The Book of Mormons and the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter kellie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kellie

Guest
Hi all,

This is especially for zerinus.

During all our discussions on the Mormons and Catholics, it constantly comes up about the Mormons believing the Catholic Church is an apostate church, and the LDS is the true church.

I know also through these discussions that Mormons use both the Bible, and the Book of Mormons.

My question is why haven’t the Mormons ever just combined the Bible and the Book of Mormons?

To me, that would be logical. If I believed the Catholic Church had apostasized, then I would start a new church (LDS), new name, with new revelations that prove the apostasy (Joseph Smith’s writings in the BOM), and make a new Holy Book for all my believers to follow.

It would set us apart from all other Bible believing churches, and also be easier to study and read.

From what I remember zerinus, you read the KJV Bible. Does that mean you believe everything in that version? Or just certain parts that you believe were proven true by Joseph Smith? If it is only certain parts of the KJV that you believe, that would make it even more logical to take out those parts, add them to the BOM, and then make a brand new Holy Book for your faith.

Look forward to your thoughts zerinus 🙂
 
kellie said:
Hi all,

This is especially for zerinus.

During all our discussions on the Mormons and Catholics, it constantly comes up about the Mormons believing the Catholic Church is an apostate church, and the LDS is the true church.

I know also through these discussions that Mormons use both the Bible, and the Book of Mormons.

My question is why haven’t the Mormons ever just combined the Bible and the Book of Mormons?

To me, that would be logical. If I believed the Catholic Church had apostasized, then I would start a new church (LDS), new name, with new revelations that prove the apostasy (Joseph Smith’s writings in the BOM), and make a new Holy Book for all my believers to follow.

It would set us apart from all other Bible believing churches, and also be easier to study and read.

From what I remember zerinus, you read the KJV Bible. Does that mean you believe everything in that version? Or just certain parts that you believe were proven true by Joseph Smith? If it is only certain parts of the KJV that you believe, that would make it even more logical to take out those parts, add them to the BOM, and then make a brand new Holy Book for your faith.

Look forward to your thoughts zerinus 🙂
Click to expand...
First of all, it’s the Book of Mormon, not the Book of Mormons.

Mormons believe in the bible “insofar as it is translated correctly.” That means they believe that parts of the bible were corrupted by the early church, which Joseph Smith later corrected and published as the JST (Joseph Smith Translation). Those parts are quite limited, and I don’t know whether they claim that work has been completed or not. To my knowledge, only Joseph attempted to correct the bible, and his successors have not. Why they don’t publish their own version of the complete bible with Joseph’s “corrections” I don’t know. They like the KJV because of the way the king’s English sounds (thou, thee, thine, etc.), not necessarily because of it’s accuracy–which has been shown to be a less accurate translation than other current versions out there. Like many other things in LDS theology, it’s more about feelings than about content. Why they accept the Protestant canon over the Catholic canon is also a mystery to me since it can be historical proven that the early church used the Catholic canon. It was Martin Luther who removed the deuterocanicals during the Reformation.

They would say that they would not combine the bible and the BoM into one work because those are too different stories dealing with different peoples, although much of the BoM quotes the bible anyway (even the mistakes in the KJV coincidentally).
 
I’m not zerinus but can answer this (I’m an ex-Mormon)

Actually, the LDS church does do just that. They publish what they call a “Quad” that contains all four of what Mormons refer to as “The Standard Works:” the KJV Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants (a collection of writings from Joseph Smith and a couple of his successors they claim are revelations from God), and the Pearl of Great Price. I’ve still got mine.

The LDS church only accepts the Bible “…as far as it is translated correctly…” (LDS Article of Faith 8), which means that anything in the Bible which contradicts LDS doctrine can be conveniently swept under the carpet as corrupted text.
 
Chris-WA said:
First of all, it’s the Book of Mormon, not the Book of Mormons
Click to expand...
Oops! Sorry to all Mormons, I did not mean to offend.
Lapsed said:
I’m not zerinus but can answer this (I’m an ex-Mormon)

Actually, the LDS church does do just that. They publish what they call a “Quad” that contains all four of what Mormons refer to as “The Standard Works:” the KJV Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants (a collection of writings from Joseph Smith and a couple of his successors they claim are revelations from God), and the Pearl of Great Price. I’ve still got mine.

