charlatan.
Joseph Smith was clueless but he had an ability to get people caught-up in his fantasy. A religious con artist is very easy to spot because they follow a predictable pattern. Smith had it in aces with his sexual promiscuity. He took advantage of women and young girls and there’s no way of spinning his seduction of women married to members of his cult.
shematwater-“In this Ensign Article http://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/06/joseph-smith-among-the-prophets?lang=eng it explains very well what a dispensation head is and what their role in God’s plan is.”
Within the article you referenced Millet provides the following-
President Brigham Young thus observed concerning Joseph Smith: “It was decreed in the counsels of eternity, long before the foundations of the earth were laid, that he, Joseph Smith, should be the man, in the last dispensation of this world, to bring forth the word of God to the people, and receive the fulness of the keys and power of the Priesthood of the Son of God. The Lord had his eye upon him, and upon his father, and upon his father’s father, and upon their progenitors clear back to Abraham, and from Abraham to the flood, from the flood to Enoch, and from Enoch to Adam. He has watched that family and that blood as it has circulated from its fountain to the birth of that man. He was foreordained in eternity to preside over this last dispensation” (in Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1954, p. 108; emphasis added).
How do you discern this statement being true and revelatory as juxtaposed to a statement about Adam-God being an irrelevant opinion, for example,
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken–HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. ( Journal of Discourses 1:50-51)
How do you tell the truth from the fiction in Brigham’s statements?
These questions are being asked by thoughtful members of your congregations and on sites like this. They would like a real answer not the softball discourses, presented by Elder Uchtdorf during 2013 General Conference Saturday morning session (see: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng), with an emotive appeal to just stay a little longer in the ranks of the church while one attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable- Joseph Smith proved to be a fraud through his own undisciplined, out-of-control, ungodly behavior.
grindael- Joseph Smith was no Peter. Not even close. He was just another megalomaniac and child abuser like David Koresh and Warren Jeffs, and since there was no dispensation after Christ, we can confidently reject him as just another charlatan.
PR- Cuts to the heart of the matter. The sooner Mormons on the fence connect these dots the sooner they will find peace and truth in God.
Shem, I appreciate the answer to my question. Like the others, I in no way see Smith and Peter as at all compatible, but I appreciate your answer.
I tend to think falcon’s answer to my question above is about right; you did not correct him; therefore I think its pretty accurate. Peter was a polygamist wearing funny undies performing specific rituals in the temple…
Peter was faithful in his teachings about God , he , like those for centuries before him who were
prophets of God , taught that there was one God . Joseph Smith started out being
faithful to that truth but soon drifted into apostasy by teaching about Gods .
Peter reminded his flock there would be those like Joseph Smith coming who would claim
to be prophets and who would introduce false doctrine —2Pt 2:1
Men arising in the latter days will come and claim to have been visited by , or directly heard
from , Biblical persons like Peter , or John the Baptist , or even Jesus Himself . This claim has
always been a predictable way men will use in order to prove their calling as a prophet and
thus gain an audience .
But Jesus’ apostles in the New Testament knew this would happen and thus warned the Body of
Christ to beware of counterfeit prophets and their imitation gospels . We see the fullfillment
of their counsel in the rise of Mormonism and other latter days prophets .
Worth a minute thirty nine seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn_BY9EogJA
I’m wondering? Did this true blue Joseph Smith tell his wife Emma that he was marrying other women? If this dude was so pure and righteous, what was he doing running around his wife’s back committing adultery and defrauding his friends by marrying their wives?
This does not sound to me like some one who we could attach the word “true” to. And he did this why? Because he said he had a revelation concerning it from God who sent an angel with a sword to tell him to do it or he’d kill him? Who’d believe something like that? Well obviously this young women did.
“19 year-old Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose “his position and his life.” Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced.” (In Sacred Loneliness, page 80-81)
So Mormons are stuck because if they think they got an emotional buzz out of reading the BoM then they have to accept everything put out by Smith Inc. as true. I’d really get annoyed if I had to constantly defend the indefensible in regards to Smith. At some point a person’s integrity has to count for something.
It’s still a mystery to me why Mormons buy into the Joseph Smith myth. It takes about one hearing of the tale to know that it’s all totally looney tunes.
I remember my suppressing my laugh when I heard that Smith used “magic glasses” to interpret some ancient writing off of some gold plates he found. Who would believe such nonsense? Well there’s no accounting for what people will believe. Some fantasies are better presented than others and they catch people in a spot in their psyche that has an attraction for certain stories.
We can examine any number of religious tales that people have grabbed a hold of. With certain Catholics, any story with the Virgin Mary and an appearance hooks them.
I was reading a story about the Beatles in early 1963. They had just put out their first record with very modest success. They got booked on a show in England where Frank Ihfel got topped booking. (Yes I remember him). The interesting thing? The Beatles cause no reaction with the audience……ZERO. A couple of months later it was all pandemonium when ever they made an appearance.
