Reading through Luke with my Mormon Friends

[gazelam]

Gazelam,

I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. Why does the Mormon Church use the King James Bible? Thanks for your help!

CC,
An excellent question! I refer you to the First Presidency’s statement on the use of the KJV. Also, I would note that every so often another version will be quoted when that translation better makes the point. Take care!

 

[Apache78]

Its something I wouldn’t ask unless you want a long drawn out answer that makes no sense and is twisted more then a pretzel.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

I read the statement, it didn’t seem to point to exactly why you use it as much as that its the version that is translated the most correctly. Lets say this is true.

To this I have a second question:

Why are you not Anglican? since the King James was published in 1611 (by the Church of England) and the Mormon church did not appear until 1830?

 

[gazelam]

I see it as a miracle, not some sex act…

Then you and I are in agreement.

Gaz has consistently denied it in spite of the many quotes that people have posted here which say otherwise.

You know, every time I try to have a discussion with you, it ends up being a circular argument, so I’m good , I’ll let people with more patience debate you.

Well, one says I’m consistently wrong and another says I’m circular!! It reminds me of the story of the elephant and the six blind men. One says the elephant is like a spear, another as a rope, another as a wall, etc.

And g likes their “official” doctrine.

Wrong (but close - I give you that). I love our official doctrine.

Probably explained to you several times. So why not once more.

God begets God. God from God. John that you quoted, is a Trinitarian doctrine.

I do appreciate the response, and there have been times in the past when I learned from you about an intriguing aspect of the RCC, such as the notion of everyone being a prophet, priest, king. And I hope to learn more interesting things in the future. However, it seems a stretch to claim that this verse refers to Trinitarian ideas since the verse contains both the words “flesh” and “begotten” when referring to Jesus. The flesh is part of what makes Jesus “fully human” to a Trinitarian. Christ being “eternally begotten” of the father is a Trinitarian idea, but that’s not what this verse refers to given the reference to Christ’s flesh.

Also, Fortman in his book “The Triune God”, speaking generally of the Gospel of John asks “Can John think that the Eternal Father is greater than the Eternal Son? It seems that He does, just "as the father is always superior to his son, and the sender to the one sent”. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 26, 27

(@RuthAnne note the properly formed and accurate reference. )

Fortman acknowledges the non-Trinitarian nature of John

First you need to understand that begotten would not have been used in the original as that word only came into existence in the 14th century.
The Greek word is monogenes. It has two primary definitions

1. Being the only one of it’s kind within a specific relationship
2. Pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind.

The only begotten of the Father than means that He is the only one of His kind, He is unique.

I appreciate the the explanation of “monogenes”. I think what missing is that the word also includes the notion of offspring.

From Strong’s Concordance: monogenes comes from “monos” meaning one and only, and “genos” meaning offspring- so literally “only offspring”.

 

[gazelam]

I believe that proselytizing is forbidden, but this is a debate forum and debating is allowed.

 

[gazelam]

I read the statement, it didn’t seem to point to exactly why you use it as much as that its the version that is translated the most correctly. Lets say this is true.

To this I have a second question:

Why are you not Anglican? since the King James was published in 1611 (by the Church of England) and the Mormon church did not appear until 1830?

I personally do not believe that the Anglican Church has the authority to act in the name of God. But that does not mean I’m not grateful to those who made many sacrifices to bring us an English-language Bible.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Can I ask you, and let me know if this is not Mormon teaching, what is the reason that the Mormon church teaches as to why the Mormon church appeared in 1830 and not some other time? or I guess why I’m trying to say is why was there no Mormon church for roughly ~ 1800 years after Jesus Died? I’d like to understand this from your point of view. Thanks.

 

[adamhovey1988]

If I may add, why not some of the other restoration groups that came about at that time? Why is Mormonism the one that’s true?

