How do the Mormons do it?

[Telstar]

Actually, I didn’t make any attack against the intentions and reasons of those who wanted to protect the truth as they saw it; we agree on the point that scripture needs to be both translated and interpreted correctly to be of worth. What we disagree on is the correct translation (to a point, and in some circumstances) and mainly the interpretation.

When you deny that the Catholic Church has full authority over translating its own literary work, you are most certainly attacking the integrity of that Church, no matter how you might try to sugar coat it by your feigned sympathy concerning their ‘intentions and reasons’. But, there seem to be a lot of LDS that have no qualms about plagiarism, or about rewriting ‘history’ when it serves their own purposes.

The scriptures sould always be available to everyone in a language they can understand. The fact is, for whatever reason or intention (I do not doubt the well meaning and good intentions of the church leaders) the scriptures were not available to many many people in a language they could understand, and neither were the services they attended.
The gospel should be available to everyone in their own language: pentecost is proof of that.

What part of Latin was a common language at that point in time, don’t you understand? Also, you’re conveniently avoiding the fact that the printing press hadn’t been invented yet, and even after it was, books were enormously expensive, even for the ‘rich’. The likelihood of anyone being able to afford to have their own Bible in their home was slim to none.

You, once again, assume (we all know what happens when we assume, right?) that the Gospel was always read in Latin, at Mass. As far as I know, the Gospel and other Bible readings were all done in the vernacular of the people, as was the sermon given by the Priest that was based on those readings, not in Latin. At least, that’s how it was always done when I was a kid going to a Latin Mass at my own parish. So, there goes yet another Catholic myth, dashed against the stone (or the Rock).

That it’s no good trying to claim that schooling was available, when the people who really needed it (for basic reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic skills) had no way to get access to it.

 

[zaffiroborant]

zaffiroborant,
I thought I summarized the facts accurately (you only copied my summary statement)
please articulate the myth i stated?

Your summary statement covers it quite well. Also your snarkyness when someone brings up education shows you’re unwilling to actually discuss the issue.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That it’s no good trying to claim that schooling was available, when the people who really needed it (for basic reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic skills) had no way to get access to it.

Yep it the CC’s fault, they should have come up with a busing plan

 

[Tony888]

When you deny that the Catholic Church has full authority over translating its own literary work, you are most certainly attacking the integrity of that Church, no matter how you might try to sugar coat it by your feigned sympathy concerning their ‘intentions and reasons’. But, there seem to be a lot of LDS that have no qualms about plagiarism, or about rewriting ‘history’ when it serves their own purposes.

Please be clear. It sounds like you are saying the RCC owns the bible, like a piece of property?

I think at most we are pointing out a class structure of the time, which contradicts our current understanding of 'being christian’

What part of Latin was a common language at that point in time, don’t you understand? Also, you’re conveniently avoiding the fact that the printing press hadn’t been invented yet, and even after it was, books were enormously expensive, even for the ‘rich’. The likelihood of anyone being able to afford to have their own Bible in their home was slim to none.

stop taking this to illogical conclusions. It was never a question about owning the bible, it was a question about hearing the bible correctly. Nobody has denied Latin was common among the educated upper class

You, once again, assume (we all know what happens when we assume, right?) that the Gospel was always read in Latin, at Mass. As far as I know, the Gospel and other Bible readings were all done in the vernacular of the people, as was the sermon given by the Priest that was based on those readings, not in Latin. At least, that’s how it was always done when I was a kid going to a Latin Mass at my own parish. So, there goes yet another Catholic myth, dashed against the stone (or the Rock).

As you point out, if the bible was only in latin, then the average Joe didn’t understand anything until his Priest translated the meaning on the fly THAT IS THE ISSUE

The local clergy were constantly translating the words and meaning of the bible without guidance from the church authority. Proper guidance only became available when there were approved translations.

 

[Naf623]

Let me quote from the Psalms:
Psalms 111:7-9
7 The works of his hands are fidelity and justice, all his precepts are trustworthy,

8 established for ever and ever, accomplished in fidelity and honesty.

9 Deliverance he sends to his people, his covenant he imposes for ever; holy and awesome his name.

And what about the “New and Everlasting Covenent” mentioned in D&C 132

Are three everlasting covenants your defenition of “the only”?

