Mormons and the Bible

[PaulDupre]

I believe the following words can tell you a story

He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.
That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

Sounds like Joseph was describing himself.

Joseph set himself up as a light unto the world, sought and received gain and praise from his followers.

Joseph tried to cover his sins of fornication and adultery by lying to his wife Emma and publicly denying his polygamous affairs.

Joseph exercised control, dominion and compulsion when he promised eternal life to entire families in exchange for their young daughters and threatened those young women with damnation if they did not submit to his lusts.

Amen to the authority of Joseph Smith’s priesthood.

Actually, since Joseph Smith was part negro, he was not eligible for the Mormon priesthood anyway.

 

[BDawg]

One year? I was a very active adult LDS for 11 years including a full-time mission in Taiwan. I have read more LDS books than you could possibly have read in one year. Have you only been LDS for one year? That would explain a lot.

How do you explain your scriptures, prophets and apostles saying that the bible is corrupt and untrustworthy? Would you like some more examples? I love to quote the Mormon GAs and scriptures.

But Paul, his point was that you gave a few quotes that expressed negative opinions about the Bible, but neglected to quote any Mormons saying anything positive about it. For instance, your quotation of 1 Ne. 13 starts at verse 24, but here’s what verse 23 says.

“And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.” (1 Ne. 13:23)

So don’t you think that you were being a bit unfair in your characterization of Mormon belief about the Bible? Snow charitably assumed that if you had read much Mormon literature, you would have a more nuanced view. If you have read as much as you say, what is the real reason for such an unbalanced rendition?

 

[PaulDupre]

But Paul, his point was that you gave a few quotes that expressed negative opinions about the Bible, but neglected to quote any Mormons saying anything positive about it. For instance, your quotation of 1 Ne. 13 starts at verse 24, but here’s what verse 23 says.

“And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.” (1 Ne. 13:23)

1 Nephi was allegedly written around 590 BC. At that time, the great and abominable church had not yet removed the plain and precious parts of the bible, so the parts of the bible possessed by the Nephites still had great worth to the gentiles. Verses 24 and following outline why the bible now has little worth to the gentiles, and in fact causes all who believe the bible now to stumble so that Satan has great power over them. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the bible.

So don’t you think that you were being a bit unfair in your characterization of Mormon belief about the Bible? Snow charitably assumed that if you had read much Mormon literature, you would have a more nuanced view. If you have read as much as you say, what is the real reason for such an unbalanced rendition?

When I was LDS in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the LDS Church had not yet started to attempt to mainstream itself. Back then all references to the bible were negative or gave only a sideways acknowledgment of the bible’s value while stressing how corrupted it is. These days, the LDS are trying to suck up to the Christians (to bolster their missionary work) by publicly saying how wonderful the bible is, but amongst themselves they still dismiss it as corrupt, only referring to the bible to try to legitimize Joseph Smith’s teachings.

 

[BDawg]

1 Nephi was allegedly written around 590 BC. At that time, the great and abominable church had not yet removed the plain and precious parts of the bible, so the parts of the bible possessed by the Nephites still had great worth to the gentiles. Verses 24 and following outline why the bible now has little worth to the gentiles, and in fact causes all who believe the bible now to stumble so that Satan has great power over them. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the bible.

Hi Paul,

The context of the verse was Nephi’s vision of the future, where some of the gentiles escaped captivity and came over the waters carrying the Bible.

10 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld many waters; and they divided the Gentiles from the seed of my brethren. 11 And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Behold the wrath of God is upon the seed of thy brethren.

 12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land. 

13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters. 

14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten. 

15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain. 

16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them. 

 17  And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them. 

18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle. 

19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations. 

20 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that they did prosper in the land; and I beheld a book, and it was carried forth among them. 

 21  And the angel said unto me: Knowest thou the meaning of the book? 

 22  And I said unto him: I know not.

I’m not sure where you got that other interpretation. Would you elaborate?

When I was LDS in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the LDS Church had not yet started to attempt to mainstream itself. Back then all references to the bible were negative or gave only a sideways acknowledgment of the bible’s value while stressing how corrupted it is. These days, the LDS are trying to suck up to the Christians (to bolster their missionary work) by publicly saying how wonderful the bible is, but amongst themselves they still dismiss it as corrupt, only referring to the bible to try to legitimize Joseph Smith’s teachings.

