Uncomfortable Doctrine

[Justice]

Originally Posted by xanmad33

Why does the Mormon church NOT place the same disclaimer on the BOM?

The Book of Mormon has only gone through 1 language translation, and that was done by the gift and power of God. The Angel told Joseph Smith that the translation was true.

Joseph Smith was inspired when he translated the Book of Mormon, I'm very hesitant to say the same of everyone who has contributed to the Bible being translated into English.

[xanmad33]

Originally Posted by Justice

The Book of Mormon has only gone through 1 language translation, and that was done by the gift and power of God. The Angel told Joseph Smith that the translation was true.

Joseph Smith was inspired when he translated the Book of Mormon, I'm very hesitant to say the same of everyone who has contributed to the Bible being translated into English.

Funny.... You have trouble believing thousands of pieces of evidence that attest to the accuracy of the Bible, even from MORMON scholars...

How about some evidence from MORMON scholars attesting to the inaccuracy of the BOM?

in regard to what book is more trustworthy I found this interesting article:
Since the Book of Mormon is claimed to be the Word of God, and Joseph Smith stated, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on the face of the earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p.461), the implication is that this work is perfect in form and content.

This has also been the understanding of LDS Church authorities during the last 150 years. Joseph Fielding Smith, sixth President of the Church, stated in a sermon:

"Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God...The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another would appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual." (Journal of Oliver Huntington, 1881, p. 168)

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth President of the Church, has likewise stated:

"Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit, but each new revelation an doctrine and priesthood fitted into its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it has been prepared by the Master Builder." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol. I, p.170)

It would seem reasonable to assume, in light of such teachings by Church authorities, that current editions of the Book of Mormon would be identical to the 1830 edition, particularly since God made the translation.

The following are a few examples of such corrected errors:

1. "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents." (p.15) grammar

2. "...and loosed the bands which was upon my wrists." (p.49) grammar

3. "As I was a journeying." (p.249) - grammar

4. "...they had began to possess the land of Amulon, and had began to till the ground." (p.204) -- grammar

It is difficult to understand how a translation, superintended by the power of God, could contain such basic errors. It also cannot be said that these errors crept in through poor proof-reading or type-setting. Noted Mormon historian, Francis Kirkham, had this to say when considering the vast majority of changes in the original text:

"Such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the 'typos,' or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character, they are of the web and woof of the style and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition of the Book of Mormon is singularly free from typographical errors." (Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, The Book of Mormon, 1942, pp.200-201)

"Far more serious and troublesome are the substantive errors; those that have been corrected which were found to be in conflict with Mormon doctrine. The following are two illustrations.

In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, on page 32, it reads, "And the angel spake unto me, saying: 'These last records...shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the World; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 13:40 in modern editions. Then on page 25 of the 1830 edition it reads, "And he said unto me, 'Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh...' And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me, 'behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 11: 18-21. The problem in these sections, and two others, is that Jesus is said to be the Eternal Father, contrary to current Mormon teaching. In later editions, "the Son of God" has been inserted before "the Eternal Father."


Then I came across these remarks made by Dr. Dee Green, Mormon scientist and former editor of U.A.S. Newsletter. In the journal, Dialogue, he states in regard to no archaeological evidence supporting the BOM:

"There have been no spectacular finds, no Zarahemlas discovered, no gold plates brought to light, no horses uncovered, and King Benjamin's tomb remains unexcavated...

The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that book of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty handed." (Dialogue, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)"




Why would there be a need to change such dramatic doctrines?
like : "the Son of God" has been inserted before "the Eternal Father? Thats not just "gramatical"

[a-train]

Upon Saul's vision, 'the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.' (Acts 9:7). However, when Paul recounted that event he said: 'And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.' (Acts 22:9)

Wait a minute Paul, did they hear the voice or not? What did they see?

The Prophet Joseph clarified Acts 9:7: 'And they who were journeying with him saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him who spake to him.' (JST Acts 9:7)

Upon the covenant of Israel in the wilderness with Moses: 'They saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.' (Exodus 24:10-11)

John 1:18 says: 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.'

Joseph Smith clarified: 'No man hath seen God at any time except he hath borne record of the Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.' (JST John 1:18)

-a-train

[Still_Small_Voice]

Originally Posted by xanmad33

Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU, stated:

"In studying a particular author in antiquity, the classical scholar typically works with a few principal manuscripts, together with a few more extensive fragments or portions of manuscripts. The New Testament scholar, however, faces the wonderful but impossible prospect of attempting to comprehend a text preserved in about 3,000 manuscripts...Nor is sheer quantity most impressive, for the antiquity of his manuscripts should be the envy of all ancient studies...With such an early collection, the question naturally arises how the text is different from the traditional one. Differences lie in numerous details, but the outstanding conclusion is that there is little, if any, significant change"

I will definitely agree with you here. There is very little wrong with the New Testament. It is the Old Testament that has been tampered with and had many plain prophecies of Jesus Christ removed from it (though there are still many witnesses of Jesus Christ in it).

I find it interesting that some point out that there are changes and errors in the Book of Mormon. I have read thru these changes. None of them are of consequence.

If one examines the text of the Book of Mormon they will find it to be a powerful witness for the Bible. Both of these books of scripture help us to gain a greater understanding of God and His marvelous plan for His children.

We obviously disagree on many points. I fear this thread is becoming unfruitful in lifting up Christ. You read the Bible from a different perspective than we do. This is why there are hundreds of different Christian denominations in the world. It is obvious more is needed than just the record of ancient prophets left for us.