The LDS church only accepts the Bible “…as far as it is translated correctly…” (LDS Article of Faith 8), which means that anything in the Bible which contradicts LDS doctrine can be conveniently swept under the carpet as corrupted text.
Click to expand...
Hmm,ok, thanks Lapsed, it just seems weird to me that a faith that believes some parts are corrupted would want to keep them in print.
 
I think that Zerinus has retired.

As for the BOM, my perception is that it is a parody of the Bible. The true story in it is very corrupted.
 
Mark Twain is (in)famous in Mormon circles for having had this to say about the Book of Mormon:

“…The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel – half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern – which was about every sentence or two – he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as ‘exceeding sore,’ ‘and it came to pass,’ etc., and made things satisfactory again. ‘And it came to pass’ was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet…”

Out of curiosity I searched for how many times ‘and it came to pass’ appears in the Book of Mormon. According to this site, the phrase appears there 999 times. By comparison, the next highest number is in the Old Testament, with 334 occurrences.
 
Chris-WA said:
First of all, it’s the Book of Mormon, not the Book of Mormons.

Mormons believe in the bible “insofar as it is translated correctly.” That means they believe that parts of the bible were corrupted by the early church, which Joseph Smith later corrected and published as the JST (Joseph Smith Translation). Those parts are quite limited, and I don’t know whether they claim that work has been completed or not. To my knowledge, only Joseph attempted to correct the bible, and his successors have not. Why they don’t publish their own version of the complete bible with Joseph’s “corrections” I don’t know. They like the KJV because of the way the king’s English sounds (thou, thee, thine, etc.), not necessarily because of it’s accuracy–which has been shown to be a less accurate translation than other current versions out there. Like many other things in LDS theology, it’s more about feelings than about content. Why they accept the Protestant canon over the Catholic canon is also a mystery to me since it can be historical proven that the early church used the Catholic canon. It was Martin Luther who removed the deuterocanicals during the Reformation.

They would say that they would not combine the bible and the BoM into one work because those are too different stories dealing with different peoples, although much of the BoM quotes the bible anyway (even the mistakes in the KJV coincidentally).
Click to expand...
Actually the RLDS (Community of Christ) do publish a 3-in-1 edition of their scriptures, which include the “Inspired Version” of the Bible (Joseph Smith’s Translation), their edition of the Book of Mormon, and their edition of the Doctrine and Covenants…all in one nice little volume.

One can purchase just the (name removed by moderator)ired Version by itself from Herald Publishing House.
 
Erich-
Did you read the article from which you pulled the 999 times thing? Brant Gardner (grad student searching for Ph.D. in anthropology) is using this as a proof for the Book of Mormon. He says that both the Old Testament and Mayan glyphs use this phrase (“it came to pass”, “it happens”, “it happened”, etc…) as a punctuation marker. Gardner is suggesting the original writers of the Book of Mormon were closer to that period of times lack of punctuation (no pun intended) by virtue of the fact that the Book of Mormon is using the exact same phraseology to determine the end of a sentence. It may not read nice to our english reading ears, but then if it was truly written by someone from another culture by an untutored farmer, it would have weakness’. Remember the words of Father Carapi, even the Bible must be interpreted in the context of 1) The primary author (Jesus), and 2) the vessel through which the primary author revealed his word. Erich, if you are going to bash another religion, make sure you read the entirety of your sources. It can prove embarrasing.:o
 
Protestants, Moslems, Mormons, all need to believe that the Church went apostate some time under the reign of Constantine.

If you’re going to sell a new revelation, you need to show why there’s a reason for an up-date.