For those who get on the other side of the Joseph Smith religion and come to their senses, they wonder “How could I have believed that?” That’s a really good question!
Falcon , I think the vast majority of the Mormon people do not really think through what a
false prophet is . Their leaders are well dressed , humble, polite , and talk a lot about living
a righteous lifestyle . There’s much preaching about being good , doing good that these
men in leadership just could’nt possibly be false prophets , after all , false prophets are
like a Brian David Mitchell or similar individuals , right ? Sadly I think most Mormons
reason that way , and hence they just accept whatever teachings their prophets might
introduce to them .
Mike,
It sort of reminds me of my dad. He was an alcoholic but it never occurred to me that he was one. He was a great guy, treated my mother with absolute respect, never missed a day of work, didn’t have a mean bone in his body and if his kids were involved in any activity, he was there lending support and encouragement. Happily, in his early 60s the doctor told him, “Not one more drink!” He walked out of the office and never drank again. I asked him how he did it. He said, “I wanted to live and I prayed a lot.” He lived to be 90!
My dad went through a personal reformation by having a change of heart and mind. These false prophets will never turn to God and have a change of heart. There’s too much for them to give up. Too much power, status, hero worship and money. They are like the rich young ruler Jesus encountered. These false prophets won’t give up their religion and follow Jesus.
Does anyone know what percentage of the BoM was plagiarized from the King James Version of the Bible? What ever it is, it would be the only part of the BoM that could be considered “true”. I remember in an interview Grant Palmer was asked what he thought people who did respond to the BoM, were responding to. He said that he thought a lot of it had to do with the Evangelical Christian Revivalism mimicked in the BoM. He said that the “preachers” i the BoM mirrored the preachers of the revivals of Smith’s time.
I would say that the plagiarism from the KJVB probably has a lot to do with a positive response. The KJVB gives the BoM a ring of truth.
False prophets, especially those with a lot of charisma and a creative imagination, can be quite convincing to a certain segment of the population.
Falcon,
I have asked mormons on this blog and Mormon Missionarys in person, If you remove every quote that is pretty much plagiarized from the BoM, or since LDS dont admit plagiarism, then just every quote word for word from the Bible, then what is left in the BoM that tells us of Christ and what we need to know to be saved?
The only Mormon ever to try and answer that question was I believe either Ralph or Shem, and they only said something to the effect of, The BoM mentions Israel. It would be a good topic to do here. Remove the Bible quotes from the BoM and whats left? Pure Fiction and bad story telling.
Since Mormon leaders claimed to be officers in Jesus’ church , the very same church which
He established through His apostles , now restored after 1700 years of extinction , we must
evaluate this claim and indeed must do so in light of Jesus ‘ warning in Mark 13:22-23 , since
prophets will come in the latter days who are not sent by God . Spiritual safety is at stake .
Some identifying marks of latter days false prophets :
– They can be morally upstanding citizens .
– They can mimic the claims of Jesus’ true apostles as a way to help introduce their aberrant
teachings and convince sincere people to accept them .
– They can instruct interested persons to accept their authority or teachings in such a way
that utilizes emotions as a major part .
– Joining their group is the way ultimate spiritual safety is procured because only their group
is God’s organization
– Those who follow such prophets are constantly testifying about him and/or the organization
he founded , among themselves , ( nearly as much as talking about Jesus ? ) .
The counsel that apostles Paul and John gave to his flock still valid today —Gal. 1:8 ; 1 Jn 4:1
these are vital criteria to remember and use in being safe from latter days counterfeits.
May the Mormon people take the time to study the Bible in testing their prophets .
Mormons can’t even begin to consider/imagine that their religion isn’t as billed nor is their venerated “prophet”.
Some how, though, there are large numbers of LDS who are leaving or are in the process of leaving the religion they thought was the one true church. It’s a process.
Looking for the truth, in my opinion, doesn’t start with whether or not Joseph Smith was a true prophet.
It starts by considering who Jesus is. Is He the spirit off-spring of a Father god who is one of many gods and once was a man and one of his many wives who live on or near the planet Kolob?
Read the NT without the LDS preconceived notions and let the Holy Spirit reveal to you who God is and what He has done for you.
What I hear most often from LDS (if I press this point) is that Joseph Smith isn’t that big of a deal because if it wasn’t him it would have been someone else. That same logic can be applied to the LDS Christ. It could have been someone else. It could have even had been Satan if the conversation went different. This difference is huge between Christianity and Mormonism. Because in Chrsitianity it could not have been anyone else.
MJP
I did not respond to Falcon because in general his comments are not made to illicite a response but are insulting and in the spirit of mockery, and I have no intention of dignifying them with a reply.
