Reason the Bible is invalid

Okay, first let me say that I am going to try my absolute hardest to discuss this subject with you all, without being abrasive or making contencious remarks. I have always been interested into the reasons that Mormons believe the way that they do. I have done quite a bit of indepenent research into the church, its founding, its founder and its practices, and I have a lot (and I do mean a lot) of questions concerning it. I will try not veer from the subject of this thread though, which contains the number one question on my list. I have deepest respect for all of you, and I hope that through discussion we can come to an understanding about the Christian and Mormon viewpoint.

So, my questions pertains to the reason for the founding of the LDS movement. It is my understanding, and please correct me if I am misinformed, that your belief is that Joseph Smith was directed by God to start the church, because the christian church at the time was being mislead for multiple reason. One of the reasons, and probably the main one as I see it, was that the gospel which christianoty was basing their beliefs and practices on, the Bible, had been perverted over the years, mistranslated, etc. Basically it was not a valuable rescource for godly life, because it contained so many errors from its original version. My question is, is there any evidence to show that the version of the Bible at that time (the same one that I use now, whether it be KJV, NIV NASV, etc.) is historically inaccurate from the original? Is there any evidence to show that the version that we use is historically inaccurate to the point of being incabable of pointing people in the right direction for salvation? If I follow the Holy Bible only as it is, can I not be saved? I guess what I am trying to say it that, if the I have it correct, and there needs to be the Bible as it was translated by Joseph Smith, than the one I carry is inadequate to salvation, even though it points very specifically to the things I need to do to be saved. It this correct? Sorry that this took so long. Your comments are appreciated.

I'm sure a lot of LDS members will address your questions, so I will focus on a couple of them that I have strong feelings about.

If I follow the Holy Bible only as it is, can I not be saved? I guess what I am trying to say it that, if the I have it correct, and there needs to be the Bible as it was translated by Joseph Smith, than the one I carry is inadequate to salvation, even though it points very specifically to the things I need to do to be saved. It this correct?

Click to expand...

One of the things that Joseph Smith taught had been perverted by the churches that surrounded him was the question of who qualifies for salvation. Since you've studied Mormonism, I'm sure you realize that we do not preach hell and damnation to everyone who is not a member of the LDS church. Salvation is a gift from Christ that will be awarded to just about everyone. Christ suffered and atoned for everyone's sins, not just the sins of a lucky few.

So, to answer your question as to whether or not you will be saved. I would say yes.

In your studies of Mormonism, you have most likely come across the phrase "eternal progression." In order to progress eternally and obtain all the father hath, we believe that we need to make sacred covenants under the proper authority with God. If you do not make these covenants, or make them and do not keep them, your eternal progression will be halted until you either make the covenants required or reject them. One of these covenants is made at baptism.

As for the inadequacy of the Bible pertaining to salvation, it really isn't inadequate. This is more of a question of authority than the inadequacy of the Bible. LDS members do not believe that authority comes through the bible. We believe that the authority from Jesus Christ to act in his name has to come through Jesus Christ and that this authority was restored to Joseph Smith. This is why you will hear the term "true church" when members speak of the LDS church.

While we believe that there is truth in all religion, we believe that the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ in contained in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

EEWRED said:

Okay, first let me say that I am going to try my absolute hardest to discuss this subject with you all, without being abrasive or making contencious remarks. I have always been interested into the reasons that Mormons believe the way that they do. I have done quite a bit of indepenent research into the church, its founding, its founder and its practices, and I have a lot (and I do mean a lot) of questions concerning it. I will try not veer from the subject of this thread though, which contains the number one question on my list. I have deepest respect for all of you, and I hope that through discussion we can come to an understanding about the Christian and Mormon viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Thank you, EEWRED, for that short preface. I believe I can trust you to keep your word. I will also do my best to keep this discussion as respectful as your opening post is.

So, my questions pertains to the reason for the founding of the LDS movement. It is my understanding, and please correct me if I am misinformed, that your belief is that Joseph Smith was directed by God to start the church, because the christian church at the time was being mislead for multiple reason. One of the reasons, and probably the main one as I see it, was that the gospel which christianoty was basing their beliefs and practices on, the Bible, had been perverted over the years, mistranslated, etc. Basically it was not a valuable rescource for godly life, because it contained so many errors from its original version. My question is, is there any evidence to show that the version of the Bible at that time (the same one that I use now, whether it be KJV, NIV NASV, etc.) is historically inaccurate from the original? Is there any evidence to show that the version that we use is historically inaccurate to the point of being incabable of pointing people in the right direction for salvation? If I follow the Holy Bible only as it is, can I not be saved? I guess what I am trying to say it that, if the I have it correct, and there needs to be the Bible as it was translated by Joseph Smith, than the one I carry is inadequate to salvation, even though it points very specifically to the things I need to do to be saved. It this correct? Sorry that this took so long. Your comments are appreciated.

