urloony

and...?

Your comment is somewhat ironic, considering the point of the BoM and the restoration is because the doctrines and priniples of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are NOT intact regardless of which translation of the Bible one uses.

I have to say I don't see the KJV as a roadblock. My eight year old does fine reading the KJV. We have to remember that there is no limitation policy, doctrinally, or otherwise that prevents anyone from reading or studying from other versions. I came from an NIV background in my Congregational church, I found transitioning to the KJV a non-issue. If it was hard for someone else, give them an NIV. Remember though, converts first read the BoM which is written in old English like the KJV, so in essence you may want to shift your argument to an "easy-read BoM." That, by your logic, may be a bigger roadblock.

Growing up protestant, I can say that there is far more emphasis on reading scriptures as a Latter-Day Saint than there ever was for me when I was younger. I think it would be a comparatively interesting statistic.

Judging by the size of President Monson's "mansion," I think you may be onto something! I live in CT, I would love to have a Deseret book around here. Instead the best we have is the local Christian Bookstore where I can buy copies of "Kingdom of the Cults," and pamphlets on "why my religion is right and yours is wrong."

I suppose that is the question. What did the OT prophets have in mind regarding the nature of God. The argument that Heiser is making is not that God is unique, as in the only God in existence, but rather He and His power are incomparable to the other gods. It's an argument of incomparability rather than nonexistence.

I would disagree. Covenants are certainly important, but if you do not understand the nature of the being with whom you are covenanting with, the covenant would seem to me to be disingenuous.

Great points. You can also find a complete online edition of the JST here

Hey Mak, thanks for commenting. Do you have any insight to Heiser's personal beliefs? I am guessing that he professes traditional Trinitarian Christianity, but I'm wondering if he considers himself monotheistic in terms