Again, this is a gross overstatement of the facts. Consider, for example, these quotations from Joseph Fielding Smith.

“The reason for the Bible’s great influence for good is because it is inspired and contains the word of the Lord delivered to his prophets, who wrote and spoke as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost, since the world began.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:184)

“We are all aware that there are errors in the Bible due to faulty translations and ignorance on the part of translators; but the hand of the Lord has been over this volume of scripture nevertheless, and it is remarkable that it has come down to us in the excellent condition in which we find it.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:191)

Did you really read as much as you claim? What is going on here, Paul?

I don’t mind so much if you give an overly rosy picture of Catholicism, but it seems to me that we should feel responsible to at least TRY to achieve some kind of balance when describing others’ beliefs.

BTW, I do think there is some truth to what you said. Mormons in the early to mid-20th century were often somewhat too combative with other faiths, which was not a good thing. Since then, our leaders have tried to get us to calm down a bit, but they have never stopped emphasizing our distinctives. Some Mormons, on the other hand, do take these overtures toward others as license to “suck up.” Frankly, that turns my stomach just as much as it does yours.

 

[Snow]

Wow… many different opinions from different Mormons in this ONE thread!

I wish we had a Church to teach us the truth! OH, we do! Which one? Let’s get historical. It’s the Catholic Church. Let’s get biblical. It’s the Catholic Church.

Yeah - that’s an opinion. great.

But that Church just fell into apostasy! But that goes against Jesus’ words “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it[the Church]”. Paul even said the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth”.

I think that there was an apostasy and I do not think that the Gates of Hell of prevailed against Christ’s Church.

When you say it goes against Christ’s words, what you mean is that it goes against YOUR interpretation of scripture.

So.

 

[Snow]

What we have here again with Mormonism is different opinions among themselves on the Bible. My Mormon friend says that the bible has one to many contradictions in it to be fully true therefore they use the perfect unchanged BoM. Although I have asked him to show and explain these contradictions he has not and usually changes the topic:shrug: Wouldn’t J. Smith and all the authority given to him be able to restore the written word of God?

I personally don’t know any Mormons that think that the Book of Mormon is perfect and unchanged but who knows… there are lots of uninformed people in the world. I do know for a fact that no “informed” Mormon would think such a thing.

As for Bible contradictions… let’s get real. Anyone with access to Google could give you hundreds and hundreds of alleged or potential contradictions in 45 seconds. For that matter, anyone with Google could give you hundreds of possible solutions to the alleged contradictions. It is an endless circle of rhetoric.

 

[Snow]

They thought the Bible will be incomplete without Joseph Smith’s books, like the Book of Mormons.

Huh?

Who is they?

The Bible is the Bible. It has all the books the compilers ultimately saw fit to put in it.

There are lots of Bible versions or Bible canons ranging very few books to lots and lots of books. The Protestant and RCC canon are neither the smallest of the largest canons

The Book of Mormon is the Book of Mormon. It is not part of the Bible.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Yeah - that’s an opinion. great.

I think that there was an apostasy and I do not think that the Gates of Hell of prevailed against Christ’s Church.

When you say it goes against Christ’s words, what you mean is that it goes against YOUR interpretation of scripture.

So.

So when did the apostasy occur?

Even if it was gradual, there would surely be evidence in the Early Christian’s writings (that is, those writings that were written by those leaders who were part of Christ’s Church - the Catholic Church).

You won’t find any contradictions or evidence of apostasy because those teachings that were fresh from the Apostles were taught and passed on to the Church that exists today.

Do the early Church Fathers give any evidence that they made things up? Or did they give any evidence that they contradicted themselves or the Apostles? Or that they were not following the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles handed down to them, to their successors the first Bishops, and to the Church of the first few centuries?

It makes no sense that the disciples of the Apostles, who were the early, early Church Fathers, who had the books of Scripture and the Apostolic preaching would contradict or distort what the Apostles taught them on the true nature of the Church. There is no evidence for that.

In fact, you will find claims of the exact opposite; they were very careful to preserve the true faith as handed down to them by the Apostles and the churches founded by the Apostles.

