Who wrote the Book of Mormon and where did it come from?

[ParkerD]

Do you? Then you would make a good Protestant, and a terrible Mormon. Your church clearly does not believe those were “exactly right” revisions.

This I can say conclusively, with reference to the points in question that you have brought up. Tyndale’s deliberate corruptions of “ecclesia” were used to attack the idea of an organized Church, and that of “presbuter” was used to attack the idea of an authoritative priesthood. Then the corruption of “metanoeite” was used to emphasize the concept of faith alone divorced from works, something the Smithian religions consistently attack the Protestants for, agreeing with the Catholic Church. The LDS church clearly and strongly disagrees with Tyndale on these counts and believes instead that these would be exactly wrong revisions, agreeing with the Catholic Church.

So are you a Mormon, or a Tyndale-ite?

(I note, too, that the sources repeatedly referenced appear to be notably slanted in Protestant favor. The text of the article also contains many misrepresentations and errors concerning actual Catholic beliefs.)

What’s worse, a printer error or a transcription/translation error or deliberate corruption? Again, what if the Constitution were deliberately meddled with and passed off as authentic in meaning? What if your LDS sacred texts were? Surely you don’t believe that just any old re-writing and deliberate revision of your sacred texts is a good thing, spreading only good freedom and study and discussion?

Remember, many of these particular changes Tyndale made were movements away from beliefs that your church holds to be true. You think that’s a good thing?

Aradur,
I disagree with all of your points here. “Ecclesia” translated to mean the body of believers (congregation) rather than the “Church” as an organizational structure, is absolutely correct.

By “authoritative priesthood” if you mean a select group of priests and bishops appointed by the Catholic church, then you would need to come to understand that in that article it talked about seniors or elders being chosen from among the members within a local community, and that is exactly correct. You will recall that the LDS church encourages every young man to prepare themselves to receive the Melchizedek priesthood and to bless the lives of their own families through the authorized use of that priesthood in their own homes.

The other term, “metanoeite” changed from “do penance” to “repent” is exactly the correct word change. You must not know very much at all about the LDS church and its doctrines to believe that “do penance” would be considered a correct translation. There are plenty of scriptures that talk about doing good, serving others, and so forth without making repentance an act of “doing penance” under the auspices of what Christ really taught, which is to have a change of heart, repent, be baptized and enter into a covenant, then receive the gift of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit to guide one’s life toward becoming a better person and becoming sanctified.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

With all due respect, this is a specious argument. How many times do I have to state this. The Secular government of England apprehended, tried, and executed Tyndale, not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church opposed Tyndale, as they should.

Luther was put to death by Catholics, not by the British. He was not under British jurisdiction when he was killed:

Tyndale was imprisoned in the castle of Vilvorde near Brussels. Here he lived for one year and 135 days without heat or light from candles or lamps, without sufficient clothing to keep him warm or food to sustain his weak frame, without friends and books. His only visitors were tormenters who bombarded him incessantly with demands that he recant. While Poyntz and friends in England did everything in their power to secure his release, the Romish authorities, thirsty for his blood, were not about to let their quarry go now that they had him in their grasp.

He was tried, defrocked and sentenced to death. In the early dawn death was administered. He was bound to a stake, an iron chain was fastened around his neck, a hemp noose was placed at his throat and brush was heaped about him. The executioner, with all his might, snapped down on the noose and within seconds Tyndale was strangled. His limp body was then burned as the pile of brush was lit. His last words were: “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.” With that he fell asleep. Source

See also here.

Zerinus, I will continue to pray for you and all of the LDS.

Methinks you are wasting your time.

Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off. (Psalms 138:6.)

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:5.)

 

[Arandur]

Aradur,
I disagree with all of your points here. “Ecclesia” translated to mean the body of believers (congregation) rather than the “Church” as an organizational structure, is absolutely correct.

Wrong. It means both. “Body of believers” is included in the organizational structure, and the Church clearly established a structure, beginning with the Apostles, then through their appointed successors, then the priests and deacons appointed by those. Smith specifically refuted the lack of structure by instituting one supposedly by divine guidance.

By “authoritative priesthood” if you mean a select group of priests and bishops appointed by the Catholic church, then you would need to come to understand that in that article it talked about seniors or elders being chosen from among the members within a local community, and that is exactly correct. You will recall that the LDS church encourages every young man to prepare themselves to receive the Melchizedek priesthood and to bless the lives of their own families through the authorized use of that priesthood in their own homes.

