Posted By joe_2007 on 11/28/2007 6:06 PM




We certainly teach and use the eighth Article of Faith (it’s in our Standard Works, or canonized scripture, after all). If translation issues weren’t also of concern for non-Mormon Christianity, why are there so many different translations (which are constantly being revamped and reworked)? Are you claiming that we should expect no more translations beyond the KJV, NIV, NASB, etc. in future years? I realize that different translations may consider themselves more concerned with making the Bible accessible to more people, and are perhaps not “re-translations” per se, but it’s obvious that new translations are constantly coming forth that avail themselves of insights (good, questionable, and poor) from biblical scholarship and discoveries. In fact, I think it's clear that scholarly contributions drive the publication of new editions of the Bible.

I can tell you from the Mormon side of things that much, much less is made of the problems of mistranslation in the Bible than is made of the intentional removal of “plain and precious things” from it:

“Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God [the Bible]. And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble . . .” (1 Nephi 13:28-29).

As for Elder Pratt’s hyperbolic statement, he does go too far (in my view) in exaggerating the extent of translation problems in the Bible. Is this a shocking admission? Only if one views prophets and apostles as marionettes or will-less, mind-less zombies, human fax machines without the same capacity for views, opinions, prejudices, etc. that the rest of fallen and mortal man has. Or is your expectation of a prophet or apostle 100% perfection, with no ill-advised or intemperate statements, ever? To claim that God would never allow His apostles to ever go too far and get carried away in the heat of the moment and over-exaggerate anything is silly, isn’t it?

While I of course don't buy their conclusions as to meaning or significance, variant readings and changes on the order of 200,000 to 400,000 are conceded by top Bible scholars, such as Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger ("A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,"[United Bible Societies] 2nd Revised edition, 2005). Ehrman started off as a Bible inerrantist (at the Moody Bible Institute) but, unfortunately, threw out the baby with the bath water and lost his testimony of the Bible in his studies. He writes in his recent book "Misquoting Jesus" that "There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament" (Bart D. Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why," [Harper Collins: SanFrancisco,2005], 90).

He illustrates the dilemma that inerrantists place themselves in: for an inerrantist, an inability to have confidence in every single word in the Bible ultimately led to him not being able to have confidence in any of it. There is a large body of scholarship on this over the last century, with scholars varying from 150,000 to 250,000 changes.

In any case, Mormons don’t hold themselves to be bound by Elder Pratt’s overdone views here. But, whether things were mistranslated, purposely removed or left out, or whatever, Mormons see the role of latter-day scripture as sustaining and clarifying the Bible; not discrediting, attacking, or disproving it. By analogy, a small board nailed to the wall with one nail can be turned to an infinite number of positions in a 360° circle, and a numerous host of Christian churches derive completely different doctrines and practices from the same Bible. But when two (or more) nails are added to the first nail, the true position of the board is fixed and unmistakable, and this is the role of latter-day scripture (“in the mouths of two or three witness shall every word be established”).

Posted By DaybyDay on 11/28/2007 8:22 PM
Here is a major difference. Christians do believe the Bible to be infallible and inerrant. Without a doubt, we believe the Bible to be the only Word of God. This, as well as some other key doctrinal issues, cannot be changed. However, when I speak to Mormons they believe they are Christians, or at least, they will tell you they are Christians...however, when you get into it with them...believes such as the one quoted from a person on this forum, come out. I do not know how you can say that you are Christians or that you believe in God (of the Bible) and then make statements like this.

Posted By EEE on 11/28/2007 9:36 PM
Changing a word in the introduction to the Book of Mormon may not seem like a huge thing to most folks, but it is the word that is changed that says a lot.

Joseph Smith believed the Book of Mormon story took place all across the United States, including upstate New York. That is, the battles and armies described in the book were not tiny affairs hidden away in some yet-to-be-discovered valley in the jungle of Meso-America. The fact that Smith identified some bones found during one of his journeys as a "Lamanite" proves this.

Posted By EEE on 11/28/2007 9:49 PM




Ummm, could you please cite chapter and verse where Jesus approved teaching Gentiles “if they encountered them on the way?” I provided the exact wording of the New Testament, and not only does it not say this, Jesus’ command is explicit that the gospel was not to be preached to them. As a matter of fact, didn’t Jesus encounter the Greek woman “on the way?” Then why his reluctance, hesitation, initial refusal, etc. before healing the woman’s daughter because of her exceeding faith? As I’ve said, I have no problem with any of this, but I’ve wondered if this might not provide critics of Mormonism with a little cognitive dissonance? C’mon, you’d be all over this as a huge “flip-flop” if it were found in scriptures of the Restoration.

EEE wrote: "That is a very ridiculous claim to compare the Mormons outcasting of Blacks to Christ telling the Apostles to goto the Jews first.

“Outcasting?” What a loaded word! Did Ezra “outcast” those who were not allowed to serve as priests because they did not have a specific lineage?

“These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim” (Ezra 2:62-63)

Did Jehovah “outcast” the other tribes of Israel by only allowing the Priesthood to be given to the tribe of Levi? Although restricted as to the priesthood until 1978, blacks have always been welcome in the Church, as members and co-worshippers, from the earliest days. One of the key reasons formally given by the mob in Missouri (a slave state) that drove out the Mormons in the 1830s was that they were too welcoming to blacks:

“In a late number of the ‘Star,’ published in Independence by the leaders of the sect, there is an article inviting free negroes and mulattoes from other states to become ‘Mormons,’ and remove and settle among us. This exhibits them in still more odious colors. It manifests a desire on the part of their society, to inflict on our society an injury that they know would be to us entirely insupportable, and one of the surest means of driving us from the country; for it would require none of the supernatural gifts that they pretend to, to see that the introduction of such a caste amongst us would corrupt our blacks, and instigate them to bloodshed”(DHC 1:374).

Have any of you critics applied your same standard with respect to race to the histories of your denominations (or ancestor denominations for the non-denominational)? I can supply you with quotes on race from non-Mormon clergy contemporary with the founding and growth of the LDS Church, expressing abhorrence to whites and blacks worshipping side-by-side, etc. Anyone want them? Yet, Mormons from the first were open and welcoming to blacks sharing fellowship with them.

Posted By EEE on 11/28/2007 9:57 PM
I find it interesting how the Mormons today can't agree on what their doctrine teaches.

For Example:

Do Mormons believe in the virgin birth of Christ?

OR

Do Mormons believe Jesus is the physical offspring of Elohim, the Father, who likewise has a physical body. That is, that Jesus was physically begotten in a sexual union between the Father and Mary?

If was taking a tally, I would say it's 50/50 of the answers I have received from Mormons on this topic?

Posted By justincredible02 on 11/29/2007 6:24 AM
Good points EEE. Why do LDS members think Sunday is a day when you're only allowed to go to church. Well if that's the case why was Steve Young descent of Brigham Young allowed to "work" on Sundays? It could be that he's kicking back 10% back to the church.

Mormons think they are "holier than thou"