Do I think that Peter wore the garment? I see no reason not to believe it. He held the Melchezidek Priesthood and thus had gained the endowment and would have worn the garment which symbolizes that covenant. The idea of sacred garments is not new, and many sacred garments were worn by ancient Israel, especially those holding the priesthood. Why is it so unbelievable that Peter and the saints of his day would also wear a sacred garment.
I have no reason to doubt that he knew and practiced the temple ordinances. You claim they are taken from the Free Masons, but I think that the Free Masons took them from Peter and the early saints.
As to plural marriage, since the law of Rome forbade such marriage in many areas, and since we have a record of such marriages being counseled against in the New Testament, I have no reason to believe he had more than one wife, though I have no doubt he knew and understood the doctrine and would not be suprised if he did have multiple wives.
Pale Rider
Both quotes you give I accept as doctrine, for two reasons. These concepts are taught in our standard works, being re-enforced by Joseph Smith himself, who was the prophet to restore all truth. Also, Brigham Young gives no direct indication that he is speaking his opinion.
In answer to anyone seeking to make sense of these quotes these are the two guidelines to follow. Much of what Brigham Young said he declared to be his own musings and opinions which did not really matter. At other times what seems to be his clear meaning goes directly against the revealed word of God as contained in the scriptures. When either of these things occur we can safely disregard what he said and there will be no problem for us in doing so.
Rick and Falcon
If you take out those portions of the Book of Mormon which quote the Bible (not plagarized, as the original authors are given full credit) you will still have a good 90% of the Book of Mormon left, containing some of the greatest discourses of Christ and the plan of salvation ever written. Jacob and Alma both give beautiful descriptions of the resurrection and the spirit world; Lehi teaches about the fall and its role in God’s plan; Moroni and Alma both teach us of faith and miracles; Mormon discourses on Baptism. These great truths would still be there, and would still bring great light and understanding to mankind. In truth, most of the quotes from the Bible are prophecies, and their explanation is then given in the Book of Mormon, and so even this gives great insight.
“Why is it so unbelievable that Peter and the saints of his day would also wear a sacred garment.”
Namely, but not limited to, Peter never mentioned garments. Keep in mind he is the one who dreamed concerning eating foods that are not clean. The message of these dreams is that customs do not matter as long as one believes– the truth exists for all and those details do not impede one’s position as long as there is belief. This must, therefore, mean that garments are not required– at all– since they would be a custom much like not eating certain foods. If garments were required, they would have been mentioned and differentiated, as would temple practices and plural marriage.
And I as I read the rest of your post, I can’t help but all of it is based on a hope your points are true. There is no evidence to support them beyond conjecture. Multiple times you say you have no doubt that something is true. However, evidence works against your hope, as I outlined above. Again, if Peter, a Jew believed that certain customs remained necessary, that would have come out in his writings and teachings. They did not. However, he did teach that customs don’t matter.
Your not having any doubt that Peter practiced these things is based on nothing but your hope. This is why we keep saying that you have no evidence for the things you claim are true. You can’t back anything up with anything more than “I have no doubt that…” when it comes to the early Christian church– up to and including the story brought forth by Smith. There is no evidence for any of it.
I urge you again to consider the claims of the Bible on its own, without any preconceived notions about anything– including the claims we make about it. Read versions other than the KJV and the JST. Read multiple versions of it. But read it.
Shem,
As MJP said, and I will add to, Where in the NT does it teach we must have or wear any type of Garments? Where do we read Jesus or any Apostle or disciple speak of them?
Then the issue of Plagiarism in the BoM. You LDS dont believe it is, we non lds do, Yet can you explain how if KJ English was created around a few hundred years ago, how can it be found in so called Reformed Egyptian Language?
How is it possible JS could translate perfect word for word quotes with any and all errors from the golden plates? Thats not possible.
Then if we have those quotes in the Bible, But the Bible is either corrupt or translated incorrectly, why would those flaws come over into the BoM?
These are serious issues.
Now you said
Please provide one or two, then explain how they both agree with the Bible and show more and greater clarity to what the Bible already teaches.
It;s easy to claim what you did, it is harder to actually back it up.
Is the Mormon church established upon Christ or Joseph Smith?
Surely the answer is obvious, I imagine everyone will agree when I say that Gods church is founded upon the teachings of Christ so the question that needs to be asked is this. Was the Mormon church also founded upon Christs teachings?
Joseph Smith introduced ideas & doctrines that are totally alien to Christianity so to say the Mormon church is established upon the teachings of Christ really doesn’t add up. Let’s be kind & say that Smith simply gave us ‘another testament’ well, that changes nothing because it is still founded on a lie as Paul made clear in Galatians 1:8
I don’t know if anyone else noticed this but Eric, in his introductions gave this quote from Brigham Young
“I honor and revere the name of Joseph Smith. I delight to hear it; I love it. I love HIS (my emphasis) doctrine” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, p. 345).”