Click to expand...

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often speak of a "Great Apostasy." Throughout the New Testament, the Apostles prophesied of an apostasy (or falling away). Of all of them, Paul seemed particularly concerned about the infant Church and frequently voiced his concerns to the early Christians. Among his statements to Christ's followers, are these:

Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."

2 Thessalonians 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…"

Galatians 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel…"

2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears…"

Paul made it absolutely clear that (1)the flock would not only be attacked, it would not be spared, (2) Christ would not return to the earth until this universal "falling away" or "apostasy" had taken place, (3) these things were already beginning to take place as he spoke, and (4) the doctrines taught by the Savior would, in time, cease to endure.
Contrary to most other Christian denominations, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contends that this prophesy did, in fact, come to pass, and that shortly after the deaths of Christ's Apostles, the Church He personally established ceased to exist in its original form -- in other words that there was, for many, many years, a famine in the world "a famine of hearing the words of the Lord" (see Amos 8:11-12) and that, regardless of where one might wander in search of God's word, it could not be found.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds that during the first few centuries after the Savior and His Apostles died, Christianity began to evolve into something quite different than it had originally been. While the Apostles, who assumed leadership over the Church after Christ's death, undoubtedly did everything within their power to preserve and strengthen the Church, there were, unfortunately, other forces at work. Within a matter of just a few years following their deaths, the simplicity and purity of Christ’s teachings had begun to undergo some rather significant changes. Greek philosophical thought corrupted such basic doctrines as the true nature of God and man’s relationship to Him, as learned but uninspired men sought to make this new religion more acceptable to the masses, and especially to the non-Jewish convert. Finally, and probably most important of all, God withdrew His priesthood from the earth. What did this mean? It meant that there was no one left who held the authority to act in His name. With God no longer directing the affairs of His Church, man was on his own. Through debate and discussion, by vote and by compromise, what we now know as “mainstream” Christianity emerged.

Religious scholars describe this as "The Helenization of Christianity." We call it simply, "The Great Apostasy."

Does this mean that Christianity ceased to exist entirely? No. There have been devout Christians ever since the time of Christ. But the "fullness" of His gospel was taken from the earth, just as the ancient prophets said it would be.

I don't believe, however, that translation errors in the Bible are as significant to the Latter-day Saints as some people outside of our faith seem to think they are. After all, our leaders have stated that the Holy Bible is "formost among the Church' s Standard Works" (which "Standard Works" include the Book of Mormon and two other books which we believe to be scripture). We use the King James Version of the Bible and, while we are not Bible inerrantists, we do hold the Bible in high esteem. This coming year (2006), we are going to be focusing our entire course of Sunday School study on the Old Testament. In 2007, we will study the New Testament exclusively. In 2008, we'll be back to a review of The Book of Mormon and in 2009, we will study the history of our Church as it relates to The Doctrine and Covenants (again, one of the Standard Works). We'll then repeat the process. When we study the Bible, it is to learn from it, not to pick it apart or to analyze which verses may contain a translation error.

I don't believe the Bible is adequate or sufficient for salvation and, when it gets right down to it, I don't think you do either. Furthermore, I don't believe the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants are sufficient for salvation. These are books. I believe they are sacred books, but they don't "save" anybody. Jesus Christ is our Savior, and Bible or no Bible, it is only through Him that we have been offered the gift of Eternal Life. The Latter-day Saints believe that the vast majority of God's children will ultimately be saved, whether they believe the Book of Mormon is scripture or not. We believe that, as Christ said, He will reward all men according to their works. "Works" refers to the way a person lives His life, and a person doesn't necessarily have to be a Mormon to live a good life. On the flip side, a person can be a Mormon and live a perfectly rotten life. Being a Mormon isn't going to help that person one iota. "Works" also refers to obedience to certain specific commandments. We believe, for instance, that baptism is one of these and that, because we were commanded by Christ to be baptized, this ritual is "a saving ordinance." God will also consider our obedience in receiving the various saving ordinances He has prescribed when judging us. There are, I'm sure, a lot of factors that He will consider when each of us stands before Him to be judged. I'm confident that He'll do a first-rate job and that each of us will end up spending eternity exactly where we want to be.

