The Book of Mormons and the Bible

[wussup]

A trite example of a false translation is the ‘dagan’ (to wit Genesis 27:28). ‘Dagan’ is routed of ‘Dagah’, meaning to increase. It has nothing to do with corn (corn is a Western Hemisphere plant and unknown to the Hebrews). Most newer translations render this ‘grain’ vs. ‘corn’. Why would the writers use the word ‘corn’? They translated the word of the Author, ‘Jesus’, in the vernacular of their time. Why do we not retranslate it? What would the practical difference be? None. But it does give someone like me a chance to illustrate a poor translation to someone like you.

RE, apostacy. One can prove virtually everything about anything from the Bible. However, here are some verses prophecing the Apostacy of the Church:
Isa 25:5; 29:13;60:2, Amos 8:11; Matt 13:25; 24:5, 24:24; John 6:66 Acts 20:29; 1 Cor 11:18; Gal 1:6; 2 Thes 2:3; 1 Tim 1:6, 4:1; 2 Tim 1:15; 2:18; 3:5; 4:4; Titus 1:16; 2 Peter 2:1; 3:17; 1 Jn 2:18; 4:1; Jude 1:4; Rev 2:2; 3:16; 13:7.

Even the Catholic Church recognizes there was a falling away. I was lent a book by a Father at the Dubin South Africa Diocese titled as I recall, The Apostacy of the Catholic Church, written by Paul Jonson. As I recalled, he had died and his wife published the work post humous. The question is was the authority taken from the Church. We believe it was.

 

[Kristine1957]

Oops! Sorry to all Mormons, I did not mean to offend.

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.

Kellie: The LDS church uses the Bible as long as it is translated correctly… what that means is they believe the Bible to be incomplete without the BoM…

 

[Allweather]

The question is was the authority taken from the Church. We believe it was.

Indeed, that is the question. Do you arrive at your answer based entirely upon your “belief” as stated above in the quote? Or do you have some hard evidence?

I have had Mormons tell me that the so-called Great Apostasy was universal and thorough. They apparently believe this to be so. Now, it appears that some Mormons have revised this “belief” into something less insulting to the millions of good Christians who’ve given their all for the Lord, by saying that only “some” went apostate.

I think we can all agree that apostasy has always existed within the Christian Church, individually, and even within some groups, perhaps even within entire nations. It certainly exists within the Mormon church, by your own definitions. Since Mormons don’t “believe” that divine authority has been removed from the Mormon church by virtue of the assorted apostasies among Mormons, how is it that Mormons, apart from visions and private revelations, are able to assert that it has been removed from the Christian Church?

Show us the hard evidence. I direct this question to wussup, since we can hope for more elaborative answers than, “I’ve already answered that, no need to repeat myself, don’t ask stupid questions” type of answer that we usually get from Zerinus.

 

[wahey]

doesnt it say in revelatoin that you shouldnt add or take away from the bible

 

[Allweather]

doesnt it say in revelatoin that you shouldnt add or take away from the bible

The Mormons will undoubtedly say what their Protestant forefathers said: That it only applies to the last book of the NT known as the Revelation, or the Apocalypse. It doesn’t apply to the other books of the Bible.

Of course, that is an interpretive position. To paraphrase an old saying: Biblical interpretations are like ********, everybody has one. That’s why Catholics rely on the teaching authority of the Church to tell us what the Bible means, and not just the Church today, but the Church down through the centuries. We look back to see what Christians have always believed and taught about the Bible. Mormons, and other cults, start with a modern so-called prophet who tells them of new meanings, fallible scriptures, and new, “modern scriptures.” That’s how they get so far off-track.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Pro 30:5 Every word of God is fire tried: he is a buckler to them that hope in him.
Pro 30:6 Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved and found a liar:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[truthsilence]

I guess some of the parts of the Bible that must be translated incorrectly (according to LDS), are the parts that say God was always God; Jesus was always with God, and actually is God; the part about there being no marriage in heaven; the part about the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church. These are a few just off the top. I’m sure there are many others.

Of course they don’t ever come right out and say that the part about God always having been God from all eternity is a mis-translation. But it is implied, and that is still the most disturbing thing to me about LDS teaching.