Notice that he didn’t say ‘Christian doctrine’ he said Smiths doctrine & that is the doctrine that really matters in the Mormon (LDS) church.
The acid test is this, what would happen if Christ were removed from Christianity? Obviously there would be no Christian Church. Remove Christ from Mormonism & very little would change, you would still have a slightly modified cult but, if Joseph Smith was removed there will be no LDS church at all. That alone is enough to show that it is established on Joseph Smith.
Summing it all up there can be no doubt that the Mormon church was established on the teachings of Joseph Smith, only someone living in cloud cuckoo land (or a Mormon bubble) would attempt to say anything different.
Oldman,
My reply was number 29, when I saw there was a number 30, I had some slight hope Shem replied to me. But then saw the reply was from you.
Well I guess it’s no surprise that Shem as well as the rest of the typical mormons claim we dont have a clue, but they themselves cannot provide any facts. Well I guess Shem will be back in a month or so as usual and do some more hit and run posts.
Sorry to have given you false hope Rick. Like you I’m still waiting for replies on previous topics but as you know replies will only appear when the apologists believe they have an answer. As far as I’m concerned their silence merely demonstrates that they know you are right but this is something they can never admit to it in case their entire house of cards collapses. It is far better from their perspective to be silent than admit to being wrong.
I’m sure they hope that you’ll go away & forget it but as time has shown, that’s not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. 🙂
MJP
First, how do you know I haven’t read the Bible with an open mind? I read the Bible and in its pages I see things taught that you deny, and I would see them regardless of the LDS church. One of the main reasons I believe in this church is because it is the only church that I see agreeing with the Bible.
I see the Bible teaching the Godhead, not the trinity, and that truth is not because the LDS church taught me to see it, but because it is what the Bible teaches. I see the Bible clearly teaching a pre-existance, a spirit world between death and resurrection, the requirement for our works for salvation. These things I see in the Bible, and because I see them in the Bible I believe in this church, as it is the only church that actually accepts and teaches them.
I have met many people who have similar opinions and experiences. I know one man who read the Bible and became convinced that God had a physical body just like we do, and for this reason he rejected every other church. I know a man who rejected others because they do not teach baptism as contained in the Bible, but we do.
You seem to be trying to tell me that if I have an open mind I will inevitably agree with you, and since I don’t agree with you I just don’t have an open mind. That is simply not true. Nor would such an idea be true if I were to make that claim, as I also know many people of an open mind that read the Bible and see what you see.
As to Peter, how much writing do we actually have of his? We have two epistles, and neither one is focused on the things you mentioned, and thus would not be expected to include them. You argument that since we have no record of the early apostles teaching this than it is proof they didn’t is flawed. We do not have a record because in the past 2,000 years only a select number of documents were preserved. There were a number of year where just owning a letter from Peter or Paul could get a person killed, and many of the records that did exist were destroyed. What we have preserved is only that which people chose to protect against this destruction, and so to say that because something is not recorded it just wasn’t taught is a little silly.
I have no reason to doubt that Peter had the garment, because I know the garment to be part of God’s covenants, and I know that Peter had those covenants. I don’t need a record detailing his reception of them to accept this.
As to his vision, I would disagree with the interpretation you have given, and thus your statement that custom doesn’t matter. I think it does matter, if it is what God has commanded, for a man of true faith will seek to be part of such customs. A custom established by men doesn’t matter, but one established by God does.
Rick
Did I ever once say that the garment is mentioned in the New Testament? I don’t recall making such a statement, nor do I recall accepting that the New Testament is the only standard of proof for accepting something as being true. I was asked a question about our doctrine, and I answered it. I did not offer to prove anything beyond the fact that we believe what I put forth, and I have done that. I have no interest in trying to prove it to you in any other way.
As to the translation of the Book of Mormon, a little logical thought and simple reason would answer your questions, but that is something you generally don’t like doing, since you like having such petty complaints to fall back on.
First, it was never said that a word for word translation was done, but rather a thought for thought translation. Second, the style of language is chosen by the translator, not the original author. In this case the translator would be God, so he choose any style he pleases, and to question his choice is sheer idiocy. The same goes for his choice to keep the KJV wording when such was accurate to the intended meaning. The KJV was the most commonly used translation at the time of Joseph Smith and to keep those passages the same that people would have found familiar is simply a good translation practice, as it keeps things consistant.
You said “Please provide one or two, then explain how they both agree with the Bible and show more and greater clarity to what the Bible already teaches.”
You have made this challenge before, and I have repeatedly told you that I am not going to engage in it. You don’t accept the Book of Mormon, so nothing I say will ever satisfy this demand, and that is why you feel safe in making it. It is clever trap, and is not worthy of a response.