You think this is much different from the Catholic Church? You’re going to quibble on the point of which priesthood is authoritative, when the question Tyndale and the Protestants brought up with the change was first whether there was one at all? Smith specifically refuted that by speaking of the need for an authoritative priesthood and attempting to reinstitute one.

The other term, “metanoeite” changed from “do penance” to “repent” is exactly the correct word change. You must not know very much at all about the LDS church and its doctrines to believe that “do penance” would be considered a correct translation. There are plenty of scriptures that talk about doing good, serving others, and so forth without making repentance an act of “doing penance” under the auspices of what Christ really taught, which is to have a change of heart, repent, be baptized and enter into a covenant, then receive the gift of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit to guide one’s life toward becoming a better person and becoming sanctified.

Tyndale and the Protestants spoke of this in terms of faith and works. You’re dodging the issue. And besides, “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23-24) Penance is Biblical and a natural fruit of Love.

Did you completely miss how those changes were used in the Protestant sense? Did you completely miss what Tyndale meant when he changed them, what they lead to?

They promoted a belief that no real organized church was necessary. Strike one–LDS believe the opposite.

They promoted a belief that no authoritative priesthood was necessary. Strike two–LDS believe the opposite.

They promoted the believe that faith alone, with no good works, was necessary. Strike three–LDS believe the opposite.

You’re out.

 

[ParkerD]

1–Wrong. It means both. “Body of believers” is included in the organizational structure, and the Church clearly established a structure, beginning with the Apostles, then through their appointed successors, then the priests and deacons appointed by those. Smith specifically refuted the lack of structure by instituting one supposedly by divine guidance.

2–You think this is much different from the Catholic Church? You’re going to quibble on the point of which priesthood is authoritative, when the question Tyndale and the Protestants brought up with the change was first whether there was one at all? Smith specifically refuted that by speaking of the need for an authoritative priesthood and attempting to reinstitute one.

3–Tyndale and the Protestants spoke of this in terms of faith and works. You’re dodging the issue. And besides, “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23-24) Penance is Biblical and a natural fruit of Love.

4–Did you completely miss how those changes were used in the Protestant sense? Did you completely miss what Tyndale meant when he changed them, what they lead to?

They promoted a belief that no real organized church was necessary. Strike one–LDS believe the opposite.

They promoted a belief that no authoritative priesthood was necessary. Strike two–LDS believe the opposite.

They promoted the believe that faith alone, with no good works, was necessary. Strike three–LDS believe the opposite.

You’re out.

I haven’t been swinging at your pitches at all–in fact, we’re not in the same ball park.

1–The problem is that the original Apostles did not have “appointed successors” other than new apostles. Joseph Smith did indeed re-establish a church organizational structure, but with lay priesthood as the backbone and Apostles as the restored quorum to truly take the gospel into all the world and to keep the doctrinal purity in place once the pure doctrines were restored.

But the body of believers were to be involved in putting the gospel into practice in their everyday lives, without priests looking over their shoulders to see that they did it. And “the body hath need of every member” was a true teaching that had direct application to all members.

2–Here is another paragraph from the Tyndale Bible article in Wikipedia:

“Tyndale’s translation of the Greek word “presbuter” to mean elder instead of priest also challenged the doctrines of the Catholic Church.[21] In particular, it asked what the role of the clergy should be and whether or not they were to be separated from the common believers as they were in the current Catholic system. The role of the priest in the Catholic Church had been to lead religious sermons and ceremonies like mass, to read the scripture to the people, and to administer the sacraments. They were considered separate from the common believers.[22] In many reform movements a group of elders would lead the church and take the place of the Catholic priests. These elders were not a separate class from the common believers; in fact, they were usually selected from amongst them.[23] Many reformers believed in the idea of the “priesthood of all believers,” which meant that every Christian was in fact a priest and had the right to read and interpret scripture.[24] Tyndale’s translation stripped away the scriptural basis of Catholic clerical power. Priests no longer administered the church: it was the job of the elders, which implied that the power rested in the hands of the people.”

I think Tyndale was trying to give the common people a sense that they could read the Bible and not feel condemned for doing so and for thinking on their own. The LDS church, as I noted earlier, really does want every adult male to hold the Melchizedek priesthood and to be functioning in a calling within that priesthood as well as be functioning in their own home with the use of that priesthood authority. This is far different than Catholicism, and closer to what Tyndale showed as the translation and connotation of the word “prebuter”.