 

[RuthAnne]

Joseph Smith’s vision of the Father and the Son was not that spectacular of an event. Those sorts of “visions” were commonplace during the time of the burned over district. Joe was just another one of many. Mormonism is not true.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I do appreciate the response, and there have been times in the past when I learned from you about an intriguing aspect of the RCC, such as the notion of everyone being a prophet, priest, king. And I hope to learn more interesting things in the future. However, it seems a stretch to claim that this verse refers to Trinitarian ideas since the verse contains both the words “flesh” and “begotten” when referring to Jesus. The flesh is part of what makes Jesus “fully human” to a Trinitarian. Christ being “eternally begotten” of the father is a Trinitarian idea, but that’s not what this verse refers to given the reference to Christ’s flesh.

The Incarnation is part of Trinitarian doctrine. Verse 14 is not a verse that stands alone, waiting for Mormons to insert it into foreign concepts. It exists in context. Try reading verse 1, at least? Verses 1-14 all together, might blow your mind…should you be able to leave your Mormon proof texting behind. (One can hope.)

Also, Fortman in his book “The Triune God”, speaking generally of the Gospel of John asks “ Can John think that the Eternal Father is greater than the Eternal Son? It seems that He does, just "as the father is always superior to his son, and the sender to the one sent ”. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 26, 27

Not sure why you’re switching topics.

In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God.

I suppose a polytheist could argue that there are greater gods and lesser gods. Christianity settled long ago, that the Son is not a lesser God than the Father. Jesus IS GOD, He is Our God, Who we worship. Only a Mormon thinks that lesser gods are worthy of worship.

 

[hope]

I appreciate the the explanation of “monogenes”. I think what missing is that the word also includes the notion of offspring.

From Strong’s Concordance: monogenes comes from “monos” meaning one and only, and “genos” meaning offspring- so literally “only offspring”.

monogenés: only begotten

Original Word: μονογενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: monogenés
Phonetic Spelling: (mon-og-en-ace’)
Definition: only begotten
Usage: only, only-begotten; unique.
3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós , “one-and-only” and 1085 /génos , “offspring, stock”) – properly, one-and-only ; “one of a kind” – literally, "one ( monos ) of a class, genos " (the only of its kind).
That may have where is came from but I believe it would be incorrect to than say that it means offspring. It is meaning a uniqueness. As Strongs put it literally one of a class the only of it’s kind.

 

[gazelam]

That may have where is came from but I believe it would be incorrect to than say that it means offspring. It is meaning a uniqueness. As Strongs put it literally one of a class the only of it’s kind.

I think you’re on to something. I checked the NRSV and John 1:14 says “Father’s only Son”.

This blog says:
Monogenēs is made from two Greek words. Monos means “alone, only, sole.” Genos has a range of meanings: “offspring, family, relation, lineage, race, kind, species,” etc.[3] However, etymology does not determine a word’s meaning; the way a word is used by writers is what counts. Accordingly, the Greek-English lexicon BDAG defines monogenēs as something “that is the only example of its category.”[4] It seems the real implication of this word is that Jesus Christ is God’s “one and only, unique” Son. As such, Jesus shares divinity with the Father in a unique way.

Thanks for sharing!!

 

[gazelam]

Can I ask you, and let me know if this is not Mormon teaching, what is the reason that the Mormon church teaches as to why the Mormon church appeared in 1830 and not some other time? or I guess why I’m trying to say is why was there no Mormon church for roughly ~ 1800 years after Jesus Died? I’d like to understand this from your point of view. Thanks.

The only point I can put forward regarding timing is that Latter-day Saints believe that The Book of Mormon came forth as a sign that the gathering of Israel prophesied anciently was now in progress. You’ll recall that per the Bible, God anciently scattered the House of Israel and promised that someday it would be gathered again. I can’t speak to 1800 years vs 1250 years vs 12 year - only that in God’s timeline He saw fit to commence the long awaited gathering, and that The Book of Mormon is a tool for that purpose. You can find additional information by googling “Book of Mormon gathering of Israel”. I hope this helps…

 

[gazelam]

Not sure why you’re switching topics.

An admittedly clumsy attempt at my part to show that John is not a trinitarian gospel

In the beginning was the Word,

No issues here…

and the Word was with God,

As you know the Trinity in a nutshell is One God, in Three Persons. This phrase violates the Trinitarian paradigm by showing the Word [Christ] is separate from God.

and the Word was God.

