Christian apologist Rob Bowman at the Institute for Religious Research’s Mormons in Transition web site has published a nine-page study of The Book of Hebrews and the Joseph Smith Translation. Mr. Bowman maintains,
“My argument here is simple: a comparison of the JST [Joseph Smith Translation] to the KJV [King James Version of the Bible] shows that the JST is neither a restoration of the original wording of the text nor a clarification of the text’s actual meaning, but instead reflects a misunderstanding of the text on the part of Joseph Smith. Thus, regardless of what theory of ‘translation’ the LDS use to explain the JST, it does not hold up as an inspired work.” (emphasis in the original)
One example Mr. Bowman discusses is Hebrews 6:1. Joseph Smith spoke about this specific passage (among others) during a Sunday sermon he delivered in October 1843:
“I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors….
“Look at Heb. vi.1 for contradictions—’Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection.’ If a man leaves the principles of the doctrine of Christ, how can he be saved in the principles? This is a contradiction. I don’t believe it. I will render it as it should be—’Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works….’” (History of the Church, 6:57-58, emphasis in the original)
Joseph Smith apparently misunderstood the meaning of the word rendered in the KJV as “leaving.” Smith understood it to mean to abandon rather than to move ahead or, as the NET Bible translates, “…progress beyond the elementary instructions about Christ and move on to maturity…”
Mr. Bowman points out that people in the 1840s (and before) understood Hebrews 6:1 to be saying believers must go on in their faith, building upon the foundation of Christ — they were not confused about what the passage meant. However, Joseph Smith did not understand it and alleged that the biblical text had been corrupted. Smith declared his own “corrected translation” with no correlation to (or understanding of) the Greek text.
About this passage from the JST Mr. Bowman concludes,
“Smith’s failure to understand this point is clear proof that he was not inspired in his ‘translation.’ By adding the word ‘not,’ he not only failed to clarify the text’s real meaning, he actually showed that he did not understand what he was revising. This is about as clear an example of an uninspired rewrite as one could imagine.”
Could it be that the “ignorant translator” or “corrupt priest” of the Prophet’s indictment was actually Joseph Smith himself?
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
“Those who wish to read this marvelous work, the new Bible translated by Joseph Smith, by direct revelation, will discover that he has not translated a single word, that he had no manuscript of any kind, that he was an ignorant young man, is admitted. There is no evidence that he compared any originals with each other, nor could he have done so if the originals were before him. The claim is that it was all done by direct inspiration from the Almighty, but to call it a translation is the height of impudence and nonsense….
Here is the secret of Smith’s power to translate. He read the Bible, thought that such and such a change should be made, either by adding a few verses, or taking away a few verses. If he had the burning sensation in his bosom it was right, and so he cut and slashed away at the Word of God to his heart’s content, and the result is the Mormon Bible (R.C.Evans, Forty Years in the Mormon Church—Why I Left It! Toronto, Canada, 1920, pp.111-12).
Though Smith was commanded by his God to ‘publish’ the inspired version, the Mormon Church has never done so, publishing only portions in their KJV of the Bible, & Excerpts out of Matthew. There are so many things wrong with the Inspired Version, seems the Mormon Church is embarrassed to Publish it all…
Is the JST perversion of the Holy Scriptures available anywhere? It is curious that it would be hidden if God truly did inspire the writing. If God did not inspire the writing, and it is an embarrassment(as this article clearly articulates) it makes perfect sense to hide it just like so many other false things in Mormonism. Wouldn’t this qualify as a standard work of Mormonism – RESTORED scriptures by Joseph Smith??? Why not??
What this sordid affair of altering God’s inspired Word truly points to is a false prophet who made it up as he went. Inventing and fabricating, Joseph Smith was obviously a charismatic story-teller. History has seen many of these charlatans who can tell a lie so well even they begin to believe it. Most who alter God’s Word are not as direct as Smith, rather they discount or “reinterpret” passages etc. Smith took the direct approach writing himself (height of hubris!) and other things right into the Bible.
We have many old source documents for the Scriptures unavailable in Joseph Smith’s day. Mormons should do a study of these to see how many of Smith’s inspired corrections can be found there – they could publish this to show the truth of his claims of prophetic insight. Unfortunately for them, any study like this would only undermine the Mormon Church as Joseph Smith’s changes are unsupported by truth.
Sharon,
It ain’t the only place either. Many people know by now that the JST changed Romans 4:5 by inserting the word “not”.
