The Bible and the Book of Mormon

Do the Bible and the Book of Mormon disagree on anything or teach different theology or doctrine? I've know people who say they do and I know people who say they don't. What does everyone here think?

Short answer--no, they don't. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are complementary scriptures. We believe that both are the word of God, and that couldn't be true if there were any such contradictions.

There may appear to be contradictions, but that's also true of the Bible alone; when carefully examined, such "contradictions" are easily explained.

If you have any specific contradictions in mind, feel free to bring them up, but we may have to move the thread to allow the full range of discussion. In the mean time, a look at http://scriptures.lds.org/ may help you understand a little bit more about our scriptures.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I will look up some of the stuff I was wondering about and get back to you here.

DeepShadow, hi, i was wondering what the Mormon reply is to critics who say Joseph Smith is a fraud, because of the reading out of hats and not showing anyone the gold tablets etc.
Genuine question, i'm not mocking your beliefs!

Is the translation of the Book of Mormon also open to question?

JivanaKrishnaDasa said:

Actually thats interesting. I seem to remember the "Articles of faith" stating something that Mormons believe in the Bible as long as its translated correctly. However, I also have met a lot of Mormons who use that statement as a copout and duck out on certain issues, simply by stating, "well that wasnt translated correctly" or something to that effect. How do you feel about that?

Click to expand...

You can call it a "copout" if you want, but since Joseph Smith made a clear list of places he believed errors were made, and since that list is in the footnotes of every recent LDS Bible, it's pretty hard to make them up in order to duck out of an issue.

Next time someone says X or Y was translated incorrectly, ask to see the "Joseph Smith Translation" (JST) footnote. If they can't show you one, then something is fishy, and you ought to call them on it.

Halcyon said:

DeepShadow, hi, i was wondering what the Mormon reply is to critics who say Joseph Smith is a fraud, because of the reading out of hats and not showing anyone the gold tablets etc.
Genuine question, i'm not mocking your beliefs!

Click to expand...

Really, it all depends. Some will point out that the "reading out of hats" account is incorrect, or show the person the testimonies of the eleven people who saw the gold plates, but many Latter-Day Saints that I know have had very little luck with this approach. The only way to know the truth about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is to read the book and pray for a witness from God, so if we're tired of arguing we usually recommend that approach and/or ignore the criticisms.

Seyorni said:

Is the translation of the Book of Mormon also open to question?

Click to expand...

Of course; the Book of Mormon states clearly on the title page that it has "errors of men." The Bible doesn't make such a clear statement, thus the line in the 8th Article of Faith.

ok, just a quick question, when and how can I get to the planet Kolob?

fredm596 said:

ok, just a quick question, when and how can I get to the planet Kolob?

Click to expand...

You can't. Kolob's not a planet. But since you're so interested in space travel, maybe you can tell me when and how I can get to the planet Saturn. Personally, I'm a whole lot more interested in getting to heaven than to any place else.

Your sarcasm wasn't actually lost on me, Fred, but I'm afraid I don't really understand your reasoning. Are you absolutely certain that there are no planets anywhere in the universe (perhaps somewhere other than the Milky Way galaxy) that have yet to be discovered?

Really, maybe you should read the writings of Abraham in the third chapter.

In a Mormon scripture entitled Pearl of Great Price.

fredm596 said:

Really, maybe you should read the writings of Abraham in the third chapter.

Click to expand...

If you really want to get to the *planet* Kolob, you'd probably have to hop a flight on the Battlestar Galactica.

JivanaKrishnaDasa said:

Actually thats interesting. I seem to remember the "Articles of faith" stating something that Mormons believe in the Bible as long as its translated correctly. However, I also have met a lot of Mormons who use that statement as a copout and duck out on certain issues, simply by stating, "well that wasnt translated correctly" or something to that effect. How do you feel about that?

Click to expand...

The article of faith about the Bible says, 'We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;' that's also true about other Christians as well but the Mormons tell you in their Articles of Faith. Other Christians will argue that the Bible is the absolute word of God until you point out something that doesn't sound right, then they'll say, "Well that was translated right." or "It's a mistranslation." Why would you believe that something you know has translation errors to be the absolute word of God, except as far as it's translated correctly?

DeepShadow said:

You can call it a "copout" if you want, but since Joseph Smith made a clear list of places he believed errors were made, and since that list is in the footnotes of every recent LDS Bible, it's pretty hard to make them up in order to duck out of an issue.

Click to expand...

You take another faith's holy book, make some changes where you think there is error (or don't like what's being said) and then say "yep, we believe the same thing". That makes no sense at all.

I should just go take the Qu'ran, make a number of changes because I think there is error (or don't like what's being said) and then say "yep, Islam and Christianity believe the same thing".

