mormon prophet on Trinity

[GrammasRose]

well he may say BoM but he would need the D&C to practice the LDS faith.

good point I actually went through this recently with a mormon who puts down the bible at every turn. He stated the BOM. He is also very anti catholic.

 

[GrammasRose]

So if the pearl of great price teaches polytheism, but the Bible teaches monotheism which should we believe?

What about the pre 1890 mormon gospel which taught that polygamy was necessary. Didn’t the lds leaders change that after a lot of debate? Who was right Joe Smith or the later prophet?

according to many LDS today the current prophet takes precendence over any previous one. I assume that means Old Joe too.

 

[zerinus]

According to the official lds webpage they are not of equal standing:
scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/b/55

The position of the Church regarding the Bible is that it contains the word of God as far as it is translated correctly (A of F 8). Joseph Smith taught that “many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.” He also said that the Bible was correct as “it came from the pen of the original writers,” but that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” (HC 1: 245; 6: 57.) The Church reveres and respects the Bible, but recognizes that it is not a complete nor entirely accurate record, and affirms also that the Lord has given additional revelation through his prophets in the last days that sustains, supports, and verifies the biblical account of God’s dealings with mankind. I consider it very disingenuous to give the impression the Bible is on equal footing with the latter-day scriptures.

It is very deceptive to on one hand say the Bible contains the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly” in the Articles of Faith all the while not telling outsiders that they believe it is actually corrupt.

This does not contradict what I had said. It does not say that the Bible is any less the word of God than the Book of Mormon or other modern LDS scripture is. They are all equally divinely inspired and equally the word of God. But in the case of the Bible, it is the method of its transmission that is brought into question. Everyone knows that the Bible has come down to us through thousands of years of copying by hand; and when manuscripts are copied by hand, inevitably errors enter into it. That is unavoidable. But that does not mean that we regard the Bible to be any less the word of God, or any less divinely inspired than modern LDS scripture is.

zerinus

 

[cestusdei]

I would very much like to see a second century copy of the book of mormon. Even a tenth century copy would do. We could get out Joe’s peep stones and see how they work now.

 

[Tmaque]

So if the pearl of great price teaches polytheism, but the Bible teaches monotheism which should we believe?

What about the pre 1890 mormon gospel which taught that polygamy was necessary. Didn’t the lds leaders change that after a lot of debate? Who was right Joe Smith or the later prophet?

What about the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon that says that Christ is “the eternal Father” and that Mary is “the mother of God”? Sounds like homoousios to me.

 

[Tmaque]

So if the pearl of great price teaches polytheism, but the Bible teaches monotheism which should we believe?

What about the pre 1890 mormon gospel which taught that polygamy was necessary. Didn’t the lds leaders change that after a lot of debate? Who was right Joe Smith or the later prophet?

What about the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon that says that Christ is “the eternal Father” and that Mary is “the mother of God”? Sounds like homoousios to me.

 

[Tmaque]

So if the pearl of great price teaches polytheism, but the Bible teaches monotheism which should we believe?

What about the pre 1890 mormon gospel which taught that polygamy was necessary. Didn’t the lds leaders change that after a lot of debate? Who was right Joe Smith or the later prophet?

What about the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon that says that Christ is “the eternal Father” and that Mary is “the mother of God”? Sounds like homoousios to me.

 

[Tmaque]

So if the pearl of great price teaches polytheism, but the Bible teaches monotheism which should we believe?

What about the pre 1890 mormon gospel which taught that polygamy was necessary. Didn’t the lds leaders change that after a lot of debate? Who was right Joe Smith or the later prophet?

What about the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon that says that Christ is “the eternal Father” and that Mary is “the mother of God”? Sounds like homoousios to me.

 

[jonfan]

This does not contradict what I had said. It does not say that the Bible is any less the word of God than the Book of Mormon or other modern LDS scripture is. They are all equally divinely inspired and equally the word of God. But in the case of the Bible, it is the method of its transmission that is brought into question. Everyone knows that the Bible has come down to us through thousands of years of copying by hand; and when manuscripts are copied by hand, inevitably errors enter into it. That is unavoidable. But that does not mean that we regard the Bible to be any less the word of God, or any less divinely inspired than modern LDS scripture is.

zerinus

Hi Zerinus,
So you believe the Current version of the Bible is corrupted but the Boook of Mormon isn’t? Correct? So if the Book of Mormon as you claim is equal to the Bible wouldn’t that make the Book of Mormon corrupted too?

 

[majick275]

of course the handwritten plates in the BoM and the handwritten “abridgement” of the plates and the handwritten “translation” is free from error?

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by** Zerius**

Contrast that (the Nicene Creed) with the simplicity of the LDS expression, which is divinely inspired and dictated by the Holy Spirit through a modern day prophet, and entirely scriptural

You are tooooooooo hilarious!
It never fails to amaze me how mormons talk out of both sides of their mouths (forked tongue anyone?) when defending their books and casting doubt on the Holy Bible.
They say the Bible is “inspired” Word (when speaking to Christians), their added books are “inspired” but our Bible is only correct insofar as it is correctly translated (after the milk has been poured). Their books on the other hand are newer so correctly translated, even though in only 200 years, many changes to the texts and doctrines are seen. If you call them on quotes from their books, they will claim that their “prophets” words were not “inspired”.
These people are as slick as a greased pig. They are first class hypocrites, though, to be fair, I don’t think the mainstream mormons realize it.