That faith that has been handed down is identical to that of the Catholic Faith.

 

[mfbukowski]

Wow… many different opinions from different Mormons in this ONE thread!

I wish we had a Church to teach us the truth! OH, we do! Which one? Let’s get historical. It’s the Catholic Church. Let’s get biblical. It’s the Catholic Church.

But that Church just fell into apostasy! But that goes against Jesus’ words “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it[the Church]”. Paul even said the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth”.

Not so from me. I totally agree with snow and my posts will prove it. As far as I know, we are the only two mormons here. The bible is what the compliers decided to put into it. I have cited many possible books left out and that is that. Ther is no disagreement whatsoever.

 

[mfbukowski]

Not so from me. I totally agree with snow and my posts will prove it. As far as I know, we are the only two mormons here. The bible is what the compliers decided to put into it. I have cited many possible books left out and that is that. Ther is no disagreement whatsoever.

Now BDawg is here too . Greetings.

 

[BDawg]

Now BDawg is here too . Greetings.

Hi mf.

 

[BDawg]

Hi Catholic1,

If you would like to see what kinds of evidences Mormons use to support their view of Christian history, see this debate between a Mormon and a Catholic ex-Mormon.

Hope you enjoy it.

 

[mfbukowski]

Hi Catholic1,

If you would like to see what kinds of evidences Mormons use to support their view of Christian history, see this debate between a Mormon and a Catholic ex-Mormon.

Hope you enjoy it.

Great stuff. Thanks for the link

 

[Snow]

So when did the apostasy occur?

First century or so post resurrection.

Even if it was gradual, there would surely be evidence in the Early Christian’s writings (that is, those writings that were written by those leaders who were part of Christ’s Church - the Catholic Church).

You won’t find any contradictions or evidence of apostasy because those teachings that were fresh from the Apostles were taught and passed on to the Church that exists today.

Surely you can’t be unfamiliar with the scholarship that is available on the topic - can you?

You may disagree - which is fine - but it’s not like there isn’t ample evidence available.

Do the early Church Fathers give any evidence that they made things up? Or did they give any evidence that they contradicted themselves or the Apostles? Or that they were not following the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles handed down to them, to their successors the first Bishops, and to the Church of the first few centuries?

It makes no sense that the disciples of the Apostles, who were the early, early Church Fathers, who had the books of Scripture and the Apostolic preaching would contradict or distort what the Apostles taught them on the true nature of the Church. There is no evidence for that.

In fact, you will find claims of the exact opposite; they were very careful to preserve the true faith as handed down to them by the Apostles and the churches founded by the Apostles.

That faith that has been handed down is identical to that of the Catholic Faith.

Egads - you’re saying that with a straight face? I know you believe that the RCC is a direct descendant of the ancient church and that’s a fine belief, but seriously, no one can claim that it is identical.

For example, show me a single apostle who demonstrates a full understanding of the Trinity. You can’t do it. It isn’t in the NT - it didn’t reach it’s final form for another 300 plus years.

Besides which, there was no such thing as a single, solitary, unified faith in antiquity in the decades and then first centuries following the death of Christ. There were lots of competing beliefs and practices and proto-canons. Prior to Nicea there wasn’t even a unified belief on the nature of God - nor after Nicea for quite a while for that matter.

 

[Snow]

The Mormon Church has always maintained that the Bible is hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy:

I am Mormon… I think the Bible is trustworthy.

You’re not Mormon - are you.

 

[Snow]

Wow… many different opinions from different Mormons in this ONE thread!

.

I am LDS. I have stated my opinions. Can you tell me any other Mormons in this thread that disagree with me?

I ask because I’ve read the thread and no one has… so why do you claim it? Do you think we can’t check by reading the other posts?

 

[BDawg]

I am LDS. I have stated my opinions. Can you tell me any other Mormons in this thread that disagree with me?

I ask because I’ve read the thread and no one has… so why do you claim it? Do you think we can’t check by reading the other posts?

I looked through the thread, too, and couldn’t find anything from LDS posters that I disagree with, either.