 

[Lapsed]

Of course they don’t ever come right out and say that the part about God always having been God from all eternity is a mis-translation. But it is implied, and that is still the most disturbing thing to me about LDS teaching.

In the end, what I found most disturbing is the logical conclusion about the nature of God this theolgical position leads to.

Though not originally stated this way by Joseph Smith (I believe it was Jospeh F. Smith, though I may be wrong), the LDS maxim, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become,” can only lead to the conclusion that God (Heavenly Father in Mormonese) was once a fallen, sinful man in need of redemption by the god who was in turn His “Heavenly Father.”

If we are as God once was, this is the only pssible logical conclusion about the nature of God, for we are fallen, sinful beings. If God was never a fallen, sinful being, then He never was as we are.

A limitted, redeemed sinful being is not one I want to worship.

 

[Montalban]

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

Thank you for the examples, but is there a definitive list?

Second, if they’re not significant regarding the fundamentals this prompts me to ask more questions.

1. how does this show that the church became apostate? (if at all)

a) do you have any idea of when the errors came in?
b) and why … considering Jesus predicted that the church would not fail
3) how was Joseph Smith qualified to make such a translation?
4) if he was commanded by God to do this, why didn’t he finish it?

(I hope you’ve not already answered these questions, but you haven’t – I believe – up to the point that I’ve read – which is your post I’m now responding to.)

 

[Montalban]

Kellie: The LDS church uses the Bible as long as it is translated correctly… what that means is they believe the Bible to be incomplete without the BoM…

What I find interesting about this is a whole idea that is based on Protestant notions of the Bible.

The Protestants believe in the Bible removed from the history of the church (which is the life of the church we call tradition).

Having so removed it, it becomes a single, stand-alone inspired work. It could then be placed along other inspired works.

It is also to suppose that the Church was a living church that always guarded the Bible in the first place… like Protestantism it ignores the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils.

Having removed the Bible from the context of the church it’s far more easily manipulated.

And like the Protestants, Joseph Smith simply assumes that the church (of old) is the Catholic Church.

 

[Montalban]

doesnt it say in revelatoin that you shouldnt add or take away from the bible

I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that there’s a similar passage in books of Moses

 

[zerinus]

Thank you for the examples, but is there a definitive list?

No, there isn’t a definitive list. As I said before, we accept all the Bible to be correct unless we have good reason to believe otherwise through additional revelation that the Lord has given to us today—and those instances are not many. The corrections made in the Bible by the JST (which are quite numerous) do not so much contradict what it contains, as add additional material to it that enhance and clarify its meaning. There may be other errors that we are not yet aware of because the Lord has not yet revealed to us enough information to enable us to make that determination.

Second, if they’re not significant regarding the fundamentals this prompts me to ask more questions.

1. how does this show that the church became apostate? (if at all)

By the Apostasy we mean the loss of the divine authority and priesthood of the Church. It is clear to us that that authority was lost to the Christian church early on, because after the death of the Apostles the church was no longer being led by revelation from the Lord as the early church used to be, and also the institution of the Twelve Apostles disappeared with keys of the kingdom that they once possessed. All of these have now been restored to earth in this dispensation of the gospel, and are fully functional in only one church in the world, and that is the LDS Church.

a) do you have any idea of when the errors came in?

We believe it happened very early on in the history of the church. Our source of information for that is the Book of Mormon. You will find it here:

scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=1+Nephi+13%3A20-34&do=Search

b) and why … considering Jesus predicted that the church would not fail

You are referring to Matthew 16:18. It did not fail. It all depends on how you want to define “church”. The word “church” has several different meanings. It can refer to a place of worship. It can be defined sacramentally, and refer to the organizational structure, and the priesthood and ecclesiastical hierarchy and of the church. Or it can be defined as the body of people that believe in Christ (which is its original etymological meaning). If you do a search in Google, using the search term: “define: church” (without the quotation marks), you will get that particular definition coming up most often. In that sense of the term, it did not fail, because there have always been good, faithful, and believing Christians in the world. Even if you define the word “church” sacramentally, it still did not fail. There was a break, a gap, a hiatus between the Apostasy and the Restoration, during which the divine authority, the ecclesiastical legitimacy, the sacramental validity, and the priestly power of the church was lost. (This event is described in chapter 12 of the book of Revelation as the “woman”—which signifies the church—being driven “into the wilderness”.) But that was temporary. With the Restoration, all of that has now been restored; and with the “keys of the kingdom” being restored, the sacraments can now be performed not only for the living, but also vicariously in behalf of the dead, so that none of the faithful Christians that have ever lived in the world after the Apostasy need loose any of the eternal blessings that they were worthy to receive.