3–If you think I have to swallow all of Protestant thought about “faith” versus “works” because I agree with the word “repent” rather than the words “do penance”, then we are not communicating in the same language let alone my being pitched to by you. The issue was with the particular word “repent”-- a very singular and important word at the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think the Reformation encompassed many necessary and vital steps toward breaking away from the tradition-bound thinking that sincere religious minded people were subjected to, and Tyndale provided an important contribution to that breaking away process. Allowing the common people to read and study the Bible would certainly change the course of history–thankfully so.

 

[Arandur]

I haven’t been swinging at your pitches at all–in fact, we’re not in the same ball park.

Yeah, you’re not paying attention. Tyndale was no Mormon. He advocated with those changes things that run contrary to Mormon beliefs.

1–The problem is that the original Apostles did not have “appointed successors” other than new apostles.

So they didn’t have appointed successors but they did (the new apostles). Real coherent there, Parker.

Joseph Smith did indeed re-establish a church organizational structure, but with lay priesthood as the backbone and Apostles as the restored quorum to truly take the gospel into all the world and to keep the doctrinal purity in place once the pure doctrines were restored.

You have ordained priesthoods. You may also have lay priesthoods, but you do claim ordained priesthoods. So this also sounds incoherent to me.

But the body of believers were to be involved in putting the gospel into practice in their everyday lives, without priests looking over their shoulders to see that they did it. And “the body hath need of every member” was a true teaching that had direct application to all members.

How is this different from the Catholic Church? You do realize, I hope, that ALL Catholics are baptized Priests (Priest, Prophet, and King). You may understand those roles differently, but we do have a “lay” priesthood, and responsibility for each member.

So are you trying to say that Joseph Smith did something that the Apostles didn’t do? That the original Apostles didn’t bother establishing a Church, so “ecclesia” was a phantom until Smith did it? How would that make even Tyndale’s interpretation anything but incoherent?

I just don’t see what point you’re trying to make.

2–Here is another paragraph from the Tyndale Bible article in Wikipedia:

I think Tyndale was trying to give the common people a sense that they could read the Bible and not feel condemned for doing so and for thinking on their own. The LDS church, as I noted earlier, really does want every adult male to hold the Melchizedek priesthood and to be functioning in a calling within that priesthood as well as be functioning in their own home with the use of that priesthood authority. This is far different than Catholicism, and closer to what Tyndale showed as the translation and connotation of the word “prebuter”.

Both the writers of that article and you have major misunderstandings of Catholic beliefs and the role of priests. We DO have a “priesthood of all believers,” as I mentioned earlier. Throughout the Church’s history its leaders have encouraged Scripture study among all, as can be seen from numerous writings. There are many lay Saints and even lay Doctors of the Church (influential theologians). Even the ordained come out of the community, too, so I don’t see what the gripe is there. They do not come out of a caste like in India or heriditarily from a tribe like the Levites.

Tyndale and his ilk believed there was NO authoritative priesthood, whether Melchizedek or otherwise. They promoted a system with no ordination, no real offices. This is quite different from the LDS belief, as I have understood it.

3–If you think I have to swallow all of Protestant thought about “faith” versus “works” because I agree with the word “repent” rather than the words “do penance”, then we are not communicating in the same language let alone my being pitched to by you. The issue was with the particular word “repent”-- a very singular and important word at the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The article you quote makes a direct connection between the change in the words and the faith vs. works controversy. Moreover, it is clear what Tyndale intended, because faith alone was what he (and other schismatics) used the change to promote. If you don’t want to discuss the change in context of what Tyndale actually meant, then leave Tyndale the heck out of it, because you and your church don’t agree with what he meant.

Words mean things, Parker. I know that’s a pretty foreign concept to a Mormon because of Joseph Smith’s invented words and redefinitions of words, but it makes it really hard to discuss things with you guys (because you keep jumping around among different definitions of things and won’t discuss the relevant sense). You brought up Tyndale. I pointed out what Tyndale meant, which is clear from your OWN reference. It is clear that he meant something further from what the LDS believe than the original Catholics beliefs. Therefore your assertion that Tyndale’s changes were somehow good makes no sense (unless you think evil is good, which again defies the meaning of words).