Melody, please take a good look at the places where changes were made--few if any of them made changes that could be interpreted like this. If Joseph made the JST for such purposes, why...

1)...change only a tenth of a percent of the Bible?
2)...confine the majority of changes to places that don't affect the Christian/Mormon debate at all?
3)...include the changes only as footnotes and appendices, keeping the original text for comparison? (In other words, why not publish the JST as a separate book?)

Point out where you think this is happening, and we can discuss actual quotes in detail, but in support of my second point above, a small sampling of JST quotes would reveal that the vast majority are clarifications that many Christians would agree with. For example:

Exodus 7:3 "And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt."
becomes
"And Pharaoh will harden his heart, as I said unto thee; and thou shalt multiply my signs..."
Without this clarification, readers might get the impression that God removed Pharaoh's free will just to make a bigger bang on the Egyptians.

1 Corinthians 16:20 "All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss."
JST says change "kiss" to "salutation." I don't know about you, but I'm much more confortable with the latter.

There are longer changes, for sure, but most serve the same purposes. Consider the KJV description of Melchizedek from Hebrews chapter 7:

2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of brighteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Doesn't that sound like Melchizedek had no parents and never died? Most Christians don't believe that, but that's what it says. All the JST does is clear that up:

3 For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually.

Here's a link to the most significant changes the JST makes to the Bible. Where is the JST distorting Christian doctrines into something else?

And for the record, the Bible isn't just "another faith's holy book," it's ours, too.

DeepShadow said:

why...

1)...change only a tenth of a percent of the Bible?
2)...confine the majority of changes to places that don't affect the Christian/Mormon debate at all?
3)...include the changes only as footnotes and appendices, keeping the original text for comparison? (In other words, why not publish the JST as a separate book?)

Click to expand...

What about the Inspired Version of the Bible published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints after Joseph Smith's death?
http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/default.htm

I guess you'd have to ask them why they use it. We don't use the inspired version, for the reasons I mentioned above. We prefer to read the original KJV and then refer to footnotes and appendices for comparison's sake. I can't say for certain, but I don't think there are any changes in the inspired version that we don't have as well. Why print another book for so few changes?

Thanks for the link, reyjamiei! Not only was it educational for me, but I found some information there that was very helpful for this discussion:

P. Marion Simms, in his book, The Bible from the Beginning, paid his respects to this Inspired Version when he said: "This much, at least, may be said of many of the changed readings found in the Bible of the Reorganized Latter Day Saints: its author had the courage to alter the text, and made it say clearly what many Bible students succeed in getting by theological legerdemain or theological 'slight of hand."' Evidently Mr. Simms did not approve of that method.
Again he said, "Had these additions favored the doctrinal position of his church the explanation would have been easy, but they do not seem to serve any denominational or sectarian purpose." Mr. Simms wrote another book called, The Bible in America, and in speaking about our Inspired Version and Joseph Smith he paid what was, I think, in the light of our experience and belief, a tribute to the founder of the Church:

"He did not hesitate to alter the Bible and make it read to suit his own pleasure. We wonder why he did not slip in a few passages at least that would favor his peculiar doctrines. There seems to be none such.... "

Click to expand...

I don't remember fruballing you, but the computer says I have, so I'll have to wait before you get some more!

JivanaKrishnaDasa said:

Actually thats interesting. I seem to remember the "Articles of faith" stating something that Mormons believe in the Bible as long as its translated correctly. However, I also have met a lot of Mormons who use that statement as a copout and duck out on certain issues, simply by stating, "well that wasnt translated correctly" or something to that effect. How do you feel about that?

Click to expand...

Wow! A fellow Salt Laker! I can't recall ever using that "cop-out" myself. I would be more inclined to explain apparent contraditions, etc. by saying, "There's more to it than the Bible says." Just as a quick "for instance...", I have heard many, many Christians claim that Jesus' statement in Luke 20:34-36 ("The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage. But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.") is a direct contradiction of the LDS belief in the eternal nature of the marriage covenant. I certainly don't think there is a translation error in this passage, but I don't believe that the Bible provides us with all of the finer points of this doctrine. When understood in the context in which we believe this statement was made, there is no contradition between LDS belief and what Jesus said. In my opinion (and I'm sure it is shared by many of my Faith), there are fewer actual translation errors than omissions.

Kathryn

DeepShadow said:

Thanks for the link, reyjamiei! Not only was it educational for me, but I found some information there that was very helpful for this discussion:

Click to expand...

Your welcome. I actually like reading the inspired version of the Bible although I haven't read it all. I knew the LDS church didn't use it when I posted that.