I hope I've been able to respond to your questions satisfactorily. Please let me know if I can further clarify anything.

Kathryn

Thank you both very much for your replies and answers to my questions. I think that I am understanding more clearly the position of your church, but I still am at a loss.

Jonny, what you speak of in respect to eternal progression I have heard about, but have never seen any similarity to it int he reading of my Bible. There is a passage in James that alludes to different levels of heaven, but not to the extent taught by the Mormon Church. So thank you for clearing that up.

Katzpur, I do agree with you to an extent about the passages you quoted, but I think that it eludes more to false teaching in and among the first century church concerning a need to keep the old law wholely in conjunction with christianity. I think this is evident in PAul's letter to the Hebrews. But thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate that.

But, as to my question. Neither of you ahve denied that the gospel of Jesus Christ according to my translation of the Bible, give us information that we need to be saved. And according to that same book, once we are baptised we are added to his church (spiritually). If it be that once a person is baptized, and becomes a member of the church in the spiritual mind of God, then why do we need an additional book for clarification. If our sole purpose on earth is to live a that is pleasing to God, and I can be pleasing to God by following the principles and directions of the New Testament, then how can I or any of the people who were following this bible prior to John Smith, have a need for more than that? I understand that this question is partially answered by Jonny, but I don't see how salvation, the thing we live our life for and the thing offered freely to those who believe, can be parsled out in greater amounts for those who are mormon, than for those who are not. Either you are given salvation by God or you are not. Isn't that right?

EEWRED said:

Katzpur, I do agree with you to an extent about the passages you quoted, but I think that it eludes more to false teaching in and among the first century church concerning a need to keep the old law wholely in conjunction with christianity. I think this is evident in PAul's letter to the Hebrews. But thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate that.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments, EEWRED. I think this is just a matter of our interpreting certain scriptures differently. But, here's just a little bit of food for thought: Unless I'm mistaken, you are not a Catholic. Why aren't you? Catholicism has been around far longer than any of the Protestant denominations. Playing the devil's advocate here... Wouldn't it stand to reason that the church closest chronologically to Jesus' lifetime would be the most accurate doctrinally? I don't think so and, judging from the fact that you're not a Catholic, you don't either. When Martin Luther and the other great Reformers broke away from the Catholic Church, it was because of their convictions that the Catholic Church had strayed away from the doctrines taught by Jesus and His Apostles. That would be an apostasy. Did you know that within the first two centuries after Jesus' death, there were over 150 different Christian sects or denominiations. Some 32 of them were major movements. This is why I believe that Paul was genuinely concerned that, even in his lifetime, the doctrines Christ taught were evolving into something quite different than what they started out to be.

But, as to my question. Neither of you ahve denied that the gospel of Jesus Christ according to my translation of the Bible, give us information that we need to be saved. And according to that same book, once we are baptised we are added to his church (spiritually). If it be that once a person is baptized, and becomes a member of the church in the spiritual mind of God, then why do we need an additional book for clarification. If our sole purpose on earth is to live a that is pleasing to God, and I can be pleasing to God by following the principles and directions of the New Testament, then how can I or any of the people who were following this bible prior to John Smith, have a need for more than that? I understand that this question is partially answered by Jonny, but I don't see how salvation, the thing we live our life for and the thing offered freely to those who believe, can be parsled out in greater amounts for those who are mormon, than for those who are not. Either you are given salvation by God or you are not. Isn't that right?

Click to expand...

First of all, we believe that authority is very important. In other words, we reject the doctrine of "Priesthood of all Believers." We believe that Jesus Christ established His Church on a foundation of prophets and apostles and that He intended that they continue to lead His Church in His absence. We believe that a person must be called of God by prophesy and by the laying on of hands, and that it is not enough for a person to simply choose to go into the priesthood and attend a theological seminary. Therefore, we see the only possibilites (in terms of who holds the authority to act in God's name) as being the Catholic Church and ours. They claim that their authority can be traced directly back to Christ. We disagree, obviously, but we believe that the same authority Jesus gave to Peter has since been restored to the earth.

We also don't believe that those who died during the time between when the Church apostatized and when it was restored will have no chance to be saved. We believe in the same Spirit World that Christ visited during the time His body lay in the tomb. We believe the fulness of His gospel is being taught there right now and that those who died without having the opportunity to hear it during their lifetimes will have that chance before they are resurrected. That way, God has provided a level playing field for everyone. I could say a whole lot more on this subject, but I won't bother doing so right now. If you want me to, though, I'd be happy to.

