Mormons - What degree of reliability do you give to the Bible?

[JeanMichel]

To readers unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon:

Since this thread has talked about “plain and precious things” that are clearer in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible, I thought it would be well to go ahead and provide a few examples of such “plain and precious things”:

1. The knowledge that baptism is done as a covenant after a believer has faith in Christ, desiring to show their covenant-making through a personal decision to make promises to God.
2. The understanding that “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.”
3. The knowledge that “there is an opposition in all things” is part of why this life is allowed to have so much “opposition” and why Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden with a choice about partaking the forbidden fruit.
4. The knowledge that faith in the living Christ and repentance through His grace are focal points of the gospel of Jesus Christ, with the word “penance” not used. (nor is that word “penance” found in the KJV Bible.)
5. The knowledge that the plan of redemption through the Savior was laid at the foundation of the world, and was central to the plan of salvation which is the plan of happiness.
6. The confirming knowledge that many of the prophecies of Isaiah are being fulfilled in this day and time, including that the “deaf shall hear the words of the book.” (Isaiah 29:18)

P. S. I love the gospel, and love the Bible–I honestly do. This year, I am enjoying teaching a class each Sunday using the Old Testament as our focus of study. Next year, it will be the New Testament. These are world treasures, not to be taken lightly nor the people mocked who believe them and treasure their words.

Peace to all.

Rom. 1: 16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

That is probably the most sucinct description of “plain and precious truths” I have ever heard. I believe all sacred texts, regardless of religion, are of value. I only believe in one God and He is the God of all truth. What that tells me is that all truth comes from him in every relgion. I value reading these other texts for the truths I find there. I think find truth makes me a better man, a better follwer of Christ, and a better servant to all our brothers and sisters.

I don’t believe there is a responsible scholar alive today that thinks the Bible is inerrant or that it is a perfect book. It have been proved beyond doubt that those who have copied the ancient texts, translated them, and retransalted them made errors, changed meanings, and added text. It is folly to think or believe otherwise.

I see no damage by qualifying the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly. However, I also think the same thing can be said about the Book of Mormon. There is no need to be defensive on either side nor is there a need to criticize each other. Sometimes I think people just enjoy arguing too much. If they really were honest they would find they are arguing from the same side.

Tomorrow is the Sabbath. May each of us be blessed with the Holy Spirit; may we recall the sacrifice of our Savior; may we be forgiven of all our sins; and may the new week provide us the opportunity to serve those in need.

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

…and I’m going to steal a little thunder here, and let you know (if, that is, you didn’t already know this) that there have been more than 3000 corrections to the Book of Mormon between the first edition and the one we have now.

And I’d like to know how the LDS Church was able to make those ‘corrections’ to the Book of Mormon, seeing that Moroni took the original manuscripts back into heaven with him.

Didn’t Joseph Smith originally state that the 1830 edition was translated and transmitted to him perfectly and flawlessly from God?

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

Paul,
Your writing does the very thing that conveys what you want conveyed rather than being true to the words you were supposedly quoting. You have used the words “corrupt and untrustworthy”. These words were not found in the Book of Mormon passages you quoted.

Here is a query about the word “untrustworthy” in the LDS scriptures:

There were no occurrences of the word UNTRUSTWORTHY found in the Text of the Scriptures.

The closest tie to a use of the word “corrupt” in relation (not to the Bible itself but to churches that use the Bible) is the following passage:

2 Ne. 28: 11-12
11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.
12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.

So, the “fault” is not in the Bible. The “stumbling” is not caused by the Bible, though it may lack “plain and precious things” that would have made its available understanding clearer.

The Apostle Paul wrote:

2 Cor. 11: 3
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

There is a use of a form of the word “corrupt”. There was no use of the word “corrupt” in the Book of Mormon to describe either the Bible or lay people who were readers of the Bible.

The Book of Mormon points toward that “simplicity that is in Christ.” It verifies that the Bible contains truths taught by the prophets and apostles of the Lamb of God. The prophecy of Nephi that you cited shows this.

But doesn’t the book of 1 Nephi state several times that the ‘great and abominable church’ removed ‘many plain and precious things’ from the Bible? Wasn’t that why Joseph told his followers that the gospel had to be restored through him and the BoM?

 

[dianaiad]

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

From the Book of Mormon:

Where, in that quote you gave us, are the words “hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy?”

It seems to me, at least, to be rather difficult to maintain a charge that we believe that it is, considering that we use it, teach it, quote from it and hold it up as one of our Standard works…and that when we describe those standard works, we say that we hold the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants are equal in authority and just as much scripture as the bible is, NOT that the bible is almost as good as the other three…or even ‘equal to’ the other three…

Isn’t that like pointing at the guy who just bought his new red Mustang convertable, and claiming that he thinks that Ford products are inferior and not worth road space?