I think the Reformation encompassed many necessary and vital steps toward breaking away from the tradition-bound thinking that sincere religious minded people were subjected to, and Tyndale provided an important contribution to that breaking away process. Allowing the common people to read and study the Bible would certainly change the course of history–thankfully so.

Tyndale was not primarily responsible for “allowing the common people to read and study the Bible.” That’s the common faulty logic of Mormons, assuming a conclusion while failing to consider alternatives. The printing press and increasing wealth and literacy were. Tyndale’s false writings only caused division, contention, and warfare among the faithful and were thus mostly evil, whereas had false teachings of such false prophets not been spread, true teachings would have spread by the same mechanism with less confusion passing itself off as truth.

Unless you think maybe that division, contention, and war were “necessary and vital steps” towards your “restoration?” Evil was necessary and vital in order to bring about good? I know I’ve heard that before from Mormons, but that just does not fit with an omnibenevolent God. No, evil is a consequence which God can overcome with His Goodness. It is not “necessary” in order for God to be Good.

 

[zerinus]

Luther was put to death by Catholics, . . .

Sorry for the typo; meant to say Tyndale!

 

[zaffiroborant]

3–If you think I have to swallow all of Protestant thought about “faith” versus “works” because I agree with the word “repent” rather than the words “do penance”, then we are not communicating in the same language let alone my being pitched to by you. The issue was with the particular word “repent”-- a very singular and important word at the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Nothing to do with Tyndale but I find the agreement with the word repent rather that “do penance” quite odd in light of the definition of repent I’ve see from LDS here, like the following.

"where repentance means understanding the sin, regretting it, making restitution, asking forgiveness(of the one wronged), and then not doing it again"

I see the first two as integral to repenting and the last two as doing penance for sins committed.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

**(yawn). **

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

Nothing to do with Tyndale but I find the agreement with the word repent rather that “do penance” quite odd in light of the definition of repent I’ve see from LDS here, like the following.

"where repentance means understanding the sin, regretting it, making restitution, asking forgiveness(of the one wronged), and then not doing it again"

I see the first two as integral to repenting and the last two as doing penance for sins committed.

I’ve noticed that people that decry doing penance or the related concept of temporal punishment don’t realize that they believe in them as well, without using those terms.

 

[Holly3278]

Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and it came from Joseph Smith’s own mind. Joseph Smith was a fraud.

 

[ParkerD]

Nothing to do with Tyndale but I find the agreement with the word repent rather that “do penance” quite odd in light of the definition of repent I’ve see from LDS here, like the following.

"where repentance means understanding the sin, regretting it, making restitution, asking forgiveness(of the one wronged), and then not doing it again"

I see the first two as integral to repenting and the last two as doing penance for sins committed.

Zaffiroborant,
Are you saying that whenever a Catholic feels the need to repent (do penance), they seek to right the wrong by asking forgiveness from the person they offended (leaving the priest out of it altogether), making restitution if that is possible such as if dishonesty was involved, and not doing that wrong action again in their life because their heart has been changed and they no longer desire to do that thing any more at all–and they never have to talk to their priest about any of this: it is between them and God and the Lord, Jesus Christ as to their being completely forgiven? No “absolution” is ever required by a priest, and no “sacrament of penance” is required or encouraged?

I think “repent” is a stronger word, and is the right word in English, and represents an act of the heart that is between the person and God directly.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and it came from Joseph Smith’s own mind. Joseph Smith was a fraud.

The incessant desire for ill-gotten cash will lead some people to do some bizarre things.
I’m just glad Joe put an “i” on the end of that fake angel “moroni” that he dreamt-up, but it sure would’ve been funnier if he had left it off. ROFL!
**Meanwhile: **

