1. 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!

More love directed at the Mormons!

Discussion in 'Latter-day Saints DIR' started by Katzpur, Sep 15, 2005.

  1. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,923
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Joe,

    Are you saying that you don't accept John's gospel account or his three epistles? They were written after Revelation. Apparently John didn't think God's admonition applied to Him.

    How you can possibly use this rationale is beyond me! If Deuteronomy 12:32 were to be interpreted as you have interpreted it, we would have no scripture after the fifth book of the Old Testament! The Jews don't accept the New Testament because they consider the Old Testament to be the only valid record of God's word. They could accuse all Christians of doing exactly what you are accusing the Latter-day Saints of doing. Are you seriously telling me you can't see that? Tell me, do you believe that God has a right to add to His own words or do you somehow feel justified in telling Him He's finished speaking because you're finished listening? I have news for you, Joe: God can add to His words any time He wants to. The real question is not can man arbitrarily decide he's going to add to God's words. The real question is, was Joseph Smith a true prophet? If he was, he did not add to God's words any more than Moses or Abraham or Isaiah did. All he did was record God's words as they were revealed to him.

    I see. So now we're motivated by pride, huh?

    So who's saying that entirety of God's word is not truth? Certainly not the Latter-day Saints. The Bible refers to God's words as scripture. Nowhere in the Bible are we told that all of God's words are to be found within that one volume. You may choose to believe that to be the case if you wish, but you haven't one shred of evidence to support your opinion. The people of the ancient Americas were told by God to record the words spoken by their prophets. That's exactly what they did. Joseph Smith merely translated that record. Go ahead and insist that the Bible is the sole record of God's dealings with His children, but please don't pretend that the Bible backs you up.


    How so? First off, we don't "inadvertently" state that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We do so quite intentionally. Until you can offer up some evidence to support your premise that the Book of Mormon is not God's word at all, your accusations are meaningless.


    Joseph didn't rewrite the Bible. He translated it. He didn't need any knowledge of Hebrew of Greek, since he was inspired as to what the text was to say. There have been hundreds of translations of the Bible. Do you hold all Bible translators in contempt or do you reserve that judgment solely for Joseph Smith?

    So what? Get out any two translations of the Bibles commonly used by Christians today and you'll come up with far more than 9000 discrepancies between the words used in one and the words used in the other. I suspect you don't have a clue as to how the Joseph Smith translation compares to the KJV. My KJV is 1590 pages long. Let me just give you three very brief examples of some typical differences between the KJV and the JST. The changes are in italics.

    KJV - Luke 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast our your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

    JST - Luke 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from among them, and shall reproach you, and cast our your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake.

    KJV - John 4:53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself helieved, and his whole house.

    JST - John 4:53 So the father knew that his son was healed in the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself helieved, and his whole house.

    KJV - Matthew 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.

    JST - Matthew 2:14 And then he arose, and took the young child and the child's mother by night, and departed into Egypt.

    I appears to me that you are blowing this whole Joseph Smith translation thing way, way, way out of proportion.

    Why don't you start by telling me which Bible is a perfect translation. Would it be the KJV or some other translation? No two translations are the same.

    You just don't get it, do you? You've got this naive notion in your head that the "Bible" you personally use is letter-perfect and that it was somehow dictated verbatim, not to the original writers, but to the translators! I guess He also personally determined the order in which the chapters would be placed. And all of this took place hundreds of years after He ceased to communicate to mankind. Would you care to explain how this took place?


    Kathryn
     
  2. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    You and I, joe, have a lot of similarities. I was once like you. I thought I had all the answers, and I thought, for some weird reason, that the Mormons just hadn't heard all this stuff, that they just didn't know about any of these things. The difference between us, though, is that I actually listened to what their answers were, and looked at the reasons they had for holding those beliefs. Once I did that, I realised that their answers were a lot better than my own. The thing is, though, you actually have to listen. If it just goes in one ear and out the other (or in one eye and out the other, as the case may be), it isn't going to do you any good. Look at it from the other point of view, and you'll learn a lot. I'm not saying you should go get baptised tomorrow (as if that would be possible anyway), or even that you'll start thinking that mormons are right, but you'll learn a whole lot more if you don't go into every argument with the idea that you're 100% automatically right.
     
  3. SoyLeche

    SoyLeche meh...

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    7,522
    Ratings:
    +880
    Religion:
    LDS
    I don't have a whole lot to add, but I do want to clarify something. Do you think that the bolded text is saying that Joesph was "caught up into an exceeding high mountain" when he translated it? That's not how I read it at all. It is describing the vision that Moses had. If you already understood that, then you can ignore this.
     
  4. nutshell

    nutshell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7,140
    Ratings:
    +672
    I'd like to throw out another JST. When men of Sodom seek to abuse Lot's guests in Genesis 19, he tells them in verse 8 of the KVJ, "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothering for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

    What!? Lot is telling the men to take his virgin daughters???? What the heck!!! Sorry, but this verse isn't sitting well with me. Lets see what the original meaning was as revealed by God through Joseph Smith when he inspired him to translate the Bible.

    "And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I grapy you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do untol them as seemeth good in your eyes."

    There's more to this chapter than this one verse, but I think this inspired version shows what was really going on.
     