1. how was Joseph Smith qualified to make such a translation?

Because he was a prophet of the Lord, and commanded of God to do so.

1. if he was commanded by God to do this, why didn’t he finish it?

Because it was not the will of the Lord that he should finish it. God has revealed through him the basic information and additional scripture that was required to build and establish the Church in our time. But the promise of the Lord is that as the Church grows and progresses, many more scripture and divine truth will be revealed in due course to enable it to progress further and move forward the kingdom of God on earth. The LDS Church is a living, breathing organism that is constantly maturing and developing as it progresses. Many promises have been made in modern scripture about many ancient scriptural records that are yet to be revealed to the Church; and they will be revealed in the due time of the Lord when He determines that time is right to reveal them. In the mean time we make do with what we have got.

zerinus

 

[Montalban]

zerinus:

By the Apostasy we mean the loss of the divine authority and priesthood of the Church. It is clear to us that that authority was lost to the Christian church early on, because after the death of the Apostles the church was no longer being led by revelation from the Lord as the early church used to be, and also the institution of the Twelve Apostles disappeared with keys of the kingdom that they once possessed. All of these have now been restored to earth in this dispensation of the gospel, and are fully functional in only one church in the world, and that is the LDS Church.

How is it clear? What was being taught that was false (this is a different question from what false parts are in the Bible). I still am unsure about this, because the principle teaching tool (the Bible) seems to be essentially okay with you.

For me, reading what you’ve put forward, there’s no clear message as to what exactly was wrong with the church in the fist place (what you call the Apostasy)

zerinus:

You are referring to Matthew 16:18. It did not fail. It all depends on how you want to define “church”. The word “church” has several different meanings. It can refer to a place of worship. It can be defined sacramentally, and refer to the organizational structure, and the priesthood and ecclesiastical hierarchy and of the church. Or it can be defined as the body of people that believe in Christ (which is its original etymological meaning). If you do a search in Google, using the search term: “define: church” (without the quotation marks), you will get that particular definition coming up most often. In that sense of the term, it did not fail, because there have always been good, faithful, and believing Christians in the world. Even if you define the word “church” sacramentally, it still did not fail. There was a break, a gap, a hiatus between the Apostasy and the Restoration, during which the divine authority, the ecclesiastical legitimacy, the sacramental validity, and the priestly power of the church was lost. (This event is described in chapter 12 of the book of Revelation as the “woman”—which signifies the church—being driven “into the wilderness”.) But that was temporary. With the Restoration, all of that has now been restored; and with the “keys of the kingdom” being restored, the sacraments can now be performed not only for the living, but also vicariously in behalf of the dead, so that none of the faithful Christians that have ever lived in the world after the Apostasy need loose any of the eternal blessings that they were worthy to receive.

It must have failed for it to have become Apostate… to lose, as you say the revelation of the Lord, even if it be for a while, and not permanent. There is no sense, from what I see in the church the idea that Jesus is saying “Here’s the message, but it will fail (for 1,800 years)” for he also specifically warns against people coming in the future claiming to be of God. What is your opinion on this?
Why do you believe God establishes a church, and then allows it to lapse for 1800 years?

zerinus:

Because he was a prophet of the Lord, and commanded of God to do so.

Did he have any qualifications? How did he know God was speaking to him? Was it in a way consistent with God calling others?

zerinus:

The LDS Church is a living, breathing organism that is constantly maturing and developing as it progresses. Many promises have been made in modern scripture about many ancient scriptural records that are yet to be revealed to the Church; and they will be revealed in the due time of the Lord when He determines that time is right to reveal them. In the mean time we make do with what we have got

I have a fundamental problem with this concept because I believe that truth does not change. I believe that once Jesus created the New Covenant, all that we need to know was given then. I don’t see why Jesus would preach a message if it is not complete - awaiting further revelations. Further Christ picked the wrong people to act for him, because they failed to safe-guard his message - according to you - whether they did so personally, or by picking the wrong people.