Everlasting Gospel; there is only one Gospel that is to last forever; the one taught by Jesus and His apostles. The only other thing that could conceivably been known to John the Revelator as any kind of gospel, would have been the Law of Moses - which is neither gospel, or everlasting. Thus the prophecy is about the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

FYI the Revelation of John is about the Mass and the reference of the angel is actually a priest in which case he is either holding the eucharist or proclaiming the Gospel of the Lord, because during the Mass Heaven and earth are joined. I would love to go into greater detail but Scott Hahn wrote a whole book on the subject that explains this phenomena better than I could.

FYI, every word you wrote here doesn’t make sense to the text of the scripture.
John wouldn’t refer to an Angel (even by your own doctrines that they are some separate species to humans) if he meant a man - a man just teaching, on a regular basis (as John would be well accustomed to, unlike angelic visits), is something quite different from an angel being sent.
And even if he did just mean an average meeting, just like those he attended (potentially led) himself, the scripture still says that the gospel needed to be brought and taught to men. For it to be necessary to bring the gospel back from heaven it must have been missing from the earth.

Can’t find a proper arguement for your third point.

The reason being that we agree on the point: that the gospel needs to be taken to every part of the world, and both Catholics and LDS do this.

As for your conclusions, how could there be a complete and total apostasy when both in the Old and New Testaments Gods Covenants are identified as ETERNAL?

Does a book cease to exist because nobody reads it?
The covenants are eternal, they last forever for everyone who makes them with God. The fact that nobody remained on the earth who had entered into His covenants, doesn’t diminish their eternal nature for those who had made them before, or would make them after.

 

[Naf623]

The New Testament is the Catholic Churches Diary. Who best to interpret it?

The New Testament is the Diary of the early church; only you believe that you are still the same as they were.
That argument aside, I would suggest God as being much better to interpret anything than any man, or group of us.

When you deny that the Catholic Church has full authority over translating its own literary work, you are most certainly attacking the integrity of that Church, no matter how you might try to sugar coat it by your feigned sympathy concerning their ‘intentions and reasons’. But, there seem to be a lot of LDS that have no qualms about plagiarism, or about rewriting ‘history’ when it serves their own purposes.

I never suggested they shouldn’t be allowed to produce translations, the point is that they were slow in producing and releasing them, meaning that people who couldn’t understand Latin (the majority of your average people) were not afforded the opportunity to have it available in a language they could understand.

What part of Latin was a common language at that point in time, don’t you understand? Also, you’re conveniently avoiding the fact that the printing press hadn’t been invented yet, and even after it was, books were enormously expensive, even for the ‘rich’. The likelihood of anyone being able to afford to have their own Bible in their home was slim to none.

A common language among upper class people with the money to spend learning to read it is a different matter to it being a language in general use that everyone would be able to understand.
This has nothing to do with distribution, and everything to do with availability. Few institutions (if any) have been wealthier than the Catholic Church, and to provide each of their congregations with a copy for reference should they wish would be a drop in the ocean as far as their coffers were concerned.

You, once again, assume (we all know what happens when we assume, right?) that the Gospel was always read in Latin, at Mass. As far as I know, the Gospel and other Bible readings were all done in the vernacular of the people, as was the sermon given by the Priest that was based on those readings, not in Latin. At least, that’s how it was always done when I was a kid going to a Latin Mass at my own parish. So, there goes yet another Catholic myth, dashed against the stone (or the Rock).

Without an available translation, how would the priest have been reading the gospel, or Eucharist in anything but Latin? Following which, any vernacular explanation would not be translation, just interpretation based on catholic teachings.

Yep it the CC’s fault, they should have come up with a busing plan

Nobody is accusing the Catholics of failing to educate people, rather of failing to provide scripture in a manner they were educated to understand.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The New Testament is the Diary of the early church; only you believe that you are still the same as they were.
That argument aside, I would suggest God as being much better to interpret anything than any man, or group of us.

I never suggested they shouldn’t be allowed to produce translations, the point is that they were slow in producing and releasing them, meaning that people who couldn’t understand Latin (the majority of your average people) were not afforded the opportunity to have it available in a language they could understand.