I have mentioned here before some of the issues regarding the JST:
http://blog.mrm.org/2009/03/do-you-believe-in-the-bible/comment-page-3/
I think the unbiased reader can see, if he/she is willing to put for the effort, that J. Smith changed portions of the Bible to suit his theological leanings.
mobaby, the LDS Church says, “…while we do not use the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible as a separate book of scripture, parts of it are included in other Latter-day Saint scriptures… portions of the Joseph Smith Translation are found [in] Joseph Smith—Matthew in the Pearl of Great Price, the JST footnotes throughout the Bible, and the section following the Bible Dictionary.” The full text of the JST is available in various forms from various publishers, though not directly from the LDS Church.
Sharon,
When I say “hide” I realize that knowledge of the JST is available to those who seek it out. But a RESTORED scripture that was lost should be published in a deluxe edition together with the BOM if it were true (leather bound if desired) and promoted by the SLC LDS Church. I did a search online and found another Mormon (RLDS) group that has the text available online. I skimmed through the first few chapters of Genesis – it has additions talking about our savior Jesus Christ, truly astounding – shows a complete lack of the reality that God revealed His sacrificial plan over time with the fullness of Jesus revealed as God’s completed sacrifice for our sins – but Joseph Smith has inserted all kinds of out of place, anachronistic things into Genesis.
Here is where Smith wrote himself into Genesis:
Genesis 50:26JST “A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.”
What a conspiracy, that even the reference to the coming of Joseph Smith was specifically identified and removed from the Bible? Either that, or Joseph Smith simply distorted the Scriptures adding himself in where he pleased. Which seems most likely??? Which is supported by the best early historical documents we now have available??
Just wondering, but is Rob Bowman from the Institute for Religious Research’s Mormons in Transition A currant LDS member? Or is he a Ex LDS member who no longer follows and is trying to expouse the Church as the false church it is? Rick b
Rick, Rob has never been LDS. He is an Evangelical Christian who has devoted his life to the defense of the Christian faith. Sorry I didn’t originally clarify that above. I have now.
mobaby, I agree — it seems like a church that distrusts the Bible, believing it has been corrupted, would eagerly publish and cherish a new edition that has been corrected/restored by its prophet.
Smith was COMMANDED to publish his translation:
… I have commanded you to organize yourselves, even to shinelah [print] my words, the fulness of my scriptures ...(Doctrine and Covenants, 104:58).
… the second lot … shall be dedicated unto me for the building of a house unto me, for the work of the printing of the translation of my scriptures … (94:10).
… let him [William Law] from henceforth hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph,… and publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth (124:89).
But…Emma kept the manuscript & the Reorganized Church published it…Young never trusted Emma & would not use the translation..
You have to give JS credit, if he was a fraud then he was very good at it. I agree with Mobaby, the insertion of “A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.” is at least consistent when he (JS) translated the BOM verse that shows compatibility and consistency with the JST. To be able to keep track of all that was said, and then insert it afterwards into the JST was cleaver, but the fuller version in 2 nephi gives more clarity to a event that would happen it the last days.
But a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins—and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them. Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord. (2 Nephi 3:11—12)
There’s an Isaiah verse (2:9) that he rewrote for the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 12:9)that he didn’t quite understand either. It’s like he thought “mean” means “ornery”, instead of “average”, or that he thought they were bowing down in front of the LORD instead of to IDOLS.
Misunderstanding of the Bible, made into doctrine for a new church. Clever? Perhaps. Dangerous and destructive, positively
Hey Janet, I know that both LDS and Christians get mad at me for demanding answers and I am notorious for asking over and over or “Reminding” People that they missed a question. I know I have said about myself to LDS, If I mis a question then remind me, I know also from personal experience that some LDS avoid questions, so it’s hard to tell when they were missed verses being avoided.
Over all I really dont care if people get mad at me for “Reminding” people or asking over and over because the stakes are high and peoples eternal souls are at stake over truth verses deception.
My question to you that you missed was, You quoted BY and when you quoted him, you seemed pretty confident young knew what he was speaking about, and you were sure enough that you quoted him. Why is it you or LDS can quote him when it suits your needs and fits your belief and your sure he knows what he is talking about, Yet when us Christians quote BY and Adam God, Or the Blacks and the priesthood, or Blood Atonement or any other crazy belief that Young taught, then you guys are sure were mis-quoting him, or he was not really sure and did not speak clearly or any other host of reasons why we cannot quote from him.