It also suggests your own church is incomplete, or imperfect, because further revelations await. Given your belief that future revelations await, how would you know when they happen? Is it possible that the LDS church has lapsed (become Apostate) and some other person now has a new revelation from God?

 

[Jerusha]

I see some interesting statements in this thread:

Of course they don’t ever come right out and say that the part about God always having been God from all eternity is a mis-translation. But it is implied, and that is still the most disturbing thing to me about LDS teaching.

No, that is not the most disturbing thing about LDS teaching.

I think we can all agree that apostasy has always existed within the Christian Church, individually, and even within some groups, perhaps even within entire nations

I believe that the worst apostasy within Catholicism caused the Spanish Inquisition. De las Casas was the hero of the anti-Inquisition. If this is true, then much of Mormonism is a survivor of that same apostasy.

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

Certainly needs to be an update there.

My favorite thing in the Book of Mormon is from Mormon Ch 4:

And from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as a dew before the sun

The primary author, and 2) the vessel through which the primary author revealed his word

This is the problem with the BOM. Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon were terribly flawed people.

Here is a discussion of the Book of Mormon from a non-Mormon viewpoint.

solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0J.htm#part-07

It accepts the basic story of the Book of Mormon, but simply interprets it differently.

 

[Allweather]

We believe it (The Great Apostasy) happened very early on in the history of the church. Our source of information for that is the Book of Mormon.

So, the only “evidence” for this fabricated Great Apostasy comes out of a 19th century book that has no documentary support whatever, except numerous lifts from Sacred Scripture. Furthermore, this book was supposedly translated off of Golden Plates by the use of devices, the types of which Joseph Smith was fond, and which he used in his career as a treasure hunter, or “money digger.” Very interesting, and very suspicious.

Because he (Joseph Smith) was a prophet of the Lord, and commanded of God to do so.

And yet, said prophet, Joseph Smith, issued many prophecies which never came to pass. Any explanation?

Because it was not the will of the Lord that he should finish it (the JST).

Uh, no. Because he was shot to death in 1844 by his neighbors, who refused to put up with his polygamous lifestyle and teachings, and who resented the arrogance of the Mormon people. Evidently many Mormons didn’t like the polygamy, either, 'cause they could’ve come to his aid, but didn’t.

Many promises have been made in **modern scripture **about many ancient scriptural records that are yet to be revealed to the Church; and they will be revealed in the due time of the Lord when He determines that time is right to reveal them. zerinus

“Modern Scripture” is code for the mishmash of stuff contained in BoM, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, and whatever else anyone wants to claim as Mormon “scripture.” Interestingly, this modern scripture also contains the Mormon teaching regarding polygamy, and the death (or “destruction”) threats supposedly issued against Emma Smith unless she kept quiet and stopped complaining about her husband’s sinful lifestyle. Some scripture!

 

[zerinus]

How is it clear? What was being taught that was false (this is a different question from what false parts are in the Bible). I still am unsure about this, because the principle teaching tool (the Bible) seems to be essentially okay with you.

For me, reading what you’ve put forward, there’s no clear message as to what exactly was wrong with the church in the fist place (what you call the Apostasy)

It must have failed for it to have become Apostate… to lose, as you say the revelation of the Lord, even if it be for a while, and not permanent. There is no sense, from what I see in the church the idea that Jesus is saying “Here’s the message, but it will fail (for 1,800 years)” for he also specifically warns against people coming in the future claiming to be of God. What is your opinion on this?
Why do you believe God establishes a church, and then allows it to lapse for 1800 years?

Did he have any qualifications? How did he know God was speaking to him? Was it in a way consistent with God calling others?

I have a fundamental problem with this concept because I believe that truth does not change. I believe that once Jesus created the New Covenant, all that we need to know was given then. I don’t see why Jesus would preach a message if it is not complete - awaiting further revelations. Further Christ picked the wrong people to act for him, because they failed to safe-guard his message - according to you - whether they did so personally, or by picking the wrong people.

It also suggests your own church is incomplete, or imperfect, because further revelations await. Given your belief that future revelations await, how would you know when they happen? Is it possible that the LDS church has lapsed (become Apostate) and some other person now has a new revelation from God?