A common language among upper class people with the money to spend learning to read it is a different matter to it being a language in general use that everyone would be able to understand.
This has nothing to do with distribution, and everything to do with availability. Few institutions (if any) have been wealthier than the Catholic Church, and to provide each of their congregations with a copy for reference should they wish would be a drop in the ocean as far as their coffers were concerned.

Without an available translation, how would the priest have been reading the gospel, or Eucharist in anything but Latin? Following which, any vernacular explanation would not be translation, just interpretation based on catholic teachings.

Nobody is accusing the Catholics of failing to educate people, rather of failing to provide scripture in a manner they were educated to understand.

But the Church did provide scripture in a manner they were educated to understand, by hearing the Word. You seem to think that people that couldn’t read Latin could read English, and that all that was needed was a vernacular translation and all would be able to read it. Have you looked at the history of literacy? What percentage of 16the century people do think could read any language?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Word of God is meant to be heard, together, in a community. The Mormon religion is individualistic. Mormons will keep going to this idea of a need for an individual to seek interpretation, outside of a community. But no one has ever done this, or does it now, including Mormons.

It is a contrast of ideology and reality. Mormons, spouting an ideology, that doesn’t align to what is actually happening, anywhere.

They just keep saying the same thing, but not because it makes any sense. Only because it supports an ideology.

 

[sallybutler]

But the Church did provide scripture in a manner they were educated to understand, by hearing the Word. You seem to think that people that couldn’t read Latin could read English, and that all that was needed was a vernacular translation and all would be able to read it. Have you looked at the history of literacy? What percentage of 16the century people do think could read any language?

I have some questions for those of you who are blaming the Church for not educating the masses in the middle ages. How many people currently speak the King’s English as it is presented in the King James Bible? Does the Mormon church teach Elizabethean English, or does it expect people to understand the Word of the Lord based on what their ministers teach them? How do people who can’t read (blindness, dsylexia, lack of education, age, language differences, etc) read the Bible? If the Mormons are so upset with the Catholic Church for not providing reading lessons & Bibles in the 'modern & local" language, are they creating versions of the bible in local dialacts – including eubonics, cajon, midwestern English, arcadian, etc?

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[CopticChristian]

The New Testament is the Diary of the early church; only you believe that you are still the same as they were.
That argument aside, I would suggest God as being much better to interpret anything than any man, or group of us.

I never suggested they shouldn’t be allowed to produce translations, the point is that they were slow in producing and releasing them, meaning that people who couldn’t understand Latin (the majority of your average people) were not afforded the opportunity to have it available in a language they could understand.

A common language among upper class people with the money to spend learning to read it is a different matter to it being a language in general use that everyone would be able to understand.
This has nothing to do with distribution, and everything to do with availability. Few institutions (if any) have been wealthier than the Catholic Church, and to provide each of their congregations with a copy for reference should they wish would be a drop in the ocean as far as their coffers were concerned.

Without an available translation, how would the priest have been reading the gospel, or Eucharist in anything but Latin? Following which, any vernacular explanation would not be translation, just interpretation based on catholic teachings.

Nobody is accusing the Catholics of failing to educate people, rather of failing to provide scripture in a manner they were educated to understand./QUOTE]

These criticisms should be redirected to the failure to produce the golden plates upon which the book of mormon was said to be written on and explain the language of reformed egyptian.

 

[CopticChristian]

Everlasting Gospel; there is only one Gospel that is to last forever; the one taught by Jesus and His apostles. The only other thing that could conceivably been known to John the Revelator as any kind of gospel, would have been the Law of Moses - which is neither gospel, or everlasting. Thus the prophecy is about the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

FYI, every word you wrote here doesn’t make sense to the text of the scripture.
John wouldn’t refer to an Angel (even by your own doctrines that they are some separate species to humans) if he meant a man - a man just teaching, on a regular basis (as John would be well accustomed to, unlike angelic visits), is something quite different from an angel being sent.
And even if he did just mean an average meeting, just like those he attended (potentially led) himself, the scripture still says that the gospel needed to be brought and taught to men. For it to be necessary to bring the gospel back from heaven it must have been missing from the earth.

The reason being that we agree on the point: that the gospel needs to be taken to every part of the world, and both Catholics and LDS do this.