We claim that 'many plain and precious truths were removed." so yes, we believe that there are some things missing. That doesn’t equal 'hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy." We also claim that there are errors in it.

So, by the way, do Catholics. I was not aware that Catholics thought of the bible as inerrent. In fact, I believe that your position is the same as that mentioned in the quote you just gave us: that the word of God was perfect when it first was written…but that errors have happened since. I notice, for instance, that the Johannine comma (1 John 5:7-8) is still in the Douay-Rheims, because it is based upon the Latin Vulgate, even though those verses have been pretty much proven to be, well…not in the original, but scribal add ons–by Catholic researchers!

So don’t go yelling at us for not being biblical inerrantists, Paul. That’s sort of like the ghost yelling at the phantom for being transparent.

The above passage claims that the bible we have now is not the same bible written by the prophets and apostles.

Only biblilcal innerantists do, Paul…and when you pin them down to a corner, even they add ‘in the original’ to their claims of innerancy. Well, as you can see by the very quote you gave us, we believe that it is inerrant in the original, too.

Many of the “plain and precious parts” were taken away by the “great and abominable Church”. Why? "that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

I can think of no better example of that THAN the Johannine comma, m’friend…which was originally a gloss (scribal notes on the side) regarding scripture which was later encorporated AS scripture…and includes language that supports the Trinity in a way not found anywhere else in scripture. Until the authenticity of those verses was disputed, they were used quite frequently in the defense of the Trinity, and even now they are used in defense of the idea, sort of as a ‘well, if they weren’t in the original, they should have been, so we’ll use them anyway’ sort of approach.

So…well…you can see where I"m going with this.

Verse 29 states that those who believe the bible with the plain and precious parts deliberately removed by the great and abominable church stumble so that Satan has great power over them.

Well, that’s a pretty good description of what we believe the apostasy was, yes. However, please notice that the emphasis in that set of scriptures you quote is on the stuff that was removed…it was the absence of writing that should have been there that caused the problems. Those verses did not address the writing that remained…and oddly enough, I didn’t see a single reference to the words “hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy.”

 

[dianaiad]

Bible corruption continued…

What do the modern LDS prophets and apostles say?

President Ezra Taft Benson wrote of

Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., popular LDS author and son of the tenth president of the church, said

Apostle Mark E. Peterson casts doubt on the reliability of the Bible and states forcefully that the corruption was intentional:

The encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Again we can see from this small sample of quotes how the conviction that the bible is corrupt and untrustworthy starts with The Book of Mormon (“the most correct book on earth” and “the keystone of our religion”) and continues to pervade Mormon thinking and writing throughout their history.

Grace to you all,
Paul (a former Mormon)

To all of those quotes…one answer:

Johannine comma, which Catholic researchers have acknowledged to be a scrible add-on (and thus not part of the original epistole, thus, hello…an error) for the last couple of hundred years, yet is still in the Douay-Rheims.

So I guess all those men are, well, right. Right?

Paul, stop debating this issue as if our NOT being biblical inerrantists proves us wrong, because if WE are ‘false’ because we believe that the bible has errors, you know what that does to Catholicism.

We are neither one of us biblical innerantists.

 

[dianaiad]

Spin, spin, spin.

The readers can decide for themselves…

I feel sorry for you Parker. I remember, when I was LDS, how ashamed I was of the idiotic statements of Mormon prophets and apostles. I feel your pain…

hmph. Paul, do you know what the difference is between eisegesis and exegesis is?

Exegesis is when you read the text, and get the meaning out of it.
Eisegesis is when you decide the meaning first and then go look to see how you can make the text agree with you.

I’ll leave the reader to decide whether someone who claims that a certain textual quotation contains language like “hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy” when it doesn’t, is engaging in eisegesis or exegesis…

or which one is doing the 'spinning."

 

[dianaiad]

That is probably the most sucinct description of “plain and precious truths” I have ever heard. I believe all sacred texts, regardless of religion, are of value. I only believe in one God and He is the God of all truth. What that tells me is that all truth comes from him in every relgion. I value reading these other texts for the truths I find there. I think find truth makes me a better man, a better follwer of Christ, and a better servant to all our brothers and sisters.

I don’t believe there is a responsible scholar alive today that thinks the Bible is inerrant or that it is a perfect book. It have been proved beyond doubt that those who have copied the ancient texts, translated them, and retransalted them made errors, changed meanings, and added text. It is folly to think or believe otherwise.

I see no damage by qualifying the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly. However, I also think the same thing can be said about the Book of Mormon. There is no need to be defensive on either side nor is there a need to criticize each other. Sometimes I think people just enjoy arguing too much. If they really were honest they would find they are arguing from the same side.