Maybe catholic1 was referring to the fact that mfb said he thought the bible might be missing some things that ought to have been included, and you said that you thought the Bible included what God intended. Catholic1 probably doesn’t understand that mfb was speaking in an ideal sense (i.e., if there had been no apostasy, more would have been included,) and you were speaking in a practical sense (i.e., since there was an apostasy, God allowed people to have as much of his word as he saw fit–see Alma 29:8 in the Book of Mormon.) This is something any LDS would pick up on, but an outsider might not understand.

 

[Snow]

I looked through the thread, too, and couldn’t find anything from LDS posters that I disagree with, either.

Maybe catholic1 was referring to the fact that mfb said he thought the bible might be missing some things that ought to have been included, and you said that you thought the Bible included what God intended. Catholic1 probably doesn’t understand that mfb was speaking in an ideal sense (i.e., if there had been no apostasy, more would have been included,) and you were speaking in a practical sense (i.e., since there was an apostasy, God allowed people to have as much of his word as he saw fit–see Alma 29:8 in the Book of Mormon.) This is something any LDS would pick up on, but an outsider might not understand.

Well - if the question was (but it wasn’t) does the Bible contain every single thing that God ever wanted conveyed to mankind - beyond which God will never speak again - that’s a very different question.

An understanding of how the Bible canon actually came into existence would help in understanding the topic. There’s always the question of which canon you are talking about. - the Jewish canon, the Protestant canon, the Catholic canon, The Ethiopian canon. All are different.

 

[nebula]

What do the Mormons believe about the Bible?
Do they use it at all or believe it to be the Word of God?

If so, how do they believe it came into existence?

I just figured out one of my friends is Mormon, and it’s kind of exciting(and it’s a misfortune). I finally get to use my apologetics knowledge I have been gathering!

Of course they believe that the early Church was corrupt. If so, then what do they believe about the authenticity of the Bible?*** THE EARLY CHURCH FORMED THE BIBLE***
How could they even use it?

Thanks!

Mormons accept the Bible in a similar way that Protestants do on one hand (i.e. as an act of faith, the Holy Ghost tells them it’s true, whatever) but on the other hand with formless skepticism. I say formless because they believe that it’s been corrupted over time, but they aren’t clear about what this really means (in general, I’m sure there are more articulate Mormons hanging around here but this is the common view). So it is that there are ‘translating’ errors in it but they can’t tell you where or when.

On the other hand, the Catholic position is stronger because it knows the process by wihch the Bible was canonized and has passed down traditions by which to interpret the Bible. Unlike the way Protestants use the Bible, and even Mormons to a large extent, who assume that the text speaks for its self completely.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Egads - you’re saying that with a straight face? I know you believe that the RCC is a direct descendant of the ancient church and that’s a fine belief, but seriously, no one can claim that it is identical.

For example, show me a single apostle who demonstrates a full understanding of the Trinity. You can’t do it. It isn’t in the NT - it didn’t reach it’s final form for another 300 plus years.

Besides which, there was no such thing as a single, solitary, unified faith in antiquity in the decades and then first centuries following the death of Christ. There were lots of competing beliefs and practices and proto-canons. Prior to Nicea there wasn’t even a unified belief on the nature of God - nor after Nicea for quite a while for that matter.

Ok… I don’t have quite as much time today to stay around and go in the ussual circles… but there’s something about this statement that stood out to me.

You use the phrase “direct descendent of the ancient church.” But that is not what we believe. We believe the Catholic church IS the ancient church…not a descendent of it. We believe the Catholic church IS the church which was founded by Christ 2000 years ago. It has not “changed” or “descended” from anything… it simply IS. Now you may say “but it doesn’t look like the ancient church!” Which in some regards is true… The is because the “ancient” church was the seed planted by Christ…and it has continued to grow and blossom through the centuries

You also want to claim that the church was “apostate” from practically the beginning??? Christ Himself promised even the gates of the netherworld would never prevail against His church. He promised Peter the authority over the church, and the curch was BUILT on the foundation of Christ, the apostles, and the prophets. If you try to claim it was apostate shortly post-ressurection, then you are saying that Christ didn’t leave us with a Church…he left us with a mess!

The Church is the body of Christ. You cannot claim that it failed, unless you want to deny the POWER of Christ.