You are going round and round in circles now, and asking a lot of questions that have been answered before, and I don’t have any time for that.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

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.

You are right, I have answered it a million itmes before, and have just answered it again!

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

Yes, I have just answered that quuestion in post #32 in my reply to Montalban in this thread. This is the relevant quote:

You are referring to Matthew 16:18. It did not fail. It all depends on how you want to define “church”. The word “church” has several different meanings. It can refer to a place of worship. It can be defined sacramentally, and refer to the organizational structure, and the priesthood and ecclesiastical hierarchy and of the church. Or it can be defined as the body of people that believe in Christ (which is its original etymological meaning). If you do a search in Google, using the search term: “define: church” (without the quotation marks), you will get that particular definition coming up most often. In that sense of the term, it did not fail, because there have always been good, faithful, and believing Christians in the world. Even if you define the word “church” sacramentally, it still did not fail. There was a break, a gap, a hiatus between the Apostasy and the Restoration, during which the divine authority, the ecclesiastical legitimacy, the sacramental validity, and the priestly power of the church was lost. (This event is described in chapter 12 of the book of Revelation as the “woman”—which signifies the church—being driven “into the wilderness”.) But that was temporary. With the Restoration, all of that has now been restored; and with the “keys of the kingdom” being restored, the sacraments can now be performed not only for the living, but also vicariously in behalf of the dead, so that none of the faithful Christians that have ever lived in the world after the Apostasy need loose any of the eternal blessings that they were worthy to receive.

zerinus

 

[Montalban]

You are going round and round in circles now, and asking a lot of questions that have been answered before, and I don’t have any time for that.

zerinus

I’m sorry that it seems that way to you but you’re answers are very vague.

You’re definante that there’s been an apostasy of the church.

Montalban: How?
Zerinus: It’s just clear that there has
Montalban: How?
Zerinus: We’re going around in circles; I’ve already answered that.
and so on.

In fact you admit nothing serious has been changed in the Bible.

What you’ve left on this thread is a series of just-so statements. It just is, because it is, because it is. I hope you’ll take the time to give some detail.

 

[Montalban]

So, the only “evidence” for this fabricated Great Apostasy comes out of a 19th century book that has no documentary support whatever, except numerous lifts from Sacred Scripture. Furthermore, this book was supposedly translated off of Golden Plates by the use of devices, the types of which Joseph Smith was fond, and which he used in his career as a treasure hunter, or “money digger.” Very interesting, and very suspicious.

This is true. From what I’ve seen from Zerinus’ statements it’s all rather circular. From what I see is; the LDS church believes it is so, because it is, because it is.

Add to that his bluff anger and bravado in responding I feel that there’s very little substance to his stance.

Perhaps someone who knows more about the LDS church might wish to come and answer som of these questions (and one who is less angry that the questions are being asked)

 

[zerinus]

I’m sorry that it seems that way to you but you’re answers are very vague.

You’re definante that there’s been an apostasy of the church.

Montalban: How?

Zerinus: It’s just clear that there has

Montalban: How?

I have made that perfectly clear, but you are either incapable of understanding it, or you turn a blind eye to it. I have informed you repeatedly that by the Apostasy we mean the loss of divine authority by the church, which manifests itself most expressly by the loss of the ability of the church leadership to commune directly with God, and to lead and direct the church by revelation form God. Does the Catholic Church make such a claim today? No! Does the Pope make such a claim? No! Is there any other church that does? No! Does the LDS Church make that claim? Yes it does! You may not believe that claim; but you cannot deny that at least it makes such a claim. The Catholic Church does not even make that claim, and even says that such ability is not required to govern the church. That is false. Whenever God has had a true church on earth, it has always been led, guided, and directed by revelation directly from Him. The LDS Church is the only church on earth that claims to be led by true prophets and Apostles that possess the same authority that the ancient Apostles did, and are able to direct the Church by revelation from heaven as they did. That is the difference.

In fact you admit nothing serious has been changed in the Bible.

I made no such admission. All I can say is that you are incapable of understanding what I am saying.

What you’ve left on this thread is a series of just-so statements. It just is, because it is, because it is. I hope you’ll take the time to give some detail.

That is not true. I think I have made my position as clear as I could.

zerinus