• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The label “Mormon” Is Out

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Their understanding of "saints" is in error and contrary to the scriptures.

Anyone who sincerely reads the Book of Mormon will come to know that it is true and that Joseph Smith was a true prophets of the Lord.

Joseph Smith appears to be just another con artist. How does one "sincerely read" the book of Mormon? Does that mean that one has to ignore the rather blatant factual errors? That one has to ignore the artificial aping of the King James translation? Most Christians do not think of your founder as a saint at all of any form. That is one of the reasons that they will very likely resist calling your group "Latter day saints".
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
So at least here you corrected one mistake you made by saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are an adulterated religion based upon a specious prophet.
At least I hope you you are admitting that you realize that's not true.
So right, they do not have, and never had a prophet.
However, you are making another mistake. There is no group of Elders specially anointed by God to lead.
No. You are very far... I mean like, way out there, like night and day, black and white.
For one thing, there are appointed Elders in each of the nearly 120,000 Congregations throughout the world. The vast majority of these elders do not consider themselves to be of the 144,000, and none of them consider themselves special. They consider themselves brothers, and fellow workers with the worldwide brotherhood. What made you think they are special?
Secondly, the 144,000 are not just men, so it is not possible for all of them to be elders.

Persons who set about translating the Bible from Latin to English even under threat of death, are to be commended for their efforts.
However, many continue to work diligently to produce Bibles in various languages, including Braille. The NWT has been translated into more than 130 different languages.
Given the quality of the NWT, this is a very good work, that goes hand in hand with the Bible education work being carried out by Jehovah's Witnesses, in every part of the world.
302016040_univ_lsr_xl.jpg
Yes, I understand that women as well men are members are memberś of the 144,000 in your faith system.

You have the the Watchtower society, from which doctrinal changes are initiated. These are communicated through the Watchtower publication.

I have seen them going back decades, and obviously ideas were abandoned and new ones adopted.

My information, from three of your elders over a span of ten years, is that there is a small group of leaders, and I have been told are of ¨ the anointed¨, and all men, who meet and pray, and make doctrinal pronouncements believing they are inspired by God to do so.

I am very familiar with your faith, and have studied historically and doctrinally for a long time.

I have had many good friends from your denomination over the years.

There is much that I admire about your denomination, and I think you get a very bad rap from ignorant people.

Nevertheless, I believe that many of your doctrines are flawed, and that the mistranslating of the Bible is unconscionable.

I am, and will remain a Protestant, , who believes sola fide and sola scriptura are the only ways to salvation
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
You probably don't realize that answering you truthfully is going to get me in lots of trouble and yelled at. "Mormon" is a sort of slang term coming from their "Book of Mormon". Why the leadership insist on making this an issue, is I think it is a bit of distraction to get people's mind off other areas of conflict. Complete obedience to "The Prophet" in Salt Lake City, is something that is drummed into them from infanthood. Those who rebel are subjected to all sorts of pressure from the Church and their Families.

I still believe lots of their Doctrine, but the blunt truth is the leadership do not want me. They've practiced a lot of patting me on the back, and kicking me in the butt at the same time. It is a proven method of brainwashing that other belief systems practice also. They practice multi level membership, which the Bible is strictly against, they persecuted me over an incident that was involuntary and not my fault and they are so locked into their way of seeing things that it will never get better.

If I am not shot at dawn and bled out, we can talk more.
Sounds like you are projecting.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
The Book of Mormon is the whole reason their church exists.
No, the Lord Jesus Christ is the reason the Church exists.

This confusion is most likely the main reason why we insist to no longer be referred to as "Mormons".
Briefly, it is the history of a Jewish family that left "Israel" around 400 BC.
No.

The family of Lehi were not Jews (descendants of Judah). They descended from Manasseh, the son of Joseph.

They also left Jerusalem at approximately 600 B.C.E, not 400 B.C.E.

I'm not sure you should talk about things you don't know.
According to their beliefs, they formed the basis for those who inhabited the land there.
Not true.

We believe that they are "among" the ancestors of the Native Americans.

They have also been described as a "principle" ancestor, meaning one of most importance.

We do not teach or believe that the Nephites formed the "basis" of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.
As far as I am concerned, the BOM is as plausible as the rest of the Bible, but in my opinion, their leaders have done wrong things with the Doctrine, that hurt a lot of people.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
I am sure that some Mormons will disagree with my brief synopsis and they are welcome to correct me. No crybaby stuff, OK?
You think we are the one crying?