Other Book of Mormon Problems
All quoted below from this great website HERE

• The 1830 edition calls Joseph Smith the “author and proprietor.” Wasn’t Moroni the author? Wasn’t Joseph Smith the translator?
• The theory that the American Indians are descendants of the Hebrews is genetically incorrect. No one questions this anymore due to the DNA testing available today which wasn’t available in the 1800’s.
• There never was a reformed Egyptian language. And Hebrews didn’t write in Egyptian.
• Egyptians were pagans during the Old Testament era, so why would the Book of Mormon be based on pagan Egyptian writings?
• There were no eye (as in physical eye, not spiritual eye) witnesses to the gold plates, based on later admissions by the witnesses.
• The Book of Mormon places Jesus’ birth in Jerusalem, not in Bethlehem as in the Bible.
• There was no religious revival in 1820. The revival occurred from 1824 to 1825. Thus there was no basis in 1820 for Joseph Smith to be confused about religious revivals which would not occur until several years later.
• There have been 3,913 changes made to the Book of Mormon since the original 1830 edition.
• Not one piece of independent, non-Mormon archeological evidence supports the Book of Mormon.
• There are 9 versions of the First Vision. They significantly contradict each other on major issues. The last official version was published in Times and Seasons 20 years after the First Vision and contains information which was not in any contemporaneous diaries. This information should have been in numerous contemporaneous diaries due to its significance.
• Old and new archeological discoveries support the Bible. There is zero independent archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.
• The Smithsonian Institution does not use the Book of Mormon for reference. Their statement on this matter is available for the asking.
• Strong historical evidence points to the historical story line of the Book of Mormon being taken from a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding called Manuscript Found, which was missing from the printer in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Sidney Rigdon lived near Pittsburgh and knew the printer, J. Lambdin.
• The Book of Mormon contains some 27,000 words from the King James Bible, approximately 25,000 from the Old Testament and approximately 2,000 from the New Testament. If the King James Bible was published 1,190 years after Moroni allegedly buried the gold plates in 421 A.D., how did Moroni incorporate the 1611 A.D. King James Bible (including two Hebrew to English translation errors) into his gold plates? It’s impossible. Thus based upon this alone, the Book of Mormon cannot be the translation of an ancient document.
• Joseph Smith conveniently predicted himself by adding to the King James Translation of the Bible at the end of Genesis (Genesis 50:26) and extending Genesis out to verse 33 in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

The “Three Witnesses” of the "Gold Plates"

• 1.Martin Harris claimed he visited the moon (The Story of the Mormons, New York, 1902, p. 35), and was called “wicked” (Doctrine & Covenants 3:12,13 and 10:6,7).
• 2.Oliver Cowdery was a thief (Letter quoted in Senate Document 189, Feb. 15, 1841, pp. 6-9), and an attempted counterfeiter (A History of the Latter-day Saints in Northern Missouri From 1836 to 1839, p. 146).
• 3.David Whitmer said in the Spring of 1838 the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness (An Address to all Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, pp. 27,28), and was likened unto a “dumb ***” by Joseph Smith (History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 228).
• All three apostatized (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, pp. 114,115). Apostatize is Mormon-speak for “quit the Mormon church”.

LOL…OH…AND SO MUCH MORE QUOTED FROM HERE.
A GREAT READ!

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
Are you saying that whenever a Catholic feels the need to repent (do penance), they seek to right the wrong by asking forgiveness from the person they offended (leaving the priest out of it altogether), making restitution if that is possible such as if dishonesty was involved, and not doing that wrong action again in their life because their heart has been changed and they no longer desire to do that thing any more at all–and they never have to talk to their priest about any of this: it is between them and God and the Lord, Jesus Christ as to their being completely forgiven? No “absolution” is ever required by a priest, and no “sacrament of penance” is required or encouraged?

I think “repent” is a stronger word, and is the right word in English, and represents an act of the heart that is between the person and God directly.

No I’m simply saying that repent does not equal “doing penance”, they are two different things.
And there is no “sacrament of penance”.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

[

All Mormons agree that the Book of Mormon is the foundation of their religion and that if the Book of Mormon weren’t true, there could be no Mormon religion. That’s obvious and logical. There’s no arguments with that statement.

So let’s take a look at the archeological and historical evidence and facts underlying the Book of Mormon"…Let’s dig into the subject…](http://www.whatismormonism.com/)

[Do any mormons actually read Joe’s Stuff?
I mean really read it?

I have to say that most do not.

Read here for the Truth. ](http://www.whatismormonism.com/)

 

[why_me]

Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and it came from Joseph Smith’s own mind. Joseph Smith was a fraud.

When did he start putting his ideas on paper? And why didn’t anyone see him writing the book? Where did he write the book? And from where did he buy the paper, ink, and feathered pens that where needed from such a book project?

 

[PaulDupre]

• The 1830 edition calls Joseph Smith the “author and proprietor.” Wasn’t Moroni the author? Wasn’t Joseph Smith the translator?