I’m open to other LDS answering this, But I really want your thoughts since you quoted from him. And I will keep reminding you if you reply to other topics but avoid this one. But then if you avoid this question it will cause some to wonder why. Rick b
The ‘Inspired’ Version & Mormon Lies:
A Mormon Apostle sets up the premise for the LIE:
“Joseph Smith accepted the Bible as far as it was translated correctly but felt that many errors which should be corrected had crept into the work of the copyist and translators…. he endeavored through inspiration from on high to correct those many departures from the original text. This was not fully completed when he died, but his manuscript exists in the original and in copies, and has been published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is a remarkable evidence of the prophetic power of Joseph Smith. Hundreds of changes make clear many a disputed text “( Widstoe, Joseph Smith—Seeker After Truth, p.251).
Not Finished? I don’t think so:
“I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion” (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.324).
“In a letter dated July 2, 1833, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and F. G. Williams, the following statement is found: “We this day finished the translation of the Scriptures, for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father …” (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.368).
As Gerald & Sandra Tanner so aptly put it:
“Joseph Smith not only made many unnecessary changes in the Bible, but he also failed to see the places where the text of the Bible really needed correction. There is one statement in the King James Version, 1 John 5:7 and 8, which scholars are certain is an interpolation. In modern versions of the Bible this statement has been removed to conform with the ancient Greek manuscripts. Following is a comparison of the text in the King James Version and that found in the Revised Standard Version:
King James Version: 1 John 5:6-8: “6. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
Revised Standard Version: 1 John 5:6-8: “6. This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. 7. And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
In Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, page 258, we learn that “the text is found in no Greek MSS. except a few of very late date in which it has been inserted from the Latin. It is a purely Latin interpolation of African origin, which, beginning as a gloss, first found its way into the text of Spain, where it appears in the Freising Fragments, and later in the Vulgate codices Cavensis and Toletanus. Thence it spread over Europe as an unequivocal Scripture ‘proof’ of the doctrine of the Trinity.”
Even in Joseph Smith’s time this portion of 1 John was rejected by many scholars. Adam Clarke wrote: “Though a conscientious advocate for the sacred doctrine contained in the disputed text, and which I think expressly enough revealed in several other parts of the sacred writings, I must own the passage in question stands on a most dubious foundation” (Clarke’s Commentary, vol. 6, p.929).
An examination of the writings of Mormon scholars reveals that they also question the authenticity of this verse. Arch S. Reynolds stated: “The extraneous matter added in the Authorized Version is clearly an interpolation …” (“A Study of Joseph Smith’s Bible Revision,” p.169).
Richard L. Anderson, of Brigham Young University, agrees: “One of the few major additions that seem apparent is I John 5:7…. The text of the fifth century did not speak of the heavenly Trinity, and the fact that very few Greek manuscripts add the heavenly Trinity makes it probable that this comment was not an original part of John’s letter” (Fourteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the Scriptures, BYU, 1963, p.53).
Now, if Joseph Smith was inspired at all in his work on the Scriptures we would expect to find this interpolation removed in his “inspired revision.” Instead, however, we find that it appears exactly as written in the King James Version:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.
“And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one” (Inspired Version, by Joseph Smith, 1 John 5:7-8).
In 1832 the Mormon publication The Evening and the Morning Star (vol. 1, No. 1, p.3), said that the changes in the Bible were made “by the Mother of Harlots while it was confined in that Church,[Catolic]—say, from the year A.D. 460 to 1400.”
The “great Isaiah scroll” found at Qumran provides important evidence to show that the Catholics did not take away “many plain and precious things” from the Bible. This scroll is dated at about 100 B.C., and therefore could not have been touched by the Catholics. Also it should be remembered that this scroll is a Jewish production, and the Book of Mormon claims that the Jews had the Scriptures in their “purity.” Why, then, does this scroll fail to support the text of Isaiah as found in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith’s “inspired revision” of the Bible?
“Mormon writer Robert J. Matthews admits that “in the main the passages revised by Joseph Smith are not supported by the three great parchment manuscripts that now enjoy popularity, nor by the thousands of Papyrus manuscripts and fragments, nor by the Dead Sea Scrolls. In some few passages there is a type of similarity but these are the exception rather than the rule” (“Joseph Smith’s Revision of the Bible,” by Robert J. Matthews, 1968, typed copy, p.17).