One final thing. I don't believe we see "salvation" in quite the same terms as you are. For most Christians, there is only salvation (heaven) and damnation (hell). For the Latter-day Saints, there are degrees of glory (or levels of salvation) in heaven. The highest of these is the "fullness of salvation" or "exaltation." It is only through God's grace that we will receive any degree of salvation, but we believe He will reward the most valiant of His children (including those who were obedient in receiving the saving ordinances) with a greater glory than the others. And remember, we believe that there are many individuals who lived and died, not only as non-Mormons but as non-Christians, who will accept the gospel (the LDS understanding of it) in the Spirit World and who stand every chance to progress farther in eternity than many Latter-day Saints ever will. God knows our hearts and he knows what circumstances in a person's life will interfere with him being able to understand and accept the gospel. What I'm saying is that, had I been born into a non-LDS family, I would very likely not be LDS today. Our backgrounds and environments shape the way we see things of a spiritual nature. In a sense, they can be stumbling blocks. These stumbling blocks will, however, be removed in the Spirit World. God is going to give everyone every conceivable opportunity to embrace the gospel before sending anyone to his or her respective degree of glory.

I just want to say this really quick, but I'll admit, I don't like reading long posts, so I didn't, and this might be a repeat.

It wasn't so much that the Bible was corrupted. Yes, it has been translated and retranslated numerous time, but the Joseph Smith Translation isn't really that much different, and you could probably do without it (though I'm sure you would have a few questions ). The big thing was that the people who were reading it were making up their interpretations without God's guidance. They were relying on the intelligences of man, rather than on revelation from God about what certain things mean, etc. And because of the Great Apstacy that Katzpur mentioned, God didn't have any prophets on the earth to reveal doctrine to. People were pretty much walking around on their own, and doing the best that they could with what they had (God's already-revealed word).

EEWRED said:

If it be that once a person is baptized, and becomes a member of the church in the spiritual mind of God, then why do we need an additional book for clarification.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm going to give you my own thoughts about this. Please don't take this as LDS doctrine. The BoM clearified very little for me. Oh sure, it helped here and there, but for the most part, it just was sort of more of hte same of what the Bible talks about, but in a little bit plainer language. That just me, though - other people seem to think much more highly of it. What the BoM did do for me, though, was show me that Joe Smith was a true prophet, and that God loves all his children and prophesies to everybody. The D&C on the other hand, is what I felt gave me more clearification. Now, why do we need this? Look around you. Look at all the different Christian denominations. Not all can be right (because the path leading to heaven is straight and narrow). If the Bible were really as complete as people say, why all the confusion? That's why we need continued revelation (as apposed to an additional book): because the Bible isn't complete.

EEWRED said:

If our sole purpose on earth is to live a that is pleasing to God, and I can be pleasing to God by following the principles and directions of the New Testament, then how can I or any of the people who were following this bible prior to John Smith, have a need for more than that?

Click to expand...

Well, they were trying as best as they could to follow the directions of the NT, but they were still relying on Man's interpretation of what the principles actually were.

EEWRED said:

Either you are given salvation by God or you are not. Isn't that right?

Click to expand...

Yes that's right. But salvation and exhaltation are two different things. You can be saved but not exhalted. God is a just god, so he won't just give everybody the exact same reward. He'll give everybody a different reward (in my house there are many mansions).

You know, I guess the bottom line is that you have to recognize that an Apostasy occurred in order to accept that a Restoration was needed. You also kind of need to realize that a Reformation is not the same thing as a Restoration.

It really isn't as much about the Bible being in error as it is about having a living prophet who speaks for God and makes sure that we understand the scriptures as God intended us to understand them, without having to rely on a lot of different interpretations.

These two scriptures say it far better than I could hope to:

Ephesians 4:11-14 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive…"


Ephesians 2:19-21 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone..."

What happens to any structure if its foundation crumbles? The same thing would happen to Christ's church if the foundation of apostles and prophets were to be taken away.

Jonny, what you speak of in respect to eternal progression I have heard about, but have never seen any similarity to it int he reading of my Bible. There is a passage in James that alludes to different levels of heaven, but not to the extent taught by the Mormon Church. So thank you for clearing that up.

Click to expand...

The Bible says very little about the next life. I don't know if this was a decision made by those who compiled the books in the Bible or not. We believe that God has chosen to reveal more of the Plan of Salvation.

I'd just like to had that it isn't that we believe that the Bible is invalid. We just don't believe that it is complete and infallible.