More projection.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
It makes sense. Those that understand the concept of "saints" are not apt to accept the phrase "Latter day saints". Again, by their standards you follow a false prophet. That is why they do not accept the Book of Mormon.
I don't think this is going well for you, Subduction Zone.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Re The "restored Gospel" I find off putting.

You don't need to restore the Gospel. Just live it as it is presented
in the bible. What some churches call "restored" is what they feel
is "restored" from other churches. What other churches do or don't
do is irrelevant to the Gospels.

"Restoring" the Gospel by creating a new one is offensive. Jesus
laid down the commandments and gave us His example through
the Gospels. The rest of the New Testament is the story of the
church which emerged from the Gospels.
That some sought to break away from this, ie Diotrephes (perhaps
first Catholic Bishop) or the "foolish Galatians" doesn't effect the
message of the Gospels.

There shouldn't be an argument about which church is right or not.
We read the Apostolic Church - it met in homes, had an itinerant
ministry, called itself by no name, had only two symbols (baptism
and Eucharist) didn't engage in politics, took no money, rejected
'temples made with hands', observed no holy days, wore no
special garments or funny hats, had no need of OT symbols,
had no 'worldly sanctuary', embraced the rejection and so on.
Look, I'm not going to go into all of the errors and faulty assumptions you've made in your last paragraph, and I'm sorry you believe it's "offensive" to believe the "original Gospel" has been restored, but unless you can tell me which denomination today teaches the "original Gospel," I'm afraid we've hit a brick wall.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Where did you hear that the NWT is a paraphrase?
What is a paraphrase, and can you give an example, where the New World Translation fits such a description?
How Can You Choose a Good Bible Translation?
From One Extreme to the Other
Bible translations cover a broad spectrum of styles, but they fall into three basic categories. Interlinear translations are at one end of the spectrum. These translations contain the original-language text along with a word-for-word rendering into the target language.
Paraphrase translations fall at the other end of the spectrum. Translators of these versions freely restate the message of the Bible as they understand it in a way that they feel will appeal to their audience.
A third category embraces
translations that endeavor to strike a balance between these two extremes. These versions of the Bible strive to convey the meaning and flavor of the original-language expressions while also making the text easy to read

What About Free Translations?
Translators who produce what are frequently referred to as paraphrase Bibles, or free translations, take liberties with the text as presented in the original languages. How so? They either insert their opinion of what the original text could mean or omit some of the information contained in the original text. Paraphrase translations may be appealing because they are easy to read. However, their very freeness at times obscures or changes the meaning of the original text.

*** nwt p. 1721 A1 Principles of Bible Translation ***
As stated in the foreword to the original English edition of the New World Translation: “We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.”

Not bragging, but stating fact. The NWT is one of the most accurate Bible translations there is.
I'm not sure what you think the original is, but the original does not exist. Sadly, some people mistakenly think that the original text exists today in translations. However, this is such a huge mistake to make, as a translation could never be original.

The inspired scrolls have long perished, and what we have been left with, are copies in the form of manuscripts - from which the NWT has been translated. The NWT is not copied from any translation.
Rather than following the pattern of many translations, including the Vulgate, KJV, etc., of removing and replacing the tetragrammaton (the name of God) with titles, such as Lord and God, the NWT has consistently kept the name in its rightful place.
This is just one advantage of the NWT.

Hebrew and Greek commentator Alexander Thomson said...
On the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures
“The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. The version aims to keep to one English meaning for each major Greek word, and to be as literal as possible. . . . The word usually rendered ‘justify’ is generally translated very correctly as ‘declare righteous.’ . . . The word for the Cross is rendered ‘torture stake’ which is another improvement. . . . Luke 23:43 is well rendered, ‘Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.’ This is a big improvement upon the reading of most versions.”
On the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures
“The New World Version is well worth acquiring. It is lively and lifelike, and makes the reader think and study. It is not the work of Higher Critics, but of scholars who honour God and His Word.”
- The Differentiator, April 1952, pages 52-7, and June 1954, page 136.
Source

Bible translator Edgar Goodspeed wrote to one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in regard to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures: “I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its worldwide scope, and am much pleased with the free and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify.”