Tomorrow is the Sabbath. May each of us be blessed with the Holy Spirit; may we recall the sacrifice of our Savior; may we be forgiven of all our sins; and may the new week provide us the opportunity to serve those in need.

Well, the thing is, we do “say the same thing about the Book of Mormon.” It’s right there on the title page, and is made pretty obvious by the differences between the Book of Mormon edition we use now, and the first edition.

 

[dianaiad]

And I’d like to know how the LDS Church was able to make those ‘corrections’ to the Book of Mormon, seeing that Moroni took the original manuscripts back into heaven with him.

Didn’t Joseph Smith originally state that the 1830 edition was translated and transmitted to him perfectly and flawlessly from God?

The vast majority of them were spelling/grammar/punctuation errors, actually. Sloppy typesetting. I believe that there were six or seven corrections that actually affected doctrine (I’m not actually sure…) and they were corrections made when scholars got a look at Joseph’s original manuscripts. One of those, for instance, is a much trumpeted change from ‘white and delightsome’ to 'pure and delightsome," a qoute gleefully used by anti’s to somehow prove that the Mormons are racists.

The history of that change is…Joseph Smith himself fixed that goof in the first edition for the second edition of the Book of Mormon, but later editions were based off of the first edition, not the second one, so the ‘white and delightsome’ wording stayed in (even though JS had fixed that himself almost immediately…and I don’t suppose anybody could reasonably argue that HE didn’t have the right to fix goofs in the first edition, plates or not…) for quite some time, until in the late 20th century scholars reconciled the manuscripts, editions and wording.

Was that helpful?

 

[LongJourney]

The vast majority of them were spelling/grammar/punctuation errors, actually. Sloppy typesetting.

I agree with you on that one. Most of that argument is pointless.

 

[Todd520]

Paul an Shorty,
Please remember this thread was started by a Catholic to ask what the LDS thought about the Bible

Please stay on target or start another thread if you want to drill down into the Book of Mormon.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree with you on that one. Most of that argument is pointless.

Thanks…and by the way, I love that you include the link to the catechism in your signature, LJ.

 

[ParkerD]

1. But doesn’t the book of 1 Nephi state several times that the ‘great and abominable church’ removed ‘many plain and precious things’ from the Bible?
2. Wasn’t that why Joseph told his followers that the gospel had to be restored through him and the BoM?

ShortyLaRock,

1. It says “after the book” (meaning the Bible) “hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.” (1 Nephi 13:27)

The description of the “great and abominable church” includes the following: “for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.” “Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.” (1 Nephi 13:9,8)

Those descriptions sound like the declining Roman empire and the Greek culture that also became associated with the beliefs of some of the early church members through the Gentiles coming into the fold of the gospel and bringing their own teachings/philosophies with them–and trying to get the gospel and their own former teachings/ideas (Hellenism) to mesh together so they would be more acceptable to more people.

1. That was one of the reasons, yes.

 

[JeanMichel]

ShortyLaRock,

1. It says “after the book” (meaning the Bible) “hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.” (1 Nephi 13:27)

The description of the “great and abominable church” includes the following: “for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.” “Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.” (1 Nephi 13:9,8)

Those descriptions sound like the declining Roman empire and the Greek culture that also became associated with the beliefs of some of the early church members through the Gentiles coming into the fold of the gospel and bringing their own teachings/philosophies with them–and trying to get the gospel and their own former teachings/ideas (Hellenism) to mesh together so they would be more acceptable to more people.

1. That was one of the reasons, yes.

I always understood that phrase not to be found in a single organization, but a group made from a conglomerate of members from a diverse set of churches and religions. Bad or evil individuals can be found in all religious organizations and as such are true members of the great and abominable church. Is that an accurate understanding or is it off the mark?

 

[Returning_Home]

Well, the thing is, we do “say the same thing about the Book of Mormon.” It’s right there on the title page, and is made pretty obvious by the differences between the Book of Mormon edition we use now, and the first edition.

It’s hilarious how you apologists will try to make Christians believe that you use and love the Bible, but always slipping nonsense like your Johannine comma argument or issues about different translations into it so as to open the door for other ‘scripture’ to clarify or to accept other interpretations. Which is it? Is the Bible reliable or not? Clearly, the church has shown that it believes that is not reliable or we wouldn’t need the fictional BOM to fill in those gaps that the great and abominable church, as Paul noted, left behind. Odd to note there, however, that the BOM covers no new ground not based in the religious arguments of Smith’s own day (infant baptism, for one).

Yes, there are a few thousand changes between the first and second editions, which, if we are to believe the accounts of David Whitmer and Apostle Russle M. Nelson, shouldn’t be there in the first place.