[As for writing himself into Genesis,] the Septuagint—a Greek version of the Old Testament said to have been translated from the Hebrew before the time of Christ—offers no support for Joseph Smith’s “inspired revision” of Genesis 50:24, but instead is almost identical with the King James Version.” http://utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech12b.htm#383
I am confident that there will NEVER be ANY verification for Smith’s bastardization of the Bible. Like the BOM, & the BOA & the Kinderhook Plates, Historical Evidence shows no support for ANYTHING that Smith put his hand to & NEVER WILL & was NOT a very good fraud artist. Smith never published his bastard bible because he had changed his definition of God, introduced polygamy & his bastard bible did not support the new fantasies Smith wanted incorporated into his church. In fact the original manuscript of Smith’s bible shows numerous changes as he went along. If he was translating through God, [as it is claimed] that would not be necessary, but we know this is not the case, Smith made it up as he went along and changed his revelations in the D&C, the BOM & his bible at later dates (or the Mormon Church did) to reflect his (their) ever changing justifications for his (their) actions. This is another nail in the coffin of a phony prophet & is false, just like the rest of Smith’s supposed revelations.
I applaud you all for your perseverance. Excellent evidence, as usual grindael. Haven’t had time to write lately, but I have been following along. I’m still around.
Quoting Rick, “My question to you that you missed was, You quoted BY and when you quoted him, you seemed pretty confident young knew what he was speaking about, and you were sure enough that you quoted him. Why is it you or LDS can quote him when it suits your needs and fits your belief and your sure he knows what he is talking about, Yet when us Christians quote BY and Adam God, Or the Blacks and the priesthood, or Blood Atonement or any other crazy belief that Young taught, then you guys are sure were mis-quoting him, or he was not really sure and did not speak clearly or any other host of reasons why we cannot quote from him.
Not sure why you would ask this question of me, since I for one yes did quote BY, and yes I do believe there is something there we do not yet understand. I also admit the questions about Black and priesthood and the Blood atonement are there for all to see just as BY states them. I don’t apologize for something that has little clarity and as of yet not been accepted as Doctrine by the GA’s and approved by the general membership. If he was speaking AS A PROPHET of the LORD, and not of his own mind and theories, then we will continue to have issues and problems explaining exactly whether they are just theories or was it revelation, I really don’t know, but like you would someday want to have the whole context of thought and ideas explained in clarity.
Janet.
From an OFFICIAL PUBLICATION of the Mormon Church:
“Concerning the doctrine that Adam is our Father and God…the prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that is the word of the Lord” (Millenial Star, August 26, 1854, vol.16, p.534).
If Thomas Monson did this today, what would be the difference? Only that the Mormons of today can’t accept this was a REVELATION to Young. Perhaps the Mormons need a new prophet to ‘re-translate’ the Bible & put Adam-god into it? But they probably wouldn’t publish it anyway, same as Smith’s…..
It’s not Monson’s church, last time I went to church there was a huge plaque in stone, that stated, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.”
Many new thing will still be revealed to His church, and some will be tried dearly to accept all that will be asked of them.
Janet.
Tried like all the Mormons who believed in adam-god & for which McConkie said they would be damned? I can’t wait for the next ‘revelation’, but at the rate the current batch of ‘revelators’ are going, I won’t hold my breath.
How can one state they believe when the doctrine is not accepted as of yet. I do believe that BY gave the sermons, he believed what he was saying, but also felt it wasn’t important for our salvation to know any more about it. I also believe that BY’s sermon will be revealed more fully eventually when we are prepared to know. If it was pure theory on BY’s part which I personally doubt, then McConkie and BY will deal with it eventually in the afterlife.
Janet.
Janet,
Here is the problem I have, and it seems their is never any really good honest answers from the LDS, About all I get is, I’m really not sure.
BY Said in the JoD Vol 8 pg 11 and I quote
Correct me if I am wrong, but BY died in 1877. Many LDS claim the JoD cannot be trusted and that what was taught in them is not scripture. Well funny thing is, LDS prophets and presidents happily quote Young and the JoD when it fits there agenda. Every time the Adam God or blood atonement or Blacks never having the priesthood come up, I hear, The JoD cannot be trusted or BY did not speak in such a way that we can be sure he meant what he said and we need further revelation.
So why is it that Young is quoted a lot by LDS and it’s ok, but when Christians quote young we hear, we need further revelation? I mention the death of young because I own a book published by the Church of latter day saints called “Discourses of Brigham young” The publish date is 1925, this book was published almost 50 years after the death of BY, and my copy is 743 pages minus the index, these 743 pages are all quotes from BY and the JoD. So it seems even after the death of BY his words carried so much influence that the church felt it worthy to put them into a book of quotes.