I answered your initial question, and you have no direct reply to that answer. Why not actually admit this instead of trying to twist things to your advantage?
Also, you can stop with your petty insults and assumptions of my motives and practices. You have no clue what is happening in my life and why I might not post for a time, and it is plain arrogance on your part to claim to have such an understanding.
Shem, how do I know you have not read the Bible with an open mind? Because you have only read snippets of any version besides the KJV and JST, and have no interest in reading any other. Why don’t you have any interest in them? Because they are biased and are outside of your comfort level. If you had an open mind, you would be open to reading the others and the specific version would not matter. That is how I know you have not read it with an open mind.
You list people who have found the same things you do. Great!!! Good for you and good for them. I’d tell them the same things I am telling you. Numbers have nothing to do with truth, do they?
So, Shem, you are not willing to go outside of your comfort zone. You just aren’t. The truth is the truth whether or not it is comfortable.
Shem said
“We do not have a record because in the past 2,000 years only a select number of documents were preserved. There were a number of year where just owning a letter from Peter or Paul could get a person killed, and many of the records that did exist were destroyed. What we have preserved is only that which people chose to protect against this destruction, and so to say that because something is not recorded it just wasn’t taught is a little silly.”
It is claimed that the BofM was translated from golden plates preserved against the ravages of time & of men, you presumably believe that this book, being the most correct ‘book on earth’ was miraculously preserved & withheld from men until the time was right for it to be revealed via Joseph Smith. Ok, fair enough that’s a possibility I suppose providing you are prepared to say that God DID NOT or COULD NOT do the same for Christ’s teachings.
You are in other words asking us to believe that rather than preserve the records of the most important event in human history i.e. the plan of salvation culminating in the death of His only Son, God chose instead to preserve intact the records of a race of people for whom there is not a single scrap of evidence to show they even existed.
I’m going to ask you a couple of questions; there’s no need for a convoluted answer, a simple yes or no to both will suffice.
Do you believe that God was incapable of preserving a faithful account of his plan of salvation & the doctrines which were vital to that plan?
Do you believe that He could have preserved it all but chose not to?
Shem, Say what you want, but I lay no traps, I just asked you to back up what you said, you refuse and then judge my heart as to I wont listen anyway.
This also shows you dont read or believe the Bible as others have said, The Bible clearly says, Give every man an answer thats ask, I asked and you refuse. It’s so simple, you have no answers.
MJP
“Because you have only read snippets of any version besides the KJV and JST, and have no interest in reading any other.”
So, by your argument one has to read every version of a book or they don’t have an open mind. That is ridiculous, unless you are claiming that one version is substantially different than the other, in which case you need to provide a reason for accepting it as the better translation.
So, tell me, are the doctrines as found in the KJV substantially different than those in the NIV? If they are then why are they? If they aren’t than what does it matter what translation I use?
Old Man
Q. Do you believe that God was incapable of preserving a faithful account of his plan of salvation & the doctrines which were vital to that plan?
A. No, he is perfectly capable of doing this, and he did just this when he preserved the Gold, as well as the Papyrus, and in large measure the manuscripts of the Bible. All these things are proof that he is perfectly capable of preserving records of his doctrine and his plans.
Q. Do you believe that He could have preserved it all but chose not to?
A. I believe that he preserved what he planned to preserve, and in the way that he planned to preserve it. Some things he chose not to preserve, others he chose to preserve; and he made these choices in his own Wisdom which is far greater than ours.
Rick
“This also shows you dont read or believe the Bible as others have said, The Bible clearly says, Give every man an answer thats ask”
I assume you are referencing 1 Peter 3: 15, in which Peter tells us “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear”
I know the quote, and I believe in it. But then I also believe in the advice of Paul to Timothy when he said “But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive…” (2 Timothy 2: 23-24) What you have asked is a foolish and unlearned question, and so I avoid it.
Shem,
“I know the KJV has a bias, I was just pointing out that the NIV does as well, and I find the KJV to be more to my liking partly because of the bias of the NIV
As to the JST, since it is inspired by God it thus only carries the bias of beity, which I am perfectly happy with. Now, I know you don’t believe this, but I do. If I want any passage of the Bible clarified I can usually go to the JST and it clears it up very nicely. Those few that can’t are cleared up through the other scriptures so I have never felt the need to seek out translations that are the product of men.”
Recognize this? You prefer the KJV because of the bias of the NIV. This when the NIV comes from better manuscript evidence, as do other new translations without the same “mission” as the NIV. And you reject the “mission” of the NIV, and therefore won’t read it. This rejection is full evidence of a closed mind.
Now, those who reject a version of the Bible because of a “mission” are indeed very biased. It is one thing to have a preference. I’d bet we all have a preference. But preference is something different than the rejection of a version do to its “mission”. You perform the latter.