Hebrew and Greek scholar A. Thompson of Britain, writing in The Differentiator, stated regarding a portion of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures: “I would recommend it as an honest and straightforward effort to render Holy Writ into modern English. No attempt appears to be made to press any special doctrines or theories.”

Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible lists the New World Translation among the 14 “main 20th-century English translations.”
Source

Regarding adulterating, it is not possible to adulterate something already adulterated.
What can be more adulterated that adopting pagan celebration, and teachings along with idolatrous practices? Have these not been a part of so-called Christianity, after the death of the apostles - late first century, with teachings such as the immortality of the soul, the Trinity, Easter, etc.?

Also, how can a translation that contain spurious texts be adulterated?
SPURIOUS TEXTS ...omitted in New World Translation
Mark 16:9-20: John 5:4: 7:53–8:11: 1 John 5:7:

*** nwt pp. 1729-1730 A3 How the Bible Came to Us ***
Based on those master texts, it is evident that some verses of the Christian Greek Scriptures found in older translations, such as the King James Version, were actually additions made by later copyists and were never part of the inspired Scriptures. However, because the verse division generally accepted in Bible translations was already established in the 16th century, the omission of these verses now creates gaps in the verse numbering in most Bibles. The verses are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. In this revised edition, those omitted verses are indicated by a footnote at the location of the omission.

Regarding the long conclusion for Mark 16 (verses 9-20), the short conclusion for Mark 16, and the wording found at John 7:53–8:11, it is evident that none of these verses were included in the original manuscripts. Therefore, those spurious texts have not been included in this revision.

*** nwtsty John Study Notes - Chapter 7 ***
The earliest authoritative manuscripts do not have the passage from Joh 7:53 to 8:11. These 12 verses were obviously added to the original text of John’s Gospel. (See App. A3.) They are not found in the two earliest available papyri containing the Gospel of John, Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P66) and Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15 (P75), both from the second century C.E., nor are they found in the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus, both from the fourth century C.E. They first appear in a Greek manuscript from the fifth century (Codex Bezae) but are not found in any other Greek manuscripts until the ninth century C.E. They are omitted by most of the early translations into other languages. One group of Greek manuscripts places the added words at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts them after Lu 21:38. That this portion appears at different places in different manuscripts supports the conclusion that it is a spurious text. Scholars overwhelmingly agree that these verses were not part of the original text of John

*** it-2 p. 94 John, Good News According to ***
The Spurious Passage at John 7:53–8:11. These 12 verses have obviously been added to the original text of John’s Gospel. They are not found in the Sinaitic Manuscript or the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, though they do appear in the fifth-century Codex Bezae and later Greek manuscripts. They are omitted, however, by most of the early versions. It is evident that they are not part of John’s Gospel. One group of Greek manuscripts places this passage at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts it after Luke 21:38, supporting the conclusion that it is a spurious and uninspired text.

*** it-2 p. 1019 Spirit ***
It may first be noted that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself.” A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.—RS, NE, NAB.
I never said your Bible was a paraphrase, I simply mentioned paraphrases as one type of Bible people use.

No, your Bible is not accurate, it has been adulterated.

There are extant many many ancient texts and scraps of texts written in the original Koine Greek.

These are the foundation documents of the New Testament.

In these texts, and in the oldest full translations, neither the tetragrammaton, or the word Jehovah used.

Nevertheless, those who devised your Bible replaced the original words for God, e.g. Lord, with Jehovah 237 times.

In addition, various words are added or manipulated so that the inference of the plurality of God doesn´t exist, e.g. John 1:1.

I can give you many more examples, OT and NT, but you know them as well as I.

Your translation committee, none of which was conversant with Koine Greek, with only one having a few classical Greek classes, took it upon themselves to change the original words of the Bible to fit their beliefs, and worse, proclaimed that the original translations and foundation documents were corrupted and in error.

To justify their molding the Bible to fit their needs, they declared the translations that Christendom uses all in error, and only theirs correct.

A grievous act in my mind.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I never said your Bible was a paraphrase, I simply mentioned paraphrases as one type of Bible people use.

No, your Bible is not accurate, it has been adulterated.

There are extant many many ancient texts and scraps of texts written in the original Koine Greek.

These are the foundation documents of the New Testament.

In these texts, and in the oldest full translations, neither the tetragrammaton, or the word Jehovah used.