So I find it sad that LDS are so blind that they cannot see that by meant what he said when it comes to everything. You guys reply with things like, that was simply his personal opinion whenit comes to teachings you dont like or agree with, yet when you like or agree with them then the words of BY are straight from the mouth of God almighty Himself.
Also the problem I see is, Your prophet Ezra said, The prophet does not need to saith, thus saith the Lord to give us Scripture. So when BY teaches something you dont like, you reply with, It’s not scripture, or BY did not say, thus saith the Lord. So how do you decide what is from God and what is Cont
Cont,
What is from God and what is not on a subject that BY does not state, What makes you decide what is of the Lord and what is not when it is clearly not stated?
I just think it is really sad that you guys make so many excuses for your prophets. Rick b
What’s more, Rick, all of the “Mainstream” or “Utah” Mormons are a branch off group of Mormonism led by BY. Therefore, all of what he said should be important, right? Otherwise, why not follow one of the other Mormon groups?
I think it all boils down to a heart condition. Does one REALLY want to hear from God and let it change their whole life, or not?
Setfree, I honestly do not believe a single mormon will ever be able to give an honest answer to why they can quote BY and think it’s ok yet when we quote BY then it means he is wrong or we do not have enough information or our quote needs more revelation. Why is it when it comes to quotes like Adam God we do not have enough information so we need more revelation. Why Did BY state that Adam God is Doctrine and we must here it yet we really cannot understand it and we need more revelation.
Yet if it really was from God and BY said it was doctrine, then how come God has waited over 200 years and has no given us the fuller information? LDS will simply say, Gods timing is not our timing. Rick b
Rick,
Like what’s going on on the other thread, it’s about sticking with whatever works with what someone has already been taught, or believes, rather than taking the whole lump sum to God and saying “Just give me the TRUTH!”, and being willing to hear His answer.
JS was always looking for secret, hidden “Truth” in the Bible. But I can’t believe that he ever submitted himself to God and said “What is YOUR will?” Instead, JS created the will of god that he wanted.
Lots o wives? Hey, it’s god’s will!
High status? It’s god’s will for his top man (or rather, the guy for whom god sits at the right hand)
Not like ole Joe Smith is alone in that. How many people have taken what they want TO the Bible, and looked around until they’ve found it there? How very dangerous!
Subjecting oneself to listening to what God really has to say takes a person out of the number-one seat. It’s a hard thing to do. It’s risking having to reconsider all that one has ever thought and done. It’s giving up the comfort of SELF and bowing to SELF alone.
It’s no wonder more people don’t do it.
Janet said, “I also believe that BY’s sermon will be revealed more fully eventually when we are prepared to know. If it was pure theory on BY’s part which I personally doubt, then McConkie and BY will deal with it eventually in the afterlife.”
I wholheartedly agree.
You see, scripture is very clear. God created Adam and the Angels (Genesis 1). God is neither Adam nor the archangel Michael (who BY said was the Ancient of Days). I pray that BY and McConkie both repented before they died. If not, they will be judged for the false doctrine they spread.
“Correct me if I am wrong, but BY died in 1877. Many LDS claim the JoD cannot be trusted and that what was taught in them is not scripture.”
Kind of a blanket statement I would think, so who are those who state the JoD cannot be trusted?
I recognize that they are not part of the accepted Standard Works, but I find them, at least for the small part I have read to be very enlightening and would accept them as any good sermon that could be preached in one of our Sacrament Meetings.
Janet
“What is from God and what is not on a subject that BY does not state, What makes you decide what is of the Lord and what is not when it is clearly not stated?”
What I accept is also something I have prayed about, and have had it confirmed to me.
Janet.
” I honestly do not believe a single mormon will ever be able to give an honest answer to why they can quote BY and think it’s ok yet when we quote BY then it means he is wrong or we do not have enough information or our quote needs more revelation.”
I have been honest, you must have missed my past post on this topic. I stated that I believe BY made these statements in his sermons, and I also stated that when the time is right, we will learn more about just what He was inferring. I try to think outside the box which means I can keep an open mind, but I don’t expect other Mormons to feel the same, we are all mindful that one needs to continue to study and pray, for as we do more and more Gospel truths will be revealed in there fulness.
Janet
It continually amazes me the lengths Mormons will go to to deny their own prophets.