In addition, I encourage everyone to read from several versions. I don’t single you out on that.
And you raise an important question: what theology/doctrine is found in the NIV that is not in the KJV? Since you are the one who is KJV/JST only, and it is you who rejects the NIV, why don’t you answer that question?
I can answer honestly that I ultimately see no real difference in God’s revealed truth in different versions of the Bible. But you, evidently, do. Why?
Shem
Thank you for giving honest answers to my two questions; your reply was more or less what I expected. To say that Gods wisdom is greater than ours is obviously true but to use that fact as a defence of LDS doctrine really doesn’t hold water.
As it’s getting very late here I’ll comment on just the first of your answers.
“Q. Do you believe that God was incapable of preserving a faithful account of his plan of salvation & the doctrines which were vital to that plan?
A. No, he is perfectly capable of doing this, and he did just this when he preserved the Gold, as well as the Papyrus, and in large measure the manuscripts of the Bible. All these things are proof that he is perfectly capable of preserving records of his doctrine and his plans.”
I along with no doubt every non-LDS here find it very odd that God preserved much that is not pertinent to salvation but chose NOT to preserve the many doctrines that are necessary. I very much doubt if there is a single person outside of the LDS organization who would claim that God, having given His Son as a sacrifice for us would not preserve those vital doctrines.
We are told that Joseph Smith was necessary to restore to restore the gospel message because of apostasy, that story is beginning to sound a little hollow in the light of what you have now told us. There could NOT have been an apostasy because it was God Himself who chose NOT to preserve the necessary doctrines. A person cannot apostatise from something he/she is not aware of.
To put it another way, your god, for some reason known only to him, chose to keep hidden for 1800 years the doctrines necessary for salvation even though his Son had given his life for that very purpose. Strange indeed that he would preserve the gold plates & papyrus that contain mainly false history (provably so) with a good dose of plagiarized scripture. Scripture incidentally that is replete with anachronisms & translation errors.
I rest my case.
MJP
You said “But preference is something different than the rejection of a version do to its “mission”. You perform the latter.”
When did I say that I reject the NIV. Read what I said again and you will see I am only expressing a preference, not a rejection, so please stop putting words in my mouth.
You said “This when the NIV comes from better manuscript evidence, as do other new translations without the same “mission” as the NIV”
I have heard this claim many times, but I have never seen the evidence to support it. I have looked in to it personally, and while they use different manuscripts, there is no evidence that they are better. That is an unsupported claim.
You said “I can answer honestly that I ultimately see no real difference in God’s revealed truth in different versions of the Bible. But you, evidently, do. Why?”
Actually, I don’t I ever claimed this. I have read passages from the NIV and other translations, and, in general, I see the same doctrine that I see in the KJV. The differences that I see is that in some parts that are much more symbolical in the KJV the NIV and others try to give an interpretation of that symbolism, rather than leaving it as a symbol; and with no real reason for doing so. That is the complaint I have with the NIV.
Let me give you an example:
1 Peter 3: 20-21 (KJV)
“Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
What figure does verse 21 refer us to? In the KJV, as given here, does not state directly. When I read this I see clearly Peter refering back to the numerical figure he gave, as that is the most logical figure, and thus I see the number 8 as the number at which baptism saves (the baptismal age being eight years). Now, I also see this referring back to the water, which is what most people see.
However, as it is in the NIV it reads “to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
So, the NIV makes this refer to the water, when every source I can find of the original Greek has it as the KJV has it.
Now, I don’t think this is substantially different in the basic doctrine being taught. But I do think that the removal of the symbolic nature of the text makes the NIV of less value to me or anyone else. I do not reject it simply because it is new or because the people who wrote it had a certain idea in mind. I reject it because those portions that I have read with an open mind have led me to believe it to be inferior to the KJV and thus not worth my time.
Old Man
Your comments only show that you do not understand our beliefs, nor do you grasp the concept of the great apostacy and the preservation of scripture. Maybe you should read (or reread) the story of Mormon and Moroni in the Book of Mormon, as it gives a very nice narrative as to how these things work out.
Simply put, the doctrines were had by the people, and then those people apostatized. After that apostacy God allowed some portions of the written record of his doctrine to be lost or destroyed by those who had already fallen into apostacy. After that point, though a state of apostacy prevailed in the world, no one was guilty of comitting apostacy because, as you say, you can’t apostatize from something you are not aware of.
However, while the Book of Mormon makes things a little more plain than the Bible does, there is not a single doctrine that is required for salvation that is not mentioned in the Bible, if you are only willing to see it. It got confused, and many people started to give the wrong meanings to the passages, but that does not mean the passage itself did not hold the correct doctrine.
This was the primary purpose in the JST of the Bible, and the majority of the Doctrine and Covenants comes from Joseph Smith seeing a doctrine in the Bible and asking for a clarification of it.
