The Book of Mormons and the Bible

[mochi]

Paul, you remind me how glad i am to have removed myself
from all the turmoil that was called TSCC. Amen:thumbsup:

 

[zerinus]

I agree with you for the most part… However The LDS
Prophets have been warning their members for generations of the coming tribulations.
Most have said that in the latter days these things would happen and it was commanded that all church members to have years supply of food and why.
This is the way I understood it…
" There will be many signs before the coming of Christ which are wars, rumours of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, and all manner of natural and social disasters, and as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we are now living in the “latter-days” before his Second Coming. We are now on the threshold of a time that will not only be unrivaled in glory, but also in hardship.

Take care may God bring you peace in your life…

I agree that those hard times have been prophesied, and I also agree that food storage has sometimes been presented as a means of protecting oneself from those difficult time (which appear to be occurring more and more frequently year by year). But that is not the same thing as saying that it is preparing oneself for the second coming. The Bible says that those hard times will come, but at the same time adds that “the end is not yet” (Matthew 24:6). “Tribulation” does not mean that the Second Coming is round the corner.

zerinus

 

[Baron_Holbach]

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

Joseph Smith did when he liberally plagiarized from the Bible while composing the BoM, a 19th century piece of fiction. When Smith lifted scripture directly from the Bible, he was in effect copying into the Book of Mormon any translation errors that existed in the KJV.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Kellie asked: “My question is why haven’t the Mormons ever just combined the Bible and the Book of Mormons?”

Joseph Smith did when he liberally plagiarized from the Bible while composing the BoM, a 19th century piece of fiction. When Smith lifted scripture directly from the Bible, he was in effect copying into the Book of Mormon any translation errors that existed in the KJV.

Baron and Kellie:

Here is a definition for us Apostate Christians:

Mormon Apologetics: An attempt to explain away the plaigerism from the poorly translated (manuscripts from Erasmus, of all people!) KJV, Joseph Smith’s legal problems, philandering, claims of magic, Curse of Cain, Eternal Progression, the “Great Apostacy” and the promise of sex after death on a planet of your choice with the woman with whom you were ‘eternally bound’ in a quasi-Masonic, Old Testament Hebrew ritual, while wearing ‘holy long johns’ and getting oil rubbed over your body and promising to raise as many little godlets while feeding the Mormon Business Machine in SLC with 10% of your pre-tax earnings.

Oh, and remembering to end every retort with, “I believe it to be true on the testimony of the Holy Spirit.”

Pax Christi

 

[hosemonkey]

Holy long johns!!!

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I think that’s why Zerinus likes being a Mormon.

He is probably an official oil rubber for the temple ceremonies.

 

[Kristine1957]

I think that’s why Zerinus likes being a Mormon.

He is probably an official oil rubber for the temple ceremonies.

You guys are funny!!! I was thinking the other day… maybe he is learning all there is to know about Christians so he (or them) will know how to convert people out in the mission field?

 

[JonathanKinsman]

You guys are funny!!! I was thinking the other day… maybe he is learning all there is to know about Christians so he (or them) will know how to convert people out in the mission field?

Many of us think Zerinus is a tag team of 3 or 4 missionary elders.

From the various styles of writing and spelling, we (as a consensus) think “he” is either Canadian or British. Zerinus pops in at all hours on all days, if it is one guy, I really, truly feel sorry for this social outcast.

He was on the Forum under another name (amgid). That nom de fume was banned.

When you see this emoticon, think of Mormon apologetics::banghead:

Pax Christi

 

[IAMLDS]

Are you really comfortable with this approach? It seems to imply either that the apostasy was no big deal and had no impact on the faith, which is certainly strange, or that the Church is a completely unnecessary byproduct. I certainly believe that God will make use of the non-believer or even an apostate, but this seems to put things in the wrong order. I, as did St. Augustine, only believe the Gospels because the authority of the Catholic Church moved me. We were promised a Church, and that Church delivered a scripture for our help. The second depends on the first, and if the Church were not then the Bible could never be. I am actually surprised that the LDS would be so comfortable with a book produced by bodies with no authority and no direct covenant with God.