Calling Joseph Smith “author and proprietor” was a legal necessity for publication at that time. You had two choices under the law:

1. List a living person as “author and proprietor”

or

1. Let the work pass into the public domain.

Sidney, Joseph, Oliver et al did not want the BoM to pass into the public domain, where they could not control who printed or sold the BoM, so they had to list someone as “a and p”. They chose Joseph.

That’s really not a valid objection to the BoM.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

Calling Joseph Smith “author and proprietor” was a legal necessity for publication at that time. You had two choices under the law:

1. List a living person as “author and proprietor”

or

1. Let the work pass into the public domain.

Sidney, Joseph, Oliver et al did not want the BoM to pass into the public domain, where they could not control who printed or sold the BoM, so they had to list someone as “a and p”. They chose Joseph.

That’s really not a valid objection to the BoM.

K. No biggie. There’s a tidal wave of other specific truths why the b.o.m. is a flagrant fallacy. Basically, anything Joe wrote or got his hands on in that so-called “book” is a flagrant fallacy of bizarre dreams. Just to make $$$$.

 

[ParkerD]

No I’m simply saying that repent does not equal “doing penance”, they are two different things.
And there is no “sacrament of penance”.

Like I had stated several times, “repent” is the right word. “Do penance” is a Catholic derivation and I think Tyndale was correct to challenge the prevailing assumption.

Someone ought to tell the people at Merriam Webster about there being no “sacrament of penance.” Under the word “absolution” appears this definition:

“A remission of sins imparted or pronounced by a priest, esp. in the sacrament of penance.” I’m glad to hear Catholics don’t have that as a practice or belief.

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

Like I had stated several times, “repent” is the right word. “Do penance” is a Catholic derivation and I think Tyndale was correct to challenge the prevailing assumption.

Someone ought to tell the people at Merriam Webster about there being no “sacrament of penance.” Under the word “absolution” appears this definition:

“A remission of sins imparted or pronounced by a priest, esp. in the sacrament of penance.” I’m glad to hear Catholics don’t have that as a practice or belief.

Yes, that was an odd statement by zaff…Even the Catholic Encyclopedia calls it the “sacrament of penance”, as does “Fish Eaters” which is a traditional Catholic website. My brother actually got a letter from church a few days ago about sunday school and the upcoming “first sacrament of penance” and first communion. Catholics use many terms to refer to the same thing, so you’ll hear it called the Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation/Confession/Repentance. In this, we can see that “do penance” can have more than one connotation, such as the acts of making restitution for your sins, or it can also include the entire penitential process, thus including repentance for sins.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Yes, that was an odd statement by zaff…Even the Catholic Encyclopedia calls it the “sacrament of penance”, as does “Fish Eaters” which is a traditional Catholic website. My brother actually got a letter from church a few days ago about sunday school and the upcoming “first sacrament of penance” and first communion. Catholics use many terms to refer to the same thing, so you’ll hear it called the Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation/Confession/Repentance. In this, we can see that “do penance” can have more than one connotation, such as the acts of making restitution for your sins, or it can also include the entire penitential process, thus including repentance for sins.

Like I had stated several times, “repent” is the right word. “Do penance” is a Catholic derivation and I think Tyndale was correct to challenge the prevailing assumption.

Someone ought to tell the people at Merriam Webster about there being no “sacrament of penance.” Under the word “absolution” appears this definition:

**“A remission of sins imparted or pronounced by a priest, esp. in the sacrament of penance.” I’m glad to hear Catholics don’t have that as a practice or belief.:**thumbsup:

Okay okay you’re right. But in my life, being catechized, working with the catechists for my kids and volunteering in 2nd grade RE it has always been referred to as the Sacrament of Reconciliation. And while my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles all call it confession no one I have talked with has called it the Sacrament of Penance.

Again my point is ParkerD says repent is the correct translation instead of “do penance” this is for metanoeite right? Well it doesn’t make a bit of difference whether you use repent or “do penance” if your definition of repent is this "where repentance means understanding the sin, regretting it, making restitution, asking forgiveness(of the one wronged), and then not doing it again". If all that is included in your definition of repent then you have simply redefined repent to include penance.

An LDS here said murder is the only sin you can’t repent of because you can’t ask for forgiveness. Where is asking for forgiveness listed as a definition of repent? I’ve also heard LDS describe repentance as a “process” I can’t find that in a dictionary either. From all appearances the “process of repentance” is the same as “doing penance”.