Katzpur said:

First of all, we believe that authority is very important. In other words, we reject the doctrine of "Priesthood of all Believers." We believe that Jesus Christ established His Church on a foundation of prophets and apostles and that He intended that they continue to lead His Church in His absence. We believe that a person must be called of God by prophesy and by the laying on of hands, and that it is not enough for a person to simply choose to go into the priesthood and attend a theological seminary. Therefore, we see the only possibilites (in terms of who holds the authority to act in God's name) as being the Catholic Church and ours. They claim that their authority can be traced directly back to Christ. We disagree, obviously, but we believe that the same authority Jesus gave to Peter has since been restored to the earth.

Click to expand...

To the comment on the importance of authority in the LDS church, every priesthood holder (which is just about every male member of the church over the age of 12) has what is called a "line of authority" which traces his priesthood back to Jesus Christ (through the restoration). The priesthood is the authority to act in God's name in the LDS church. It is not a position awarded based on education or merit.

I do believe that a reformation was needed, but I do not believe that God ever allowed His church to slip to a state where a total restoration was needed. Mostly, because I believe that the holy scriptures of the Bible were always around to give instruction on the right path. It was simply man's decision whether or not to follow it. As for the reformation movements that you mention Katzpur, the decision to break away from the predominant churches of the time, was made using the Bible to do so. The church reformers looked into the word, saw that what was happening was incorrect, and changed accordingly. This signifies to me that it was a reformation, much like Paul talks about when he says to "search the scriptures to see if those things are true." The reformers did, and they saw the error and made the change.

Also, when taken in its correct ocntext, I think that you will find that the two scriptures that you quote, are Paul talking to Gentiles and discussing the perfection that is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than in the pagan life and practices in Ephasus at the time, where Diana was the main object fo worship. By my reading it is not talking about an overall apostate church, but a turn from darkness into light that is available with the advent of Jesus Christ, His death, His resurrection, and the founding of His church ont he day of pentecost.

Also, it seems to me that there are plenty of references to Christ and his need to establish His perfect church, one time. It is spoken of as perfect in the New Testament, and by saying that Jesus had to appear again, aren't you in fact saying tha the first time wasn't good enough. That Christ didn't do a good enough job the first time around, so He had to try again?

I do believe that a reformation was needed, but I do not believe that God ever allowed His church to slip to a state where a total restoration was needed. Mostly, because I believe that the holy scriptures of the Bible were always around to give instruction on the right path. It was simply man's decision whether or not to follow it.

Click to expand...

Also, it seems to me that there are plenty of references to Christ and his need to establish His perfect church, one time.

Click to expand...

It is spoken of as perfect in the New Testament, and by saying that Jesus had to appear again, aren't you in fact saying tha the first time wasn't good enough. That Christ didn't do a good enough job the first time around, so He had to try again?

Click to expand...

Aren't you in a way saying the same thing, just from a different perspective?

I wouldn't characterize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a "total restoration." Many of the doctrines of the LDS church are exactly the same as other Christian churches. Certainly it was a restoration of the authority, but most of the doctrines taught in the LDS church would be perfectly familiar to other Christians. Usually, the differences are what get magnified.

I don't think it was that Christ didn't do it good enough the first time. Rather I believe that some turned their backs on the complete message that Christ shared and thus cut themselves off from the relvelation that was available to them to lead the church. Instead of relying on revelation, they began to rely on their own interpretation of the scriptures. Very few Christian religions believe in direct revelation from God today, even though the Bible seems to indicate that revelation was available to the leaders of Christ's church after his death and resurrection.

EEWRED said:

I do believe that a reformation was needed, but I do not believe that God ever allowed His church to slip to a state where a total restoration was needed. Mostly, because I believe that the holy scriptures of the Bible were always around to give instruction on the right path. It was simply man's decision whether or not to follow it.

Click to expand...

EEWRED,

First off, I'd like to thank you for keeping the promise you made in your opening post. Your comments thus far could not have been more courteous and respectful. I really appreciate your consideration and tolerant attitude. While we will probably never see eye to eye on some of these issues, it has been a pleasure discussing my beliefs with you.

Regarding what you said in your first paragraph, I see what appears to me to be a contradiction. You start by saying that God didn't allow certain things to happen, but then go on to point out that man had his free will. I don't see how both of these statements can be true. Either God allowed man to misinterpret (and in some cases actually change) His Son's teachings or He didn't. Yes, the scriptures were around from the beginning, but obviously there are many, many different interpretations of the same verses (even when the same translation is used). I don't think that people are intentionally interpreting God's word incorrectly, but when the "right path" cannot always be easily identified, problems arise -- much like Paul said would happen without the organization and authority Christ established (see my prior post).