Patrick

We believe Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter … when they put pen to paper were authorized to write as inspired leaders of the then authorized Church of Jesus Christ. We believe their writings as originally penned were correct and the message they wished to convey was complete.

By way of other scriptural references we are told that “plain and precious parts” were removed and thus lost. Don’t ask which ones because if I knew they wouldn’t be lost. We are also told that this removal of plain and precious parts was a deliberate act. Again, we don’t know by whom. LDS believe that due to the removal of the plain and precious parts the gentile, (in other words humanity), would stumble with respect to spritual things. I can offer no direct proof for these statements. I believe them on faith, and by comparing what I believe to be true to the current state of the Christian world.

LDS believe that the original writings passed through many hands and were treated with love and veneration. With time they were recopied and translated into other languages. In the process of recopying and translating errors were introduced. Also, scribes wishing to clarify or to emphasize a certain doctrine put their own spin or commentary into the original writings. I believe the statements in this paragraph are widely accepted by Bible scholars throughout the world.

LDS believe the Catholic Church collected these now imperfect copies of writings once penned by leaders of the once authorized Church of Jesus Christ and gave us the Bible. Though not perfect, they are all we got, and we are blessed by what we do have.

 

[Allweather]

LDS believe the Catholic Church collected these now imperfect copies of writings once penned by leaders of the once authorized Church of Jesus Christ and gave us the Bible. Though not perfect, they are all we got, and we are blessed by what we do have.

I don’t have any major objection to what you wrote here, IAMLDS, though I cannot testify to its accuracy, because I am not a Bible scholar, and I suspect you are not, either. However, it seems reasonable to assume that errors have crept into the manuscripts over time through human error, among other things, perhaps even deliberate additions and/or deletions. It seems reasonable to me, and I think that your explanation is reasonable. However…

What little I know about the Bible tells me that errors are relatively few, and none affect the essence of what the writers meant to convey. In fact, because the NT is so well documented, the errors are easy to find, and it is easy to verify that they do not affect the essence in any significant way.

Moreover, the Catholic Church does not depend on the Bible alone for its doctrine and dogma. Jesus founded a Church, not a Bible. He endowed it with authority, and promised that he would be with it until the end. He guaranteed that it would survive even the attacks of Satan. The NT was assembled out of a large collection of writings. It was collected by the Church which wrote it, and put into a canon. The Church, which wrote and canonized the NT retains the right and obligation to interpret what it means. It must be interpreted in keeping with what Christians have always understood it to mean, so that, it is not possible for Christians in 1830 to suddenly decide that Jesus approved of polygamy (as Zerinus claims) because we know that the Church has always understood the words of Jesus, given to us via the NT, to condemn polygamy and adultery. So, we have Tradition and Scripture cross examining each other at all times, each insuring that no error creeps into Christian doctrine. When one takes the NT out of the arms of Tradition, as well as the authority of the Catholic Magisterium, then the meanings of it get distorted, and as time goes by, the distortions get worse and worse.

This is what we’ve seen in the various cult religions, such as Mormonism, which is the Cult of Joseph Smith. As that religion went forward from its founding on 6 April, 1830, error after error was added to it by false prophets, and this process continued after Joseph Smith’s departure from the planet. This is because the Mormons had, like other cults before it and since, divorced itself from the valid teaching authority of the Magisterium, and promulgated doctrines that were based upon false interpretations of Scripture, as well as false revelations that were claimed by these false prophets.

Scripture cannot be understood apart from Tradition, or apart from the interpretative functions of the Church which wrote it and canonized it. In every case where Scripture has been taken out of its home waters, the result has been heresy, schism, and apostasy. Only the Catholic Church has kept the proper, God-ordained balance between Scripture and Tradition, so that within Catholicism we find True Christianity in all its glory.