Apparently, the Mormon god who restored the gospel is the same bumbling idiot that let it disappear from earth in the first place because he made any number of mistakes in the process which, then, took almost 200 years to get straight.

Amazing.

 

[flyonthewall]

It’s hilarious how you apologists will try to make Christians believe that you use and love the Bible, but always slipping nonsense like your Johannine comma argument or issues about different translations into it so as to open the door for other ‘scripture’ to clarify or to accept other interpretations. Which is it? Is the Bible reliable or not? Clearly, the church has shown that it believes that is not reliable or we wouldn’t need the fictional BOM to fill in those gaps that the great and abominable church, as Paul noted, left behind. Odd to note there, however, that the BOM covers no new ground not based in the religious arguments of Smith’s own day (infant baptism, for one).

Yes, there are a few thousand changes between the first and second editions, which, if we are to believe the accounts of David Whitmer and Apostle Russle M. Nelson, shouldn’t be there in the first place.

Apparently, the Mormon god who restored the gospel is the same bumbling idiot that let it disappear from earth in the first place because he made any number of mistakes in the process which, then, took almost 200 years to get straight.

Amazing.

I don’t mean to answer for Diana, as she is much more knowledgable and eloquent than I, and I don’t claim to be an apologist either, but this is my 2 cents:
The Johanine comma was just an example of how one thing has crept in, that we now know of, this leaves open the door for other possible insertions or ommissions to help further a point of view.
The Bible is reliable as far as it is translated correctly. This does not only include getting the words right, but the meaning of those words too. We can use the Bible to provide evidence for all our beliefs. You can use the Bible ot provide evidence for your beliefs. Now since our beliefs do not line up exactly, there has been a mistranslation of the meaning of those words somewhere along the lines.
An example you use is infant baptism. This actually goes further than just infant baptism but what exactly is baptism and why it is necessary.
While Catholics and LDS may agree baptism is necessary, there are other Christians who believe it is not.
I would say that the true meaning of baptism was lost. We look at the same words but pull different meanings from them.

I would be carefull about calling God a “bumbling idiot”. Remember He had trouble keeping the house of Israel faithful, even with all kinds of prophets, mighty miracles and a stern law. How much less likely was it that He could keep the gospel intact without prophets, mighty miracles and without temporal enforcement
I don’t say that to give you more ammunition, but just to point out that He has to work with imperfect people.

 

[ParkerD]

I always understood that phrase not to be found in a single organization, but a group made from a conglomerate of members from a diverse set of churches and religions. Bad or evil individuals can be found in all religious organizations and as such are true members of the great and abominable church. Is that an accurate understanding or is it off the mark?

JeanMichel,
Thanks for asking for clarification, since that phrase often brings a misunderstanding to the people who read those words.

It is evident from 1 Nephi 14 as further description of the “mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil,” comes out in the vision and message Nephi receives from an angel, that the “great and abominable church” described there is the same thing as represented by the words in John’s prophetic vision recorded in Revelation 17:5, “Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.”

Those descriptions and word pictures do not indeed point to one religious organization, nor to one secular organization–but to any group of people who have united in opposing the worship of Christ or who lead people away from worshiping Him and following Him whether through their words or through their actions or example. This can be people from many different organizations, whether religious or otherwise.

So if you take the word “religious” out of your second to last sentence since it is not exclusive to religious organizations, then I think you have the correct perception with that modification. It has more to do with what is going on in the heart of the person and those they join with as they show their innermost desires by how they act, than with what religion they follow outwardly.

 

[PaulDupre]

I would be carefull about calling God a “bumbling idiot”.

RH did not call God a bumbling idiot. He called the fictional Mormon god a bumbling idiot.

Huge difference.

 

[flyonthewall]

RH did not call God a bumbling idiot. He called the fictional Mormon god a bumbling idiot.

Huge difference.

I realize that, but the “fictional Mormon god” is a construct of critics not an actual entity.
We believe in the same God you do, we just see Him in a different light.

 

[dianaiad]

RH did not call God a bumbling idiot. He called the fictional Mormon god a bumbling idiot.

Huge difference.

Goodness gracious me.

I wonder just how fast I would receive an infraction, perhaps a suspension…and a WHOLE bunch of people screaming at me on this forum if I “called the fictional Catholic god a bumbling idiot?”

Bet you get applause, though.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Goodness gracious me.

I wonder just how fast I would receive an infraction, perhaps a suspension…and a WHOLE bunch of people screaming at me on this forum if I “called the fictional Catholic god a bumbling idiot?”

Bet you get applause, though.

Zerinus and others have referred to the Trinity in equally offensive terms, and they haven’t been suspended. The recent chimera/three headed thing comes to mind. I don’t know about receiving infractions though, maybe they have.