Does a book cease to exist because nobody reads it?The covenants are eternal, they last forever for everyone who makes them with God. The fact that nobody remained on the earth who had entered into His covenants, doesn’t diminish their eternal nature for those who had made them before, or would make them after.

Somehow the golden plates for the book of mormon have ceased to exist.

 

[CopticChristian]

Everlasting Gospel; there is only one Gospel that is to last forever; the one taught by Jesus and His apostles. The only other thing that could conceivably been known to John the Revelator as any kind of gospel, would have been the Law of Moses - which is neither gospel, or everlasting. Thus the prophecy is about the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

FYI, every word you wrote here doesn’t make sense to the text of the scripture.
John wouldn’t refer to an Angel (even by your own doctrines that they are some separate species to humans) if he meant a man - a man just teaching, on a regular basis (as John would be well accustomed to, unlike angelic visits), is something quite different from an angel being sent.
And even if he did just mean an average meeting, just like those he attended (potentially led) himself, the scripture still says that the gospel needed to be brought and taught to men. For it to be necessary to bring the gospel back from heaven it must have been missing from the earth.

The reason being that we agree on the point: that the gospel needs to be taken to every part of the world, and both Catholics and LDS do this.

Does a book cease to exist because nobody reads it?
The covenants are eternal, they last forever for everyone who makes them with God. The fact that nobody remained on the earth who had entered into His covenants, doesn’t diminish their eternal nature for those who had made them before, or would make them after.

Sounds very Christianize…explain in simple terms that I might be able to follow…what is the Gospel as you understand it…the Gospel that is shown in the movie after you are taken to the temple and shown how the Gospel has been perverted…tell me the Gospel or do I have to watch the movie…and see the re-enactments of all the false teachers.

 

[CopticChristian]

Actually, I didn’t make any attack against the intentions and reasons of those who wanted to protect the truth as they saw it; we agree on the point that scripture needs to be both translated and interpreted correctly to be of worth. What we disagree on is the correct translation (to a point, and in some circumstances) and mainly the interpretation.

The scriptures sould always be available to everyone in a language they can understand. The fact is, for whatever reason or intention (I do not doubt the well meaning and good intentions of the church leaders) the scriptures were not available to many many people in a language they could understand, and neither were the services they attended.
The gospel should be available to everyone in their own language: pentecost is proof of that.

That it’s no good trying to claim that schooling was available, when the people who really needed it (for basic reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic skills) had no way to get access to it.

Then why can the golden plates not be made available for all to see?

Then why must you have a recommend to see the movie in the endowment ceremony?

 

[Kouyate42]

But the Church did provide scripture in a manner they were educated to understand, by hearing the Word. You seem to think that people that couldn’t read Latin could read English, and that all that was needed was a vernacular translation and all would be able to read it. Have you looked at the history of literacy? What percentage of 16the century people do think could read any language?

This is true. The idea of everyone in a society being able to read is a relatively new one, and in the medieval period, it was actually MORE common to find non-literate people than literate, even among richer families.

And it must be noted that whilst the Church’s services during the medieval period were in Latin, people WERE very much knowledgable with the stories and basic theology of the Bible. Bible stories were common knowledge orally, and Biblical references and influences were all around. Look at the statues of medieval churches, plays from the time, songs, art, even common cultural practices were all derived from the Bible and very much known and understood by the common people. It would be virtually impossible for someone who WASN’T well-versed in the Bible to understand these things.

Also- look at the early Church. Many in the early Church likely couldn’t read or write, being of low class, and even the Bible wasn’t originally a written book but a very living oral transmission. People learnt the Bible and about Jesus because they heard it for themselves, not because they read it. In the Acts of the Apostles, the very apostles preached the Gospel to the people orally, in their own languages, so that they could understand. Jesus preached orally and taught his disciples orally too. Oral tradition is very much part of Church history.

 

[Tony888]

Then why can the golden plates not be made available for all to see?

Then why must you have a recommend to see the movie in the endowment ceremony?

You seem to intentionally miss the point

Historically, without proper (approved) translations, people were hearing the gospel as translated by their local preist. Thus the quality of the translation varied dramatically by location and skill of priest. The lack of official translations brought about the the very problem you wanted to avoid - that bad translations would corrupt the true teachings of the church.