As for the reformation movements that you mention Katzpur, the decision to break away from the predominant churches of the time, was made using the Bible to do so. The church reformers looked into the word, saw that what was happening was incorrect, and changed accordingly. This signifies to me that it was a reformation, much like Paul talks about when he says to "search the scriptures to see if those things are true." The reformers did, and they saw the error and made the change.

Click to expand...

But who gave them the authority to do so? The great reformers recognized the need for a return to the pure form of Christianity the Savior had established while on the earth. And, using the Bible as their guide, they attempted to accomplish this. The Bible was a good guide; it was an excellent guide. But even if they had managed to restore all of the doctrines, and get rid of the false ones that had crept into the Church over the years, the foundation of prophets and apostles was still missing.

Roger Williams, pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America once made the following statement: “[There is] no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the great head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking.” (Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In; edited by William Cullen Bryant; 1872)

He clearly recognized that he was not in a position to administer the ordinances of Christ's gospel and that, in fact, no one living at that time was. He knew a restoration -- from the ground up -- would be necessary.

Also, when taken in its correct ocntext, I think that you will find that the two scriptures that you quote, are Paul talking to Gentiles and discussing the perfection that is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than in the pagan life and practices in Ephasus at the time, where Diana was the main object fo worship. By my reading it is not talking about an overall apostate church, but a turn from darkness into light that is available with the advent of Jesus Christ, His death, His resurrection, and the founding of His church ont he day of pentecost.

Click to expand...

I think that, to a certain extent, you are right. Greek culture, religion an philosophy had a real stronghold on the people of that time. I believe Paul actually was cautioning the people against trying to incorporate these things into the gospel of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, I don't think he succeeded in convincing them. I think that these things were largely responsible for the apostasy.

Also, it seems to me that there are plenty of references to Christ and his need to establish His perfect church, one time. It is spoken of as perfect in the New Testament, and by saying that Jesus had to appear again, aren't you in fact saying tha the first time wasn't good enough. That Christ didn't do a good enough job the first time around, so He had to try again?

Click to expand...

Maybe you could quote some of these references and we could talk about them in more detail. I think Christ did an absolutely perfect job of establishing His Church. But once again, I believe that back then, as today, men have their free will. Had they listened to the apostles and prophets, instead of killing them, and had they refused to incorporate Greek philosophy and practices into Christ's teachings, the authority He gave to Peter and the others would have literally continued to this day and the Savior's Church would never have apostasized.

EEWRED said:

I do believe that a reformation was needed, but I do not believe that God ever allowed His church to slip to a state where a total restoration was needed.

Click to expand...

Hi, I am not a Mormon but I believe the Book of Mormon was needed. And I agree with you about the supposed slipping of the Christian church into apostasy.

And, by the way, you will not find Joseph Smith saying there was an apostasy either. Nor will you find any of the latter day scriptures stating that either.

Most of the things Christains get on the Book of Mormon goes through a church tradition strainer in two ways.

There's the friendly strainer. Misinformation within the Christian tradition.

Then there's the suspect (maybe my enemy) strainer of the Mormon tradition.

I do believe that man has free will Katzpur, but that has nothing to do with God's will. God in his infinite wisdon gave us the Holy Bible, and it was man in his free will who decided whether or not to follow it. That does not change the fact that the Bible still existed to show the proper way to live, act, and become saved. God gives us the tools. It is up to us to use them or not.

And thank you for the kind words. Ditto from my end.

Now, I guess what I am understnading then, is:

1) You can be saved by obeying what is in the Bible (a lot more to it than that as already discussed) but not be fully saved or reep the full rewards of salvation through the Bible only. There is additional knowledge that has to be gained through sources outside the Bible.

2) The restoration of the church by God, through Joseph Smith, was needed because of the great apostacy fo the church, which was foretold by Paul.

3) In order to have a full restoration to the New Testament church, there needed to be the authority of prophets and apostles to do so.

Am I right so far? If so, then I will try to rebut these one by one.

EEWRED said:

Now, I guess what I am understnading then, is:

1) You can be saved by obeying what is in the Bible (a lot more to it than that as already discussed) but not be fully saved or reep the full rewards of salvation through the Bible only. There is additional knowledge that has to be gained through sources outside the Bible.

2) The restoration of the church by God, through Joseph Smith, was needed because of the great apostacy fo the church, which was foretold by Paul.

3) In order to have a full restoration to the New Testament church, there needed to be the authority of prophets and apostles to do so.

Am I right so far? If so, then I will try to rebut these one by one.

