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!

Featured The label “Mormon” Is Out

Discussion in 'Religious News' started by Skwim, Mar 5, 2019.

  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,220
    Ratings:
    +15,085
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I already did. The problem is with the term "Latter day saints". That may be your belief, it is not the belief of most Christians. They will not think of those people as saints, either of the more modern Catholic type or the type as used in the Bible. Expecting them to go against their beliefs is unreasonable.
     
  2. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,666
    Ratings:
    +5,546
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Is expecting them not to accept the original usage of the word "saints" unreasonable? I think it is.

    Acts 9:13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem...

    Acts 9:32 And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda.

    Romans 15:26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.

    Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus...

    Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons...

    Colossians 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

    1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.

    2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia...

    Every last one of these describes a congregation of believers in Jesus Christ. We are a congregation of believers in Jesus Christ. Anybody who says that the usage is inappropriate is quite simply full of it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,220
    Ratings:
    +15,085
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You do not seem to understand. They ARE accepting the original usage of the word "saints".
     
  4. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,666
    Ratings:
    +5,546
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Okay, then tell me how we do not qualify? Where are we falling short? What about us is different from the saints of biblical times?
     
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,220
    Ratings:
    +15,085
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The "latter day saints" of the Mormon church, such as Joseph Smith, would be looked on as false prophets by most Christians and not "saints" I know that you do not believe that to be the case. I am talking about what Christians of other sects would believe, not what people of your own sect believe. That is why other Christians are apt to refuse to use the term for your church.
     
  6. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,666
    Ratings:
    +5,546
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I don't think you really know what you're talking about, to be perfectly honest. People are generally quite willing to call us "The Church of the Latter-day Saints." It's the name of Jesus Christ that they leave out of our name.
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,220
    Ratings:
    +15,085
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That is because they do not understand the meaning of the term "saints". Those that do will likely not be so accommodating.
     
  8. Jane.Doe

    Jane.Doe Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +117
    Religion:
    Mormon Christian
    Pardon me, but I find it very strange when an atheist is critiquing a theist on how to be a theist.
     
  9. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,666
    Ratings:
    +5,546
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    So you're saying...
    And then you say...
    Sounds like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth to me.
     
  10. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,739
    Ratings:
    +2,812
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Goodness, how wordy and pedestrian!

    Why not refer to themselves as, say, the Zingers!™ ? Something with a bit of pop and zip to it?

    (It wouldn't hurt if they rewrote the Book of Mormon while they were there, too ─ it's one of the most gratuitously verbose texts anywhere.)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,290
    Ratings:
    +10,425
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Unfortunately, like most everyone who can't step away from their surroundings and see them as others do, Katzpur is left to judge those outside the Mormon community by his biased position. (I know this isn't any news to you, but felt it had to be said ;))


    If you carefully reread what Subduction Zone said it should be obvious he wasn't critiquing anyone how to be anything, but rather simply citing what they do, and presuming their reaction.

    .
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,734
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    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.
     
  13. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,734
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    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.
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,290
    Ratings:
    +10,425
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Why say in one word what can be said in eight? But it does stumble off the tongue, doesn't it.

    Mormons with a bit of pop and zip to it? More chance you'd find them lighting up in a Starbucks while reading Fifty Shades of Grey with vulgar music playing in the background.


    .
     
  15. Watchmen

    Watchmen Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,663
    Ratings:
    +638
    I find it strange that you think only a theist can critique another theist. And apparently you think it’s ok for you (a theist) to critique an atheist. It seems your position only goes one way.
     
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,220
    Ratings:
    +15,085
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  17. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,739
    Ratings:
    +2,812
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Yes, that too ─ good idea, freshen up the image.
     
  18. Prestor John

    Prestor John Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,182
    Ratings:
    +223
    Religion:
    Latter-Day Saint
    Even though the current President is making this issue a focus it has been discussed for decades.

    I don't understand why this should not change what non-members use to refer to members of the Church.
     
  19. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    2,202
    Ratings:
    +297
    Religion:
    None
    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.
     
  20. Prestor John

    Prestor John Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,182
    Ratings:
    +223
    Religion:
    Latter-Day Saint
    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.
     
Loading...