My favourite thing in Mormonism is their belief that the American Indians are Hebrews
 
kellie said:
Hi all,

This is especially for zerinus.
Click to expand...
Wow! I am honoured! We finally have the “Zerinus/ the great Mormon threat” thread! Sorry, just kidding. Couldn’t help that!
During all our discussions on the Mormons and Catholics, it constantly comes up about the Mormons believing the Catholic Church is an apostate church, and the LDS is the true church.
Click to expand...
If it is any comfort, we believe all other churches are apostate, not just the Catholic Church! 🙂 Also, when we say that they are apostate, that does not mean that they serve no useful purpose, or that their non-existence is better than their existence. They still are able to provide a basis of faith for many people, and as such they serve a useful purpose. They can also accomplish much good in the world, such as doing charitable work, which many of them do, and supporting basic Christian values in society, such as moral values and family values in which we all share. In general, we believe that religion is a good thing, not a bad thing. We think it is better to believe in a religion, even if it is a non-LDS religion, than to be totally irreligious.
I know also through these discussions that Mormons use both the Bible, and the Book of Mormons.

My question is why haven’t the Mormons ever just combined the Bible and the Book of Mormons?
Click to expand...
To me, that would be logical. If I believed the Catholic Church had apostasized, then I would start a new church (LDS), new name, with new revelations that prove the apostasy (Joseph Smith’s writings in the BOM), and make a new Holy Book for all my believers to follow.

It would set us apart from all other Bible believing churches, and also be easier to study and read.
Click to expand...
Actually, in a way we do, as someone else has pointed out. We publish one big book called the Quadruple Combination, which contains all four LDS standard works in one volume.
From what I remember zerinus, you read the KJV Bible. Does that mean you believe everything in that version? Or just certain parts that you believe were proven true by Joseph Smith?
Click to expand...
I believe I have already answered that question before. Our eighth Article of Faith states: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly . . .” That means that we accept all of the Bible to be correct unless it is proven otherwise; and there are not many instances of those that I know of.
If it is only certain parts of the KJV that you believe, that would make it even more logical to take out those parts, add them to the BOM, and then make a brand new Holy Book for your faith.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant question. See above.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Wow! I am honoured! We finally have the “Zerinus/ the great Mormon threat” thread! Sorry, just kidding. Couldn’t help that!

If it is any comfort, we believe all other churches are apostate, not just the Catholic Church! 🙂 Also, when we say that they are apostate, that does not mean that they serve no useful purpose, or that their non-existence is better than their existence. They still are able to provide a basis of faith for many people, and as such they serve a useful purpose. They can also accomplish much good in the world, such as doing charitable work, which many of them do, and supporting basic Christian values in society, such as moral values and family values in which we all share. In general, we believe that religion is a good thing, not a bad thing. We think it is better to believe in a religion, even if it is a non-LDS religion, than to be totally irreligious.

Actually, in a way we do, as someone else has pointed out. We publish one big book called the Quadruple Combination, which contains all four LDS standard works in one volume.

I believe I have already answered that question before. Our eighth Article of Faith states: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly . . .” That means that we accept all of the Bible to be correct unless it is proven otherwise; and there are not many instances of those that I know of.

Irrelevant question. See above.

zerinus
Click to expand...
ok cool, thanks zerinus

This just brings one more point up which I know you may have answered a million times, but please answer for me.

Wouldn’t the KJV have the passage in it that states the gates of hell wont prevail against the church (sorry I have paraphrased)?

Isn’t this our argument with why the Catholic Church hasn’t apostasized?

Can you please just explain that part to me? Or is that a part of the Bible that you stated above that has been proven incorrect? Thanks 🙂
 
zerinus said:
Question already answered in the previous post. Do not ask stupid questions.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Ooooo! Hostile! 😃

Do you mean this bit…
zerinus said:
I believe I have already answered that question before. Our eighth Article of Faith states: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly . . .” That means that we accept all of the Bible to be correct unless it is proven otherwise; and there are not many instances of those that I know of.
Click to expand...
This suggests that there’s parts of the Bible you don’t believe are correct.

As you note that you produce copies of the Bible alongside other of your books do you highlight the bits that are incorrect?

It doesn’t seem that you answered that question at all.
 