Click to expand...

I'd say you've stated our position pretty accurately. Remember, when "rebutting" these points, that if you really want to debate them, it should probably be on a separate thread on one of the debate forums. There's a fine line between discussion and debate, and I'll trust your judgment in terms of where you want to take this topic from here.

Kathryn

Katzpur said:

I'd say you've stated our position pretty accurately. Remember, when "rebutting" these points, that if you really want to debate them, it should probably be on a separate thread on one of the debate forums. There's a fine line between discussion and debate, and I'll trust your judgment in terms of where you want to take this topic from here.

Kathryn

Click to expand...

Okay, I guess rebut was too strong a word. How about, I'll give you my take on them? Not debating, discussing. Thanks for reminding me. However, in all honesty, and sincerity, it is very difficult to discuss issues from christian perspective with you guys, when there is not a common biblical language to refer to. As I understand it, the Bible is only correct as far as it has been translated correctly. And the only correct translation is the one my Joseph Smith. If that is correct, than I am a little confounded by how I am going to discuss biblical matters with you guys.

EEWRED said:

Okay, I guess rebut was too strong a word. How about, I'll give you my take on them? Not debating, discussing. Thanks for reminding me. However, in all honesty, and sincerity, it is very difficult to discuss issues from christian perspective with you guys, when there is not a common biblical language to refer to. As I understand it, the Bible is only correct as far as it has been translated correctly. And the only correct translation is the one my Joseph Smith. If that is correct, than I am a little confounded by how I am going to discuss biblical matters with you guys.

Click to expand...

We use the King James Version of the bible - not Joseph Smith's. The LDS church has never cannonized Joseph Smith's version of the Bible.

If you ever have a question of whether or not you define something differently than we do, you can always consult the LDS bible dictionary. This is online at the church's website: http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/contents. These are the official definitions of stuff from the church and it is a very good resource. I'd bookmark it so that you can get to it easily. You can also search it here: http://scriptures.lds.org/search/contents?id=1135986064098. Just uncheck everything except "study helps." This will search the index of the Book of Mormon, the Topical Guide in the Bible, and the Bible Dictionary - all of these resources are also included in every LDS printing of the scriptures.

Here is one example:

BIBLE DICTIONARY
GRACE A word that occurs frequently in the New Testament, especially in the writings of Paul. The main idea of the word is divine means of help or strength, given through the bounteous mercy and love of Jesus Christ.

It is through the grace of the Lord Jesus, made possible by his atoning sacrifice, that mankind will be raised in immortality, every person receiving his body from the grave in a condition of everlasting life. It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means. This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts.

Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of man’s weaknesses and shortcomings. However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25: 23). It is truly the grace of Jesus Christ that makes salvation possible. This principle is expressed in Jesus’ parable of the vine and the branches (John 15: 1-11). See also John 1: 12-17; Eph. 2: 8-9; Philip. 4: 13; D&C 93: 11-14.

Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. If you believe that the Bible is only correct as it has been interpreted correctly, and Joseph Smith's version was the only correct interpretation, then why don't you read and follow his rather than the KJV or some other one?

Or, is it that you believe the actual writings of the KJV is correct, but you have to have the interpretation of those writtings by Joseph Smith in order to understand the teachings of the Bible? Since he was a prophet and had the authority to explain those teachings. I think that this is it, and understand now. If so, then I was really off in what my understanding of the LDS was.

EEWRED said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. If you believe that the Bible is only correct as it has been interpreted correctly, and Joseph Smith's version was the only correct interpretation, then why don't you read and follow his rather than the KJV or some other one?

Click to expand...

First of all, the phrasing of the eighth Article of Faith (which is what it appears you are quoting) is "as far as it is translated correctly," not "as far as it is interpreted correctly." Not a huge issue, but worth mentioning.

A big part of the reason we don't use the JST is that we don't even own the copyright. Another significant reason is that Joseph never completed his work before he was murdered. Many of the changes he made can be found as footnotes in our KJV of the Holy Bible, and we occasionally refer to them. I think you would find most of them to be relatively insignificant, and I would be more than happy to provide you with a few representative samples of how Joseph's translation differs from the KJV.

Or, is it that you believe the actual writings of the KJV is correct, but you have to have the interpretation of those writtings by Joseph Smith in order to understand the teachings of the Bible? Since he was a prophet and had the authority to explain those teachings. I think that this is it, and understand now. If so, then I was really off in what my understanding of the LDS was.

Click to expand...

I'd say that's a pretty accurate statement.