 

[zerinus]

What about the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon that says that Christ is “the eternal Father” . . .

Well, so what? It says that in the current edition of the Book of Mormon as well (See Mosiah 15:4; 16:15; Alma 11:38; Alma 11:39).

. . . and that Mary is “the mother of God”?

No big deal there either. Jesus is called in scripture both God as well as the Son of God; so Mary could be equally called the mother of God, or the mother of the Son of God. That change was made in the second edition of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith himself. He was the original translator after all; and he was perfectly entitled to amend and improve his own translation—as indeed every other translator is entitled to do.

Sounds like homoousios to me.

Come again? What the heck are you talking about?

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Hi Zerinus,
So you believe the Current version of the Bible is corrupted but the Boook of Mormon isn’t? Correct? So if the Book of Mormon as you claim is equal to the Bible wouldn’t that make the Book of Mormon corrupted too?

No. That is the corruptest logic I ever heard.

zerinus

 

[jonfan]

No. That is the corruptest logic I ever heard.

zerinus

So you don’t believe the current version of the Bible to be corrupt?

 

[Allweather]

This does not contradict what I had said. It does not say that the Bible is any less the word of God than the Book of Mormon or other modern LDS scripture is. They are all equally divinely inspired and equally the word of God. But in the case of the Bible, it is the method of its transmission that is brought into question. Everyone knows that the Bible has come down to us through thousands of years of copying by hand; and when manuscripts are copied by hand, inevitably errors enter into it. That is unavoidable. But that does not mean that we regard the Bible to be any less the word of God, or any less divinely inspired than modern LDS scripture is.

zerinus

We believe that God preserved the Church from critical error. This applies to Tradition, as well as the Sacred Scriptures that emanate from Sacred Tradition. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t the occasional inconsequential mistake here and there, but there is nothing that affects the core of what God intends to reveal to man about Himself, or His plan for man’s ultimate redemption.

The BoM also comes via human transcription, to say nothing of translation. As Zerinus notes, JS himself has “corrected” his own translation, even though he used a divinely-provided device to perform said translation, a device one assumes would insure a perfect translation, one without error. I assume the Mormons believe that God has preserved the BoM from critical error, in the same way that Catholics believe that God preserves the Catholic Church and its Scriptures from critical error.

 

[Allweather]

That change was made in the second edition of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith himself. He was the original translator after all; and he was perfectly entitled to amend and improve his own translation—as indeed every other translator is entitled to do. zerinus

I was under the impression that Joseph Smith used the urim and thummim, provided along with the plates, to perform the translation. After all, he had no linguistic abilities, did he? Certainly, if one is to accept the Mormon claim that Joseph was a rube, he had no knowledge of the arcane language supposedly writ on the plates. He needed the divinely-provided urim and thummim. Therefore, it wasn’t his translation, but rather that of the Lord. So, what would give him the right to go back and make “corrections?”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This does not contradict what I had said. It does not say that the Bible is any less the word of God than the Book of Mormon or other modern LDS scripture is. They are all equally divinely inspired and equally the word of God. But in the case of the Bible, it is the method of its transmission that is brought into question. Everyone knows that the Bible has come down to us through thousands of years of copying by hand; and when manuscripts are copied by hand, inevitably errors enter into it. That is unavoidable. But that does not mean that we regard the Bible to be any less the word of God, or any less divinely inspired than modern LDS scripture is.
zerinus

LDS.com certainly gives the impression the Bible IS “less than” the latter-day scriptures, here are the key passages:
**Joseph Smith taught that “many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.”
**Do you believe the BoM, D&C or PGP is missing “many important points” regarding salvation? I highly doubt it. In fact, I dont know any organization that puts such high faith in a book they also believe to be corrupted.
The Church reveres and respects the Bible, but recognizes that it is not a complete nor entirely accurate record,
Again, would the LDS say the same thing about the other LDS scriptures? No, because you cant put faith in something corrupted and incomplete.

By definition the other LDS scriptures must be superior to the Bible else your saying they are just as inaccurate and incomplete. Hold a accurate and complete record along side an incomplete and corrupted record and tell me how many would knowingly put their faith in the corrupt record.

 

[kellie]

That change was made in the second edition of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith himself. He was the original translator after all; and he was perfectly entitled to amend and improve his own translation—as indeed every other translator is entitled to do.

Smith was allowed to alter the Word of God ??

He either heard the words he wrote the first time direct from God or he didn’t.

How can he write something down after hearing it from God, then rewrite it later and make amendments?

 

[GrammasRose]

I would very much like to see a second century copy of the book of mormon. Even a tenth century copy would do. We could get out Joe’s peep stones and see how they work now.

I believe there are some online.

 

[GrammasRose]

You are tooooooooo hilarious!
It never fails to amaze me how mormons talk out of both sides of their mouths (forked tongue anyone?) when defending their books and casting doubt on the Holy Bible.
They say the Bible is “inspired” Word (when speaking to Christians), their added books are “inspired” but our Bible is only correct insofar as it is correctly translated (after the milk has been poured). Their books on the other hand are newer so correctly translated, even though in only 200 years, many changes to the texts and doctrines are seen. If you call them on quotes from their books, they will claim that their “prophets” words were not “inspired”.
These people are as slick as a greased pig. They are first class hypocrites, though, to be fair, I don’t think the mainstream mormons realize it.