 

[Baron_Holbach]

Allweather wrote, “Scripture cannot be understood apart from Tradition, or apart from the interpretative functions of the Church which wrote it and canonized it. In every case where Scripture has been taken out of its home waters, the result has been heresy, schism, and apostasy. Only the Catholic Church has kept the proper, God-ordained balance between Scripture and Tradition, so that within Catholicism we find True Christianity in all its glory.”

This is true. I was raised Presbyterian but my family always admired the Pope. Matthew 16 specifically states that the Catholic church will never apostatize. Although there have been times when the Church wavered, its foundation has always remained firm. All the Protestant churches will one day return to the fold.

 

[IAMLDS]

Allweather,

You wrote:

“What little I know about the Bible tells me that errors are relatively few, and none affect the essence of what the writers meant to convey. In fact, because the NT is so well documented, the errors are easy to find, and it is easy to verify that they do not affect the essence in any significant way.”

Both of our positions pertaining to the fidelity of the current versions of the New Testament writings compared to the original manuscript is a matter of faith. When we stare at the void left by the now non-existant original writings we are left to ask, “God what did they say?” We both depend on what we consider to be the Magisterium, the teaching authority, to tell us what they did say. Your dependence on Tradition is where your belief system leaves the world of material proof and enters the realm of faith. My dependence on the restoration of continued revelation takes me to the same realm.

Now I’m off to Albuquerque. I’m going to hang out with a few Engineers at the Pyramid.

 

[yugnok]

Allweather,

You wrote:

“What little I know about the Bible tells me that errors are relatively few, and none affect the essence of what the writers meant to convey. In fact, because the NT is so well documented, the errors are easy to find, and it is easy to verify that they do not affect the essence in any significant way.”

**Both of our positions pertaining to the fidelity of the current versions of the New Testament writings compared to the original manuscript is a matter of faith. ** When we stare at the void left by the now non-existant original writings we are left to ask, “God what did they say?” We both depend on what we consider to be the Magisterium, the teaching authority, to tell us what they did say. Your dependence on Tradition is where your belief system leaves the world of material proof and enters the realm of faith. My dependence on the restoration of continued revelation takes me to the same realm.

Now I’m off to Albuquerque. I’m going to hang out with a few Engineers at the Pyramid.

The person you quoted above is correct in saying that the errors are relatively few. There are thousands of manuscripts and text fragments of the early church scriptures especially the gospels. No other historical document from that period comes even close to that in terms of manuscripts. We are able to reconstruct these fragments into an almost 96-99%(somewhere in that ballpark) complete text of what the Gospels would have looked like in the early church (maybe 2nd century). Any copyist errors were minimal to the point of insignificance. Modern scholarly editions of the Bible reflect any variances in early Greek manuscripts in their footnotes. This point is **not **a matter of faith which even many Christian hating atheistic scripture scholars accept.

What is a matter of faith for Christians, however, is the believe that these scriptures are the ones that are inspired.

Now if you are going to refer to some mystery period in the early Church–perhaps while some of the apostles were still living or the generation after they just died–where people deliberately excised entire segments of the gospels because they apostatized, I find that a matter of faith (and blind faith at that) because there is no evidence for it. The only reason to believe it is because some 19th century “prophet”" decided that it was so.

This proposition is even more unbelievable, considering that this was a period of martyrs and confessors–when people were willing to be martyred and have their eyes gouged out rather than renounce their faith. Would the people who had lost everything, their loved ones, their eyes, parts of their limbs, their tongue–would these people let a bunch of new phony Christians come along and cut out parts of their scriptures and teach doctrines contrary to what they had suffered for? Would the historical record show no evidence of the outcry that would have occurred? I don’t think so.

 

[Allweather]

Now I’m off to Albuquerque. I’m going to hang out with a few Engineers at the Pyramid.

I’m not far from you, buddy. I work literally a stone’s throw from the Pyramid. We should get together someday and share testimonies, LOL. I’d welcome the opportunity. If you’d like, message me and let’s see how we could do that.