Nevertheless, those who devised your Bible replaced the original words for God, e.g. Lord, with Jehovah 237 times.

In addition, various words are added or manipulated so that the inference of the plurality of God doesn´t exist, e.g. John 1:1.

I can give you many more examples, OT and NT, but you know them as well as I.

Your translation committee, none of which was conversant with Koine Greek, with only one having a few classical Greek classes, took it upon themselves to change the original words of the Bible to fit their beliefs, and worse, proclaimed that the original translations and foundation documents were corrupted and in error.

To justify their molding the Bible to fit their needs, they declared the translations that Christendom uses all in error, and only theirs correct.

A grievous act in my mind.
Do you have evidence that supports this claim? What translation do you prefer and why?
 

Jane.Doe

Active Member
Re The "restored Gospel" I find off putting.

You don't need to restore the Gospel. Just live it as it is presented
in the bible. What some churches call "restored" is what they feel
is "restored" from other churches. What other churches do or don't
do is irrelevant to the Gospels.

"Restoring" the Gospel by creating a new one is offensive. Jesus
laid down the commandments and gave us His example through
the Gospels. The rest of the New Testament is the story of the
church which emerged from the Gospels.
That some sought to break away from this, ie Diotrephes (perhaps
first Catholic Bishop) or the "foolish Galatians" doesn't effect the
message of the Gospels.

There shouldn't be an argument about which church is right or not.
We read the Apostolic Church - it met in homes, had an itinerant
ministry, called itself by no name, had only two symbols (baptism
and Eucharist) didn't engage in politics, took no money, rejected
'temples made with hands', observed no holy days, wore no
special garments or funny hats, had no need of OT symbols,
had no 'worldly sanctuary', embraced the rejection and so on.
And of the 30,000+ different Christian denominations with contradictory doctrines, which one do you think is truly living/understanding the way the Bible says so? And why?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
They had a whole “I am Mormon” campaign not that long ago and also used the domain Mormon.org. Seems like they’re trying to rebrand, perhaps to appear more mainstream.
A name change signifies a religion that can change. I have never heard of a major religion changing its name before.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The main intent seems to be facilitating the distinction between the mainstream LDS Church and the offshots that still favor polygamy.

Which is fair enough IMO, although I feel that, without a practical shortform offered, the results will probably not be very significant.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
A name change signifies a religion that can change. I have never heard of a major religion changing its name before.
But the point is, it didn't change its name. It has had the exact same name since 1838: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (A couple of minor things even Church members get wrong is that (1) the name of the Church actually includes the word "The" with an upper-case 'T'. "Latter-day" is hyphenated and the word "day" has a lower-case 'd', not an upper-case 'D'.)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
The main intent seems to be facilitating the distinction between the mainstream LDS Church and the offshots that still favor polygamy.

Which is fair enough IMO, although I feel that, without a practical shortform offered, the results will probably not be very significant.
I think you're right. The offshoots will undoubtedly continue to be known as "Mormons." If news articles and television reporters continue to lump all of the denominations within the Latter Day Saint Movement together, and call all of their members "Mormons," there can't help but be some confusion. None of the others call their members "Latter-day Saints."

So, the request has been made that the Church be referred to (at least the first time it's mentioned in an article) as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Additional references within the same article may be to "The Church of Jesus Christ" or merely "The Church." Obviously, if the article is only about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, people listening or reading will know which church the shortened versions refer to. The request has also been made that the members of the Church be referred to as "Latter-day Saints" as opposed to "Mormons." We appreciate those who will comply with these requests, but I, for one, am not going to lose any sleep over it, or constantly correct people.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
No, the Lord Jesus Christ is the reason the Church exists.

This confusion is most likely the main reason why we insist to no longer be referred to as "Mormons".

No.

The family of Lehi were not Jews (descendants of Judah). They descended from Manasseh, the son of Joseph.

They also left Jerusalem at approximately 600 B.C.E, not 400 B.C.E.

I'm not sure you should talk about things you don't know.

Not true.

We believe that they are "among" the ancestors of the Native Americans.

They have also been described as a "principle" ancestor, meaning one of most importance.

We do not teach or believe that the Nephites formed the "basis" of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

You think we are the one crying?

More projection.

You have a very twisted way of addressing reality; purporting to make yourself superior my thinly veiled put downs. I'm done with this.
 
Top