For Young, it was all ego, like his predecessor Smith. Being too arrogant to deal with Emma & the Josephites, Young said this about the JST:
“That made us very anxious, in the days of Joseph, to get the new translation; but the Bible is good enough just as it is, it will answer my purpose…” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p.116).
Being a ‘prophet, seer & revelator’, you think it would have been easy for Young to ‘amend’ the Bible himself. Instead he claimed ‘revelations’ like adam-god & busied himself with distillery’s & spouting blood atonement oaths from the pulpit. As for adam-god, one more time, it WAS claimed as revelation by Young:
“I will give you a few words OF DOCTRINE, upon which there has been much inquiry, and with regard to which considerable ignorance exists. Brother Watt will write it, but it is not my intention to have it published; therefore pay good attention, and store it up in your memories.
Some years ago, I advanced a DOCTRINE with regard to Adam being our Father and God. That will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel, because of their folly with regard to it. They yet grovel in darkness–and will. It is one of the most glorious REVELATIONS [concerning] the economy of heaven, yet the world hold it [in] derision.
Had I revealed the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead instead of Joseph Smith, there are men around me [right now] who would have ridiculed the idea until dooms day. But they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb ass.” (Brigham Young Papers; Ms/d/1234/Bx 49/fd 8, Church Historical Department. Unpublished discourse of Brigham Young given in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle, October 8th, 1861, in the morning session.)
Young gave it as a REVELATION & the Mormons REJECTED the words of their ‘prophet’.
Janet,
Your rational of waiting for more information to
be revealed( on B.Y’s teaching about Adam-god)
is’nt a legitimate answer since what has been
claimed as revelation via your prophet is seen
to be heresey . For a prophet to lie at this point
would mean God removes his authority.It really
does’nt matter if the whole church accepts the
prophet B.Y.’s teaching or not.B.Y. accepted it
and taught it. Do you realize that this lost of
authority affects your baptism?
All your good intentions and faithful attendence
in church activities can’t make up for that.
I realize that if after reading the BOM and waiting until more information would become available, I never would have joined. Same for other doctrine that we find in snippets, that I keep a open mind about. No, what I do is read, ask, and then expect confirmation by the Holy Ghost, if there is no confirmation then it still doesn’t make it wrong, most likely it is something that is not essential for my Salvation and can wait until the body of members can absorb even more new doctrine. I stand by BY, to think otherwise would be to admit that God did not call him to this high calling of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
Janet.
Janet here is a problem I see.
You keep saying your sitting back waiting for more info, but the bible tells us to search the scriptures to know if these things are true, not wait for further revelation. Then the Bible tells us to test the spirits since lying spirits and false miracles and wonders are trying to deceive us.
Then why would God tell BY to give the Adam God doctrine to the saints of the day, but not give enough information to really tell us what we need then leave us hanging for over 200 years as to what was really meant.
Then since the vast majority of LDS prophets and presidents have called the Adam God doctrine a lie and heresy. How come the LDS prophets never get revelation from God clearing this issue up? How come you never see any new words of revelation from the LDS prophets in the last 200 years clearing up these major doctrinal issues?
You say it not a matter of salvation, but these are all doctrinal issues that do effect your salvation and the prophets do nothing to clear these issues up. Rick b
Janet, Many LDS prophets have said that Adam God is False, many claim BY was speaking his mere opinion and not for God, You have said we need further revelation to understand what he really meant.
How do you respond to BY when he said this?
By said these ARE REVELATIONS from God and they are doctrine and they are true, and no man can disprove them.
So we have a serious problem when LDS prophets say this is not from God but BY’s mere opinion and that they are false, Someone is lying. So yes is is a salvation issue, If some one is lying then that means your building your faith upon lies and someone is being lead astray.
Now if that not good enough let me add this quote from BY.
What really interesting is, This is from volume 5, the Adam God is in Volume 1. So some time has passed and people were complaining about the Adam God Doctrine. BY was clear that it was Doctrine and we need no further revelation, People were complaining because they knew exactly what he was talking about. How is it they knew back then what he meant, but today since many dont like it they excuse it by saying we need further revelation? Rick b
Pingback: Hebrews & JST « Heart Issues for LDS
Janet, I noticed something you said earlier, that if you wait for proof, you’ll miss it. I think what you saying is that waiting for things you don’t know yet because it has not been revealed you’ll miss the boat, and it is therefore better to not get bogged down in the details.
However, what if we told you that we can and do know that the God of the Bible is true right now, and so can you? Before getting into the evidence (good points are made in this article) I’d like to know your answer to this question.