 

[Allweather]

Both of our positions pertaining to the fidelity of the current versions of the New Testament writings compared to the original manuscript is a matter of faith. When we stare at the void left by the now non-existant original writings we are left to ask, “God what did they say?” We both depend on what we consider to be the Magisterium, the teaching authority, to tell us what they did say. Your dependence on Tradition is where your belief system leaves the world of material proof and enters the realm of faith. My dependence on the restoration of continued revelation takes me to the same realm.

In large measure, I agree. But I think you’re at least partially misunderstanding Tradition. There may be a few doubts about certain fairly insignificant matters of Scripture, but Tradition is much larger than Scripture, and even better attested by documentation. Therefore, faith is not really much of a requirement when it comes to Tradition. We can see what Christians believed and practiced in the year 1000 because there is lots of documentary evidence about that. We can compare that to what they believed and practiced 900 years before, and see that in pretty much every important matter, they agree. Forward from 1000, we know what the Church taught, and what Christians believed in the year 1500, on the eve of the Reformation, and again, what they believed and practiced as the Reformation heresies took strong root, and the Church came out of Trent. Lots of documentation. We don’t really need faith for Tradition. Tradition is lots of things, but primarily I see it as God’s way of speaking to all generations and centuries, showing us today what the Church did before, so that we do not depart from it. One example: there is a fair amount of chit-chat going on, especially since Vatican II, about ordaining women. A few years ago, Pope John Paul II issued a statement effectively closing the debate, by pointing out that the Church has NEVER ordained women, and that this fact, along with some pretty powerful Scriptural witnesses, means that WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER such an obviously important practice. This is one way that Tradition works to protect the Church from error. Similarly, if John Paul or Benedict were to up and say, hey, from now on, it is OK for men to marry more than one woman at a time, and in fact, they are commanded to do so as a requirement for ultimate passage into the ultimate heavenlies, comparisons to the practices and canon laws of 2 millenia would show that this is a false teaching.

Mormons need a tremendous amount of blind faith to accept what Joseph Smith taught before and after he founded the Mormon church in April 1830. There are major, and serious departures in there from what Christians always believed and practiced, from Day One, to Day 6 April 1830, and thereafter, as Mormon doctrines were issued forth in huge numbers, and alterations to 1800 years of Sacred Tradition were attempted.

 

[artist3189]

In large measure, I agree. But I think you’re at least partially misunderstanding Tradition. There may be a few doubts about certain fairly insignificant matters of Scripture, but Tradition is much larger than Scripture, and even better attested by documentation. Therefore, faith is not really much of a requirement when it comes to Tradition. We can see what Christians believed and practiced in the year 1000 because there is lots of documentary evidence about that. We can compare that to what they believed and practiced 900 years before, and see that in pretty much every important matter, they agree. Forward from 1000, we know what the Church taught, and what Christians believed in the year 1500, on the eve of the Reformation, and again, what they believed and practiced as the Reformation heresies took strong root, and the Church came out of Trent. Lots of documentation. We don’t really need faith for Tradition. Tradition is lots of things, but primarily I see it as God’s way of speaking to all generations and centuries, showing us today what the Church did before, so that we do not depart from it. One example: there is a fair amount of chit-chat going on, especially since Vatican II, about ordaining women. A few years ago, Pope John Paul II issued a statement effectively closing the debate, by pointing out that the Church has NEVER ordained women, and that this fact, along with some pretty powerful Scriptural witnesses, means that WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER such an obviously important practice. This is one way that Tradition works to protect the Church from error. Similarly, if John Paul or Benedict were to up and say, hey, from now on, it is OK for men to marry more than one woman at a time, and in fact, they are commanded to do so as a requirement for ultimate passage into the ultimate heavenlies, comparisons to the practices and canon laws of 2 millenia would show that this is a false teaching.