The only way to ensure that the people hear the proper church sactioned meanings/translations is for the Church to make those translations available where needed.

You can’t have it both ways

• if a correct translation is crucial, then it should have been done early and revised as needed
• if a correct translation was not so critical, then why was the church so hard on people who did set their best translation to paper.

The LDS version of the Book of Mormon has been translated into 83 languages and selections have been translated into an additional 25 languages. In 2001, the LDS church reported that all or part of the Book of Mormon was available in the native language of 99% of Latter-day Saints and 87% of the world’s total population.[122]

 

[christianley]

You seem to intentionally miss the point

Historically, without proper (approved) translations, people were hearing the gospel as translated by their local preist. Thus the quality of the translation varied dramatically by location and skill of priest. The lack of official translations brought about the the very problem you wanted to avoid - that bad translations would corrupt the true teachings of the church.

The only way to ensure that the people hear the proper church sactioned meanings/translations is for the Church to make those translations available where needed.

You can’t have it both ways

• if a correct translation is crucial, then it should have been done early and revised as needed
• if a correct translation was not so critical, then why was the church so hard on people who did set their best translation to paper.

I don’t think the church was hard on people who put a good translation on paper. It was the bad translations that caused problems. Some Protestant reformers purposely translated things in a way to make the Catholic Church look bad and they got in trouble. The ones who did an honest translation didn’t get in trouble.

 

[SteveVH]

You seem to intentionally miss the point

Historically, without proper (approved) translations, people were hearing the gospel as translated by their local preist. Thus the quality of the translation varied dramatically by location and skill of priest.

First of all, you have no way of knowing if translations varied dramatically by location and skill of the priest. The priest is under the direction of a bishop who is under the direction of the Magisterium of the Church, as far as meaning given to scripture.

The lack of official translations brought about the the very problem you wanted to avoid - that bad translations would corrupt the true teachings of the church. The only way to ensure that the people hear the proper church sactioned meanings/translations is for the Church to make those translations available where needed.

And they were made available in every location in which the Church existed. Who says that there was a lack of official translations? Whatever translation had been approved by the Church was the official translation. At every Mass, in every location, since the time of the Apostles, the scriptures have been read. Are you referring to the lack of Bibles for lay people? As I am sure others have pointed out, we didn’t have that nifty little thing called a printing press. But the faithful heard the scripture readings and had them explained, every single day.

 

[Naf623]

But the Church did provide scripture in a manner they were educated to understand, by hearing the Word. You seem to think that people that couldn’t read Latin could read English, and that all that was needed was a vernacular translation and all would be able to read it. Have you looked at the history of literacy? What percentage of 16the century people do think could read any language?

But without access to the actual text (even if it has to be read to them), people are completely reliant on someone else interpreting it on their behalf. How are they supposed to have confidence in an interpretation of something, if they can’t actually access the thing in the first place?

The Word of God is meant to be heard, together, in a community. The Mormon religion is individualistic. Mormons will keep going to this idea of a need for an individual to seek interpretation, outside of a community. But no one has ever done this, or does it now, including Mormons.

I take it, then, if the rest of your community drove off the edge of a cliff, you would too; because it’s all about being a part of the community so why think for yourself at all?
You can’t decide that something is true and correct just because there is a community; there’s a GLBT community; are you going to join that one too? The Amish have a great community life, I guess you’ll need to go there too… How about a prison community?
Coming together to share your testimony of Jesus Christ and to worship communally is extremely important, but if you do not know for yourself, personally, that the things are true and correct, you’re getting nowhere; community or no community.

I have some questions for those of you who are blaming the Church for not educating the masses in the middle ages. How many people currently speak the King’s English as it is presented in the King James Bible? Does the Mormon church teach Elizabethean English, or does it expect people to understand the Word of the Lord based on what their ministers teach them? How do people who can’t read (blindness, dsylexia, lack of education, age, language differences, etc) read the Bible? If the Mormons are so upset with the Catholic Church for not providing reading lessons & Bibles in the 'modern & local" language, are they creating versions of the bible in local dialacts – including eubonics, cajon, midwestern English, arcadian, etc?