[xanmad33]

Originally Posted by a-train

Upon Saul's vision, 'the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.' (Acts 9:7). However, when Paul recounted that event he said: 'And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.' (Acts 22:9)

Wait a minute Paul, did they hear the voice or not? What did they see?

Let us look further...
. . "In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together, we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it inteligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen--accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: "I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me," NAS. But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case. "
-- Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer, p. 382.

Upon the covenant of Israel in the wilderness with Moses: 'They saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.' (Exodus 24:10-11)

if we look in the Septuagint version we read the following:

"And they saw the place where the God of Israel stood."

John 1:18 says: 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.'

Joseph Smith clarified: 'No man hath seen God at any time except he hath borne record of the Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.' (JST John 1:18)

-a-train

God cannot be seen by men when in his full glory, that is Biblical no need for Josephs clarification. God can be seen when in lesser form...

[xanmad33]

Originally Posted by Still_Small_Voice

This is why there are hundreds of different Christian denominations in the world. It is obvious more is needed than just the record of ancient prophets left for us.

If this is truly the case...That we "need more" because of hundreds of different denominations, How do you explain the hundreds of different denominations of Mormonism?

All the new revelation from LDS has done nothing to ammend the situation.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by xanmad33

A complaint is an expression of displeasure. Not an expression of opinion

Silly word games are pointless. Your complaint is that you think The Church of Jesus Christ is false.

And to your "newsflash" , I pointed out earlier a very real fact that seems ignored
Do Mormons consider Christians Mormon? Can I attend Temple? Can my pastor speak at your church? No!.... LDS rejects Christianity as wrong (doctrinally speaking) just as Christianity rejects LDS as doctrinally unsound.
That's just a fact

Honesty is important and you are now being dishonest. LDS does not reject Christianity. That is a false allegation. A true Christian would not dishonestly fabricate charges. The Church of Jesus Christ is Christian and we obviously don't reject ourselves. We do not believe that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are correct on all points and thus reject some of their beliefs and their claims to authority.

I call upon you as a Christian to be honest in your posts.

Regardless of "what you think" Its a fact.

A fact I bet you can't prove. You may have posted on the topic but you haven't covered any irreconcilable differences with the Bible as their are none... only in your mind.

How bout you show me that in the Bible, maybe start a new thread, make it all about proving Mormon beliefs in the BIble, just a thought...

You apparently don't understand how it works. He who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof. You claimed that deification contradicted the Bible. Support your assertion. While you are at it, you might try explain why the doctrine was so pervasive in the ancient church ("God became man so that man might become a god." cf. St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B

Please don't tell me what I do or do not believe. Again the oneness of God is of paramount importance to a Christian, the "trinity" is a word used to describe the different designations for God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. Believe it or not, that is my belief

Read the post. No one told you what you believe. You failed to respond in any meaningful way and simply repeated what you said before. The point is/was that the Trinity is is more that a designation, it is the belief that Father, Son, Holy Ghost are one single ontological being comprised of the same ousia. I explained that, contrary to your incorrect claim, that such a notion was NOT found in the Bible and that you would help demonstrate that it was NOT in the Bible by not being able to post proof of it.

First, I would like to point out how hypocritical it is to claim to believe in the Bible and claim to hold it just as dearly as the BOM, believeing it's words are true, but at the same time to blast it as if it's a totally contaminated book, not worthy to live by...

You are using the word "hypocritical" incorrectly. Look it up. You are also falsely alleging that I blast the Bible as not worthy to live by. Remember what I said about honesty above? Please be honest. I have never said the Bible is not worthy to live by.

How about instead of me pointing out all the thousands of inconsistancies of the BOM, and rebuttaling with pages and pages of Biblical scholars on the subject, I just offer you a quote from one of your own...

"Mormon scholar, Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU:...

Interesting... but completely irrelevant to anything I have posted in this thread. Try focusing.

If you believe in the Bible, which you say you do, and it obviously came WAYYYYY before the BOM or D&C etc...
Why did God need to send another revelation to Joseph Smith that was so vastly different than the one already recieved in the Bible? Shouldn't you bring all claims BACK to the Bible to see if they are truly in sync with what God has already revealed?

God doesn't need to do anything. He does what he does for his purposes. Your approval is not required. You question is also a bad question. It presupposes that LDS beliefs are out of sync with the Bible. You really struggle with this whole honesty issue. An honest position would be that LDS beliefs are out of sync with YOUR interpretation of the Bible. So what.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by xanmad33

If this is truly the case...That we "need more" because of hundreds of different denominations, How do you explain the hundreds of different denominations of Mormonism?

All the new revelation from LDS has done nothing to ammend the situation.

This isn't rocket science. People, for their own reasons, disagree with others and so form their own sect. That's the history of what happens when people follow their own dictates instead of harkening unto the counsels of God's prophets.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by xanmad33

Let us look further...
. . "In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together, we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it inteligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen--accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: "I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me," NAS. But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case. "
-- Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer, p. 382.

So - you believe the Bible in so far as it is translated correctly.

Kinda makes your protestations about the LDS doing the same thing sound hollow, doesn't it.

[a-train]

Originally Posted by xanmad33

Let us look further...

So what you are telling me is that the KJV was not a perfect translation and we need to go back to the Greek and the Septuagint to increase accuracy. In other words, you believe the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly."

-a-train