Mormons need a tremendous amount of blind faith to accept what Joseph Smith taught before and after he founded the Mormon church in April 1830. There are major, and serious departures in there from what Christians always believed and practiced, from Day One, to Day 6 April 1830, and thereafter, as Mormon doctrines were issued forth in huge numbers, and alterations to 1800 years of Sacred Tradition were attempted.

Allweather, again, makes another inescapable point, right on the money. This is a huge problem and I don’t know how a Mormon gets around it without keeping their head in the sand.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

By way of other scriptural references we are told that “plain and precious parts” were removed and thus lost. Don’t ask which ones because if I knew they wouldn’t be lost. We are also told that this removal of plain and precious parts was a deliberate act. Again, we don’t know by whom.

 

[yugnok]

Yes the missing parts of the Bible argument reminds me of of the invisible cat argument.

There is an invisible cat on the chair. I know its there because I can’t see it.

 

[truthsilence]

Speaking of errors, and whether or not we can trust BOM as scripture; I recently received my copy and began reading “Theology for Beginners” by F.J. Sheed. (Vincent, THANK YOU for the recommendation-Wow!!). On page 18, the author is discussing the Name of God. He makes this statement:

The Jews, out of reverence, avoided writing Gods name in full; they wrote the consonants only, JHWH. Somebody in the thirteenth century made a bad guess in the missing vowels and produced the word Jehovah. Actually there is no such word.

As I tried to move past this paragraph, a thought surfaced regarding the name Jehovah. It was that, the name Jehovah appears also, in the BOM (“doesn’t it”?). I tried to move on, but instead of brushing the thought aside, I decided to do some looking into this little blooper that was supposedly engraved on the golden plates in the language known as “Reformed Egyptian”.

I came to Catholic Answers first and this is what I found out, about this “someone” from the thirteenth century:

The first recorded use of this form [Jehovah] dates from the 13th century C.E. [after Christ]. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican order, used it in his book Pugeo Fidei of the year 1270. Hebrew scholars generally favor ‘Yahweh’ as the most likely pronunciation" (pp. 884-885).

New Testament Greek always uses the word “Lord,” and never “Jehovah,” even in quotes from the Old Testament (OT). Encyclopedia Judaica, Webster’s Encyclopedia, Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia and countless others agree that the title “Jehovah” is erroneous, grammatically impossible, and was never used by the Jews

.

catholic.com/library/Stumpers_for_Jehovah_Witnesse.asp

Then I went to the LDS website, just to double-check, even though I already knew the name Jehovah was included the BOM, D&C etc.

scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=jehovah&do=Search

I am just wondering. Has anyone else here ever thought about how problematic this is for LDS claims about the origins of the BOM? I’m sure this is pretty common knowledge, since I cant even find the name Jehovah in any of my online Bible references, except LDS and of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses. Is there any way around this for LDS?

 

[Allweather]

I am just wondering. Has anyone else here ever thought about how problematic this is for LDS claims about the origins of the BOM? I’m sure this is pretty common knowledge, since I cant even find the name Jehovah in any of my online Bible references, except LDS and of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses. Is there any way around this for LDS?

I’m pretty sure the name Jehovah is found in orthodox matter, even in Bibles. It isn’t just the Mormons and the JWs that use it. However, the fact that the word was coined in the 13th century, if true, and I’m sure it is, then that is just another nick in the Mormon arugment that the BoM is an ancient writing. I understand there are many others.

For me, though, I don’t need a lot of those kinds of arguments. Those only confirm what I “feel” when I read out of the BoM… that it is as phony as a $3 bill.

It seems to me that Mormons have attached themselves to the notion that Joseph Smith was a shy little hayseed. No education, no ambition. The truth of Joseph Smith, as related by modern studies, is far different. He was smart, clever, ambitious, attractive, commanding, an impressive individual. He undoubtedly was also a gifted and imaginative writer. Unfortunately, though, he wasn’t able to foresee all the technological developments that would, in later decades, show his life’s work to be a fabrication.