Perhaps the following (from the book How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, which I highly recommend) will shed some light on the subject:

"Then what of the JST (Joseph Smith translation)? First of all, the JST is not canonized Scripture, even for the Latter-day Saints, JST Genesis 1-6 and Matthew 24, which are both found in the Pearl of Great Price, excepted. The JST is not the LDS version of the Bible -- the KJV is and always has been. Of course we believe the JST is 'inspired,' but that is not the same thing as saying it always restores the original texts of the biblical books. In 1828 the word translation was broader in its meaning than it is now, and the Joseph Smith translation should be understood to contain additional revelation, alternate readings, prophetic commentary... harmonization, [etc.]... Joseph Smith often saw more than one meaning in a passage and brought many of these explicitly to our attention by means of the JST. Certainly the existence of a JST variant reading for a passage ought not to imply that the KVJ is incorrect, since the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants sometimes agree with the KJV rather than the JST.

Most of the objections I hear concerning the JST result from assuming we know what Joseph was doing and how he was doing it, and from assuming a view of the texts and a translational philosophy on the part of Joseph Smith that cannot be established from the documents. For example, Evangelicals might assume that a 'prophetic' translation would be one that restored the original text, word for word and without any additions and subtractions, but this is not an LDS assumption. Joseph Smith did not explain his 'translation' process. He did not describe the parameters of his work or explain either the procedures or the principles he employed, but it seems to me that his main concern was not merely to reproduce God's word to ancient prophets but also to produce a correct text for the use of Latter-day Saints in the latter days. Since Evangelicals place the highest authority in the biblical text itself and make the prophetic calling secondary, they would naturally see the task of a modern prophet (if there is such a thing) as rendering a perfect copy of a perfect original. But Latter-day Saints place the hightest authority in living prophetic/apostolic guidance, and therefore see the rightful task of a modern prophet as revealing what the church needs in the latter days. If the original wording is misleading, rewrite it; if the original reading is ambiguous, clarify it.

I happen to believe Joseph did frequently restore ancient information in the JST and that the JST is 'correct' in all its doctrinal particulars, but this does not necessarily mean that the received text is corrupt or that the JST always represents the original, unexpurgated text of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. I do not personally assume this. I affirm only that the JST is 'inspired' and that the Latter-day Saints should consult it as a supplement to their canonical Scriptures. In this I may be wrong, but I would argue that believing it does not nullify my belief in the KJV New Testament or its power in my life."

Finally, since we do believe that Jesus Christ's Church is led today by a living prophet, it would stand to reason that if God felt that we were in any way being led astray by a corrupt version of the Holy Bible, He would remedy the situation at once by speaking through today's Prophet as He previously spoke through Joseph Smith. I hope this helps -- but I think you actually had a pretty good grasp of the role of the JST before this post.

Kathryn

EEWRED said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. If you believe that the Bible is only correct as it has been interpreted correctly, and Joseph Smith's version was the only correct interpretation, then why don't you read and follow his rather than the KJV or some other one?

Or, is it that you believe the actual writings of the KJV is correct, but you have to have the interpretation of those writtings by Joseph Smith in order to understand the teachings of the Bible? Since he was a prophet and had the authority to explain those teachings. I think that this is it, and understand now. If so, then I was really off in what my understanding of the LDS was.

Click to expand...

I had a great post all written up an lost it.

I think there is a few reasons why the LDS church has not cannonized the JST. First, he never said it was done. He had gone through the Bible once, but was going through it a second time when he was killed. Second, the LDS church did not have possession of the original manuscripts for many years. They were in the possession of the RLDS church. Third, the LDS church is an international church. It is still working on translating the Book of Mormon into the languages that all the members of the church speak. It is easier to use the Bibles that are common to the people who are using them.

In my mind, the King James version is correct for the most part. I use the JST as clarification on some scriptures. Some changes are insignificant. Others are very significant. Two of the inspired changes made were cannonized in the Pearl of Great Price as Joseph Smith - Matthew and the Book of Moses.

I believe that Joseph Smith had strong mistrust of the various Christian churches, which is what led him to believe that it was possible that changes or mistakes had been made by translators, transcribers, recorders, compilers, etc. I don't think he knew exactly what those mistakes were, but he went through the Bible trying to find places where it contradicted itself. He also felt that there were truths that were lost from the Bible. This process resulted in many revelations, some of which are contained in the Doctrine and Covenants.

This is a pretty good article on the JST that includes some information on revisions that Joseph Smith made to the Bible: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/jst_eom.htm


You mentioned that you were off in understanding what the LDS were...what did you mean by that?