No issues here…

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Right,

Ok, so you’re saying the Mormon church started in the beginning of this gathering process…but were the Christian churches before Mormonism true? because you have to see how I’m a little confused, Jesus established a church before he died, so was there a correct understanding of the faith up until a certain point? when was that point?

 

[RebeccaJ]

As you know the Trinity in a nutshell is One God, in Three Persons. This phrase violates the Trinitarian paradigm by showing the Word [Christ] is separate from God.

Trinitarian doctrine: three distinct persons.

Jesus is God’s Word. Is your word separate from you, as in, a second gazelem?

 

[Apache78]

Are you saying the 12 lost tribes have gathered once again?

 

[gazelam]

gazelam:

As you know the Trinity in a nutshell is One God, in Three Persons. This phrase violates the Trinitarian paradigm by showing the Word [Christ] is separate from God.

Trinitarian doctrine: three distinct persons.

Jesus is God’s Word. Is your word separate from you, as in, a second gazelem?

This is a false analogy. My word is not a person distinct from me, but solely an expression of my thoughts.

On a related topic, how do you reconcile Matthew 3: 16, 17 with John 1:1?

After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened [for him], and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove [and] coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Here you have Jesus “the Word” being baptized, and God the Father literally speaking words of divine approval. Here we have the Father’s word of approval, which is clearly separate and distinct from Jesus (the Word).

Are you saying the 12 lost tribes have gathered once again?

No. The gathering is in process. For more information see this entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and scroll down to the “Gathering of Israel” section.

Right,

Ok, so you’re saying the Mormon church started in the beginning of this gathering process…but were the Christian churches before Mormonism true? because you have to see how I’m a little confused, Jesus established a church before he died, so was there a correct understanding of the faith up until a certain point? when was that point?

Up to what exact point is hard to say. There is a large gap in the historical records after the Apostles died.

Acts 20:29 speaks of this happening.

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.

Also Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first century:

The Church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin, whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving Gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats: but when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, bk. 3, ch. 32)

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Ok, So lets say you are right. There is this “gap” and depending on where it falls (and remember you haven’t given me a date so I can’t work with that much) the church suddenly or over time became “corrupted.”

All of this being said, The Mormon church uses the King James Bible. Which wasn’t around till 1611, and THAT Bible was a protestant version of the version of the Bible (the Roman Catholic Version) that had been in circulation until a minimum of 382AD (Council of Rome, when the canon was recognized) to 1569 (Bear Bible, 1st protestant bible that surprisingly had 77 books in it just like the Catholics)…roughly 1187 years.

My Point: If the Catholic Church fell into “apostasy” sometime after the apostles, then depending on where you want to put that date the canon of the bible may or may not be “corrupted”. Yet, the Mormon church uses the bible of an “offshoot” (Protestantism) of a Catholic Church that they say fell into “apostasy” sometime after the apostles. Do you see the problem? If Mormonism is true, then why in the world would they use a portion of the Bible that is from an apostate church?

 

[gazelam]

My Point: If the Catholic Church fell into “apostasy” sometime after the apostles, then depending on where you want to put that date the canon of the bible may or may not be “corrupted”. Yet, the Mormon church uses the bible of an “offshoot” (Protestantism) of a Catholic Church that they say fell into “apostasy” sometime after the apostles. Do you see the problem? If Mormonism is true, then why in the world would they use a portion of the Bible that is from an apostate church?

I’ll refer you back to the First Presidency statement that I mentioned in comment #41, and then include my commentary.

The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts… Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version.

Regarding the Bible, the Book of Mormon specifically states: 1 Nephi 24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

So, the Bible is it’s original was correct. And then in 1 Nephi 13:26 … they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

In other words, portions of any Bible version have been corrupted. There is no pristine version hidden out there if only people look long enough.

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations.

In doctrinal matters the KJV is as good as any.

However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

For doctrine we rely modern day revelation found in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. I hope this helps…