  5. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    yes, gpray and untol make a lot more sense than the original. :biglaugh:
     
  6. Apex

    Apex Somewhere Around Nothing

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,720
    Ratings:
    +574
    Joeboonda, I can see that you disagree with out beliefs on several grounds, however throwing all of them at us at once does not accomplish much. Perhaps you can pick a single topic you disagree with at a time and post a thread on that topic and well discuss it. That way we can move through your disagreements one by one.
     
  7. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Hi, that is the response I figured I would get. Yes, I believe the King James is the preserved Word of God to us. Guess we just have to disagree.
     
  8. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Hi, well, I was baptised 26 years ago at the age of 14 in a Southern Baptist Church. And, going into an argument with the idea that one is 100% automatically right is not just a one way deal here. You guys think you are right, I think I am right. You know you are right, I know I am right. Whaddaya do, lol?
     
  9. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Well, one is right, the other is wrong. It makes no sense if he was trying to protect the angels when the men wanted to "know them", to use Smith's translation. He was offering his daughters in place of the angels. We have the preserved manuscripts from centuries of Christianity and you have someone changing it. I think I will stick with the commonly accepted manuscripts the authors of the King James used.
     
  10. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,923
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    By the way -- and you may already know this -- we, too, use the KJV.
     
  11. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Yeah, could be taken either way I guess, thing is, I just don't think the Bible needed 'retranslating'. We have a very good body of manuscripts, for example, the textus receptus, or received text.
     
  12. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,923
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    What we actually have is copies of copies of copies of copies, and not one single solitary original manuscript.
     
  13. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Right, and there is a large body of copies that agree with each other. These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, was taken. They are the majority of Greek manuscripts that agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible-believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.
     
  14. nutshell

    nutshell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7,140
    Ratings:
    +672
    How do you reconcile that these "preserved manuscripts" portray Lot as offering sex with his daughters as a means to appease the men of Sodom and protect the angels???
     
  15. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,923
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Hey, I have no argument with you on that. But nothing changes the fact that we don't have the original manuscripts. What part of that don't you get? And what about all of the other translations out there? By what reasoning do you conclude that they are translated incorrectly and the KJV is letter-perfect? On second thought, I'm not even sure what your beef really is, since we use the KJV ourselves. Why are Joseph Smith's footnotes really that big of a deal to you?
     
  16. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,260
    Ratings:
    +639
    About the JST bible. First off, most of it isn't cannonized. The RLDS church has cannonoized it, but (I have been told) since it was out of the control of the LDS church for so many years they just added it as footnotes. When members of the LDS church quote scripture, they almost always use the KJV of the bible. If the JST is even brought up it is more of an interesting side note. Only one book from the JST has been cannonized, and that it Joseph Smith-Matthew, which is found in the Pearl of Great Price.

    One thing that is important when it comes to the JST is that it is the inspired translation of the Bible. Joseph Smith didn't need to know Hebrew and Greek because he wasn't translating from any manuscripts. I see his translation as an inspiried clarification of some confusing scriptures.

    As for the Bible, do you really believe that Moses was there when Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden? I don't. How did Moses know what to write about then...someone obviously told him the story. It was passed down, either verbally or through writing. I guess its even possible that Moses learned of the story through revelation or inspiration - or that Moses didn't write it at all! Whatever the case, most of the Biblical writings are second hand. The people who were wrote them were not there any more than Joseph Smith was there. I see it perfectly plausible that mistakes were made, and I see the JST as an act of a loving God. God didn't put the Bible together, but since it was the core book of so many faiths, he certainly wanted to have a part in clarifying what was in it.

    I will always put God above the Bible. The bible is a very important book, but in the end its still a book. God is much more.
     
  17. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    See, though, I actually look at your arguments, and figure out why they are wrong. I don't just say, "Oh, well! I guess that's that!" That indicates stuff is going in one ear and out the other. If you would actually look at our arguments, and try to tell us why we are wrong, after we tell you why we think we are right, we might get a much better discussion going. Maybe when we point out that there are so many things in the Bible that appear to be mistranslations, and that therefore the KJV isn't the preserved word of God, you could offer a bit more of an argument instead of just "Well, it is because I say it is, and I know I'm right." If it's just one side giving evidence, that's not much of a discussion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,659
    I know this is Discuss individual religions, but I wish to pop in, direct some Love at the Mormons, and go!:D


    This thread title is most inviting......
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. NoName

    NoName Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    167
    Ratings:
    +28
    Amen, Brother! Joe, I'm not a mormon. I will probably never be a mormon. That doesn't mean I can't actually listen to their arguments, and figure out why they're wrong. Nobody will ever respect a debater who throws lies around, and then doesn't bother to look at the evidence the other side is sporting. Be a man. Do a little research into your own beliefs, and then find out why you're right.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Hi, what I am saying, is that when the men came and asked Lot to hand over the angels, that they may 'know' them, Lot offered his daughters in their place. The KJV makes sense in the context of what is taking place, the other does not. Lot was just a man, he chose the more fertile fields near Soddom, his daughters got him drunk twice and slept with him. He was trying to protect the angels, you will have to ask him why he thought to offer his daughters in their place, I guess. Either way, one translation is telling the truth of what he said, the other is not. My translation fits with the story, yours does not, at least to me. Its like if a robber came up and said give me your wallet and you said could you take my car instead, that makes sense. To say please dont take my wallet but you may not take my car, doesn't make sense with the context. At least that is how I see it.

    Sincerely,

    Joeboonda
     
Loading...