I’m afraid I don’t have a list of languages handy, but 99% of the LDS community have the Book of Mormon in their own language, and it is available to 87% of the world’s population in their own; all authorised translations produced and distributed by the church.
As to the ‘Elizabethan English’ idea: do you but a phrase book when travelling between America and England? Or do you have difficulty when browsing the Internet between American and English websites? Because the language of the KJV Bible and of the BOM is not so vastly different as to make understanding a major problem. Where here is an issue and the language of available scripture is becoming so outdated as to make understanding virtually impossible (Holland is a good example), the church (through Divine inspiration and guidance) are choosing and creating alternative translations for the members to use.

 

[Naf623]

First of all, you have no way of knowing if translations varied dramatically by location and skill of the priest. The priest is under the direction of a bishop who is under the direction of the Magisterium of the Church, as far as meaning given to scripture.

I remember studying Latin, and the regular difficulty in finding the precise translation into English. So unless you are suggesting that the Church had an official translation that existed only in the priests’ collective memories, the problem is no different; that the actual scriptural verses were not available to average lay people in a language they were able to comprehend. When scripture was read in their services, they could not understand a word which was being read and then relied solely on the interpretation given, without an original to understand the interpretation based on.

And they were made available in every location in which the Church existed. Who says that there was a lack of official translations? Whatever translation had been approved by the Church was the official translation. At every Mass, in every location, since the time of the Apostles, the scriptures have been read. Are you referring to the lack of Bibles for lay people? As I am sure others have pointed out, we didn’t have that nifty little thing called a printing press. But the faithful heard the scripture readings and had them explained, every single day.

But it wasn’t until individuals began making and using their own translations (and members began leaving the Catholic church for others because of it) that they finally authorised a translation in English, for example. Can I ask, what translations are authorised by the Catholic church nowadays?

 

[SteveVH]

But without access to the actual text (even if it has to be read to them), people are completely reliant on someone else interpreting it on their behalf. How are they supposed to have confidence in an interpretation of something, if they can’t actually access the thing in the first place?

Because they belong to the Catholic Church, to which Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. What do you think the Christians in the first four centuries did, before there even was a codified Bible? On what did they rely? They relied on the Church who possessed the fulness of the Gospel even before the Gospels were completed in writing.

Coming together to share your testimony of Jesus Christ and to worship communally is extremely important…

Why?

but if you do not know for yourself, personally, that the things are true and correct, you’re getting nowhere; community or no community.

First of all, are you trying to tell us that each individual Mormon has come to understand Mormon doctrine simply through private reading? Or have they learned it in the Mormon community? Did each of you just happen to arrive at the same belief system after studying on your own? I seriously doubt that. And who says that we do not know, personally, that what we are being taught is true. I study my faith constantly and what I have been taught to believe is affirmed constantly by my own study and prayer. Your inference that we are a bunch of blind sheep won’t play here.

I’m afraid I don’t have a list of languages handy, but 99% of the LDS community have the Book of Mormon in their own language/dialect, and it is available to 87% of the world’s population in their own; all authorised translations produced and distributed by the church. I would assume that we distribute an accompanying bible in all of the same languages.

And I wonder how far the LDS Church would have gone, how many languages, and how many texts issued without the advantage of the printing press. This is the difference. If every Bible in the world was burned tomorrow, the Catholic Church would still possess the fullness of the truth contained within it. It exists within the very life of the Church; within its liturgies, its sacraments, its Catechisms, its encyclicals, etc. The Bible did not give us our Church, our Church gave us, and the rest of the world, the Bible.

As to the ‘Elizabethan English’ idea: do you bu[y] a phrase book when travelling between America and England? Or do you have difficulty when browsing the Internet between American and English websites? Because the language of the KJV Bible and of the BOM is not so vastly different…

While most words are understandable, certain idioms are less so when moving from the Ezlizabethan era to modern times. An example would be “The exception proves the rule.”, The exception does not prove the rule, in modern terms, rather it contradicts the rule. In Elizabethan English the word “prove” meant to “test”. So unless each person happens to be an expert in Elizabethan English, it is very probable that they will have some difficulty in grasping the full meaning of one passage or another. In fact, it is very probable that certain meanings are missed altogether.