Lastly, I never once said the reason for his choices as to what was preserved were known only to him. What I said is that they were made according to his wisdom, which means that whether we agree with them or not doesn’t matter.
Shem
“Your comments only show that you do not understand our beliefs,….”
I don’t need to understand them if they were in the Bible then I would accept them & wait for understanding to come.
“….nor do you grasp the concept of the great apostacy and the preservation of scripture.”
Anyone can grasp the concept but unfortunately that’s all it is, a concept, an idea, a thought for which no evidence can be nor need be provided. It’s very convenient to have a concept that needs no evidence or proof, when the Mormon church stands or falls on it. Let’s forget concepts; just show us the evidence so we will know that it really did happen.
“However, while the Book of Mormon makes things a little more plain than the Bible does, there is not a single doctrine that is required for salvation that is not mentioned in the Bible, if you are only willing to see it.”
You say “if you are only willing to see it” I am perfectly willing to see & understand Gods word, He has shown me many things through his word, not just what is clear at the first reading but what He hasn’t shown me is what isn’t there.
Now tell me, exactly what are you willing to see? You’re certainly not willing to see that the BofM is full of exactly the same mistakes that can be found in the KJV. You’re not willing to see the many translation errors copied directly from the KJV into the BofM or the anachronisms to be found there. You’re not willing to see the archaic language that is totally out of place for the time frame. Don’t accuse me of doing what you consistently refuse to do.
“It got confused, and many people started to give the wrong meanings to the passages, but that does not mean the passage itself did not hold the correct doctrine.”
So tell me, who said it got confused & where did it get confused? I would very much like to see a few examples of these ‘wrong meanings’ I would like you to explain (if you can) why they are wrong. You probably don’t understand biblical exegesis but it’s something that has been used for more years than your church has existed & it’s why doctrines such as the Arian heresies that are very similar to yours have been & will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Time after time you have been told what Christians believe & time after time the evidence for those beliefs has been provided, but what do you do? Well, you tell us a story that is as fantastic & believable as Lord of the Rings & moreover you expect us to believe all you say without us seeing a scrap of evidence that could verify your story so why should we believe any of it?
Provide the evidence & whoever reads it, Christian or Mormon, can decide what is true & what is false.
Shem said
Really Shem, Are you aware of this?
Seems according to this, it was a word for word, or letter for letter translation, not thought for thought.
Shem said
I can question him when the only parts of the BoM that are written in KJ English is the word for word passages from the Bible, and the rest of the BoM is not written in KJ English. Then as I said before, If we have those passages in the Bible, why do we need them word for word in the BoM?
Rick
Read your quote again and then learn a little about ancient languages, and then you might have a standing to make such statements, though you would also know them to be wrong.
Since the Language on the plates was a Reformed Egyptian, or a modified version of the Egyptian Language, and since we know that the Egyptian language was not based on an alphabet, but had a single symbol to express an idea or thought, than you would know that what I said is true.
Many ancient languages can’t be translated word for word because they don’t have words in the same sense that we do.
Now, you can question the choice of wording all you want, but all you are doing is questioning God, as I said, which is never a good idea.
Old Man
I actually do know about your exegisis. On another thread a while back someone posted a list of half a dozen steps, and I have found it to be a set of rules set up by men to force a particular interpretation and condemn all others. It is not a sound system, but is a intelletual slave driver in order to keep people in line.
True exegesis is simply a detailed explanation of a certain interpretation. Thus the Bible dictionary and Topical Guide that we print with the Bible are an exegesis of the bible, as they explain our methods reasoning in interpreting the Bible.
Shem,
I know you dont care since we have discussed this before. But the so called reformed Egyptian language does not exist and has never existed, so you cannot translate a language that is nothing more than pure fiction.
Shem,
again I know you dont care, but here is what wiki states about your beloved reformed Egyptian.
Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Egyptian
Ho hum. Eye roll. This is a bad defense, and a stupid one. Languages can and are translated very accurately, even though it is sometimes impossible to give a word for word translation. They are even using the ancient languages that have been “cracked” in the last century or so to make further discoveries and identify historical burial sites, royal lineages, and what remains are even put in what canopic jars etc. (Try watching the Discovery Channel, or reading something on a subject you deign to pontificate about for goodness sake, (once in a while anyway), and you might actually learn something) This is a two edged sword for Shem, because it can then be turned on him to say that Jo could not have translated the BOM accurately either, not even with God’s help (whichever Mormon God helped him that is). For example, see this hilarious article.
What Shem does so well in every myopic reply is simply give more blather from a person that has to mantra this because their founding “prophet” was such a con man. Jo even tried, in 1835 or so, to “translate” Book of Mormon phrases into Hebrew. What he wrote down was gibberish. (This was before he took Hebrew lessons). He pawned it all off as authentic, but it wasn’t and the documents exist to prove it. Jo has been PROVEN a fraud, so we KNOW FOR A CERTAINTY that deformed Egyptian is just that, gobbledygook invented by a con man.