Montalban said:
Ooooo! Hostile! 😃

Do you mean this bit…
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the bit I was referring to. It answers your question.
This suggests that there’s parts of the Bible you don’t believe are correct.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they are not that many, and theologically not very significant when it comes to the fundamentals of the religion.
As you note that you produce copies of the Bible alongside other of your books do you highlight the bits that are incorrect?
Click to expand...
Your original question had been: “Do you highlight those parts of the Bible that you approve of?” Now you are asking me if we highlight the parts that are incorrect. If we highlighted both parts, we would be highlighting the whole of the Bible, which would be a dumb thing to do. It kind of takes us back to the “stupid question” again.
It doesn’t seem that you answered that question at all.
Click to expand...
See above.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Yes, that is the bit I was referring to. It answers your question.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t answer the question AT ALL. All it does is note that you think some is incorrect. You state you accept ALL (an absolute) but then add the proviso SOME has been proven incorrect.
You confirm this with the following…
zerinus said:
Yes, but they are not that many, and theologically not very significant when it comes to the fundamentals of the religion.
Click to expand...
Then you’re into attempts at re-working the questions…
zerinus said:
Your original question had been: “Do you highlight those parts of the Bible that you approve of?” Now you are asking me if we highlight the parts that are incorrect.

If we highlighted both parts, we would be highlighting the whole of the Bible, which would be a dumb thing to do. It kind of takes us back to the “stupid question” again.
Click to expand...
Except I didn’t ask “Do you highlight BOTH the parts that you think are correct and the parts you think are incorrect?” I asked two distinct questions over two different threads.

All you do is exhibit a very hostile attitude and still manage to miss the questions.

I asked you once about which bits do you approve of. You didn’t answer. I asked about which you think are incorrect. You’ve still not answered. All your hostility to not answering doesn’t help.

So far we’ve seen you repeat the assertion that (as minor as there may be) there are bits of the Bible you think are in error. You have yet to show me either which bits are correct, or which bits are incorrect. But there are bits that are incorrect. Well done.

I get the same attitude and avoidance of the question by Moslems who have the same ‘corrupted’ Bible attitude
 
zerinus said:
Yes, that is the bit I was referring to. It answers your question.
zerinus
Click to expand...
You see it is not my question

“Do you believe in the Bible?”

nor is it

“Do you use the Bible?” (or “Do you use the Bible along with other Mormon books in a single collected volume?”)

but rather when you use the Bible do you use one in which there are bits that are in error that are highlighted.

In short, I want to know which are the verses you think are in error. I hope this helps you in answering the question.
 
kellie said:
Wouldn’t the KJV have the passage in it that states the gates of hell wont prevail against the church (sorry I have paraphrased)?
Click to expand...
Maybe that’s one of the verses they may or may not have highlighted as a verse that’s in error? 😉
 
Montalban said:
In short, I want to know which are the verses you think are in error. I hope this helps you in answering the question.
Click to expand...
As I said, they are not that many, and theologically not that significant when it comes to the fundamentals of the religion. For example, the early part of the Book of Mormon contains some lengthy extracts from the writings of Isaiah. These extracts contain some variations compared to the one that is in the Bible. In these variations we believe that the Book of Mormon extracts are more correct. For example, Isaiah 2:9 in the Bible reads: “And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not”. The same passage in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 12:9) reads: “And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not”. (The “not” has been added in the Book of Mormon.) We believe that the Book of Mormon version is more correct.

If you want more examples, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith at one time to make an inspired translation of the Bible. Although unfinished, that manuscript exists, and extracts from it that are doctrinally significant have been added as footnotes to the current LDS Edition of the Bible. These notes are not numerous in the OT, but they are very numerous in the NT, and are identified in the footnotes by the JST prefix. Larger passages have been added as an appendix at the end of the book. These passages do not so much contradict the Biblical text. Rather, they add missing bits to it that clarify and enhance its meaning. If you want to study them, your best bet would be to get hold of a copy of the LDS Bible (you can buy a very cheap paperback edition online; or if you have Mormon friends you can ask them to get you one), go through he footnotes (especially the NT), and highlight all the entries that are prefixed with JST, and compare them with the main text above.

zerinus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top