As usual you don’t know what the heck you are talking about Shem. They did not just have a “single symbol to express an idea or thought”, but had many, many ways of doing so (Among them an alphabet), which make translating relatively easy now. (This is from a dumbed down page that even you could possibly understand)
As they say here, “Today, by virtue of the vast quantity of their literature, we know more about Egyptian society than most other ancient cultures.” And, “There are 143 alphabet, syllabic, determinative, numbers signs, decorative backgrounds, cartouches and gods names.”
Please, please, please Shem, keep on giving us your intelligent, (snicker) thoughtful, (who knows) and earnest (perhaps) responses so that I can show that even though you may think you are the former, I can show you are full of nothing but arrogance and error because you never ever research what you are trying to put forth as the truth, or an accurate representation of Mormon Doctrine. (It’s not, and never has been).
Two thoughts on your use of the NIV. First, if it is merely a preference, why don’t you utilize the NIV more? Why don’t you read it. If it expresses the same doctrine, where’s the problem with its bias? There should be no problem with your church using it.
The LDS church, however, uses the KJV pretty exclusively. So do you.
Second, if the problem ends up being symbolic, what can you do with symbols that you cannot do with straightforward descriptions? The answer is that they are open to greater interpretation. I see this answer as admitting you are able to fit LDS doctrine into the KJV than you can with the NIV.
Now, onto the point of greater manuscript evidence. Yes, there is more of it. There is earlier examples of it. Both of these make the evidence better.
But its not just the NIV that benefits from it. Do some thinking on this, Shem.
Shem, also, when did you reject the NIV? Right at the end of your last message to me in this post. Specifically, you say this: “I reject it because those portions that I have read with an open mind have led me to believe it to be inferior to the KJV and thus not worth my time.”
Notice you also say it is inferior and that you have not read it all with an open mind.
Think about it. Think also about Jesus and what he did for us. He died for us, fully and completely. All we have to do is recognize this and accept Him as our savior. There is nothing else required. Nothing. I pray you come to see this.
It really is that simple, and it is truly beautiful.
MJP
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I don’t care who uses the NIV. I know many members of the church who use it personally, and I have no problem with that. The church uses the KJV exclusively so that they have a unifying translation to refer back too. They use this one because it is the translation that Joseph Smith worked from in making his translation.
I don’t care who uses the NIV or any other translation, and by the same token I don’t think it should matter to anyone else whay translation I use. By your own admission you don’t think there is anything different, so why do you think that reading the NIV is going to provide anything that I cannot find in the KJV? Why are you so addamant that without reading the NIV I can’t approach the Bible with an opened mind? Obviously you think there is something superior in that translation, but you have failed to provide evidence of it.
Now, I have rejected the NIV for my personal study of the Bible, but I had not stated that when you claimed I had. What you said was putting words in my mouth, and your attempt to correct that by appealing to later statements doesn’t work.
Also, it is only in my studies that I have rejected it, because I have a preference for the KJV, and since I find nothing of greater value in the NIV I choose not to use it. When I describe it as inferior I am speaking of style of writing and choice of translations. As in the example I gave, from what I understand both the KJV and NIV have valid translations of the Greek manuscript. The choice is wording is that of the translator, but neither one is more correct than the other. Because of this I go with personal preference, and I prefer the translation that leaves symbols as symbols.
Shem, I am not sure I put words in your mouth. If it is as you claim, I was right.
I wonder why you object so much here to me pushing you on this. I could care less if you say that you are Ok with those that use the NIV. That’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is how you approach the Bible. You prefer the translation that better allows you to find the doctrine you want to find in it.
You cannot escape that you told me very plainly that a reason for your rejection is not just the wording and use of language, but the bias the translators of the NIV supposedly bring with them. You very clearly told me this. Do I need to quote you to refresh your memory?
If you now only tell me it is about symbolism then you are now being dishonest. This is the point of me harping on it. Your story has changed.
Now, why do I suggest reading other versions– again, not just the NIV (how often do I have to say this)? I suggest reading other versions because each has strengths and weaknesses and each provides a slightly different view of the words and ideas found within the Bible. With this variety, we are better able to grasp what was in the original text, and it helps us to glean true meaning. When we rely on one version, we are not getting a full picture– we are getting the one version’s, one translator’s, idea of what the text said.
Your rejection of the NIV, and apparently all other versions besides the KJV and the JST, is due to the bias of the translators, which means you don’t like their bias and what they bring into the text. Its much more than mere symbolism to you. And it is indicative of a closed mind.
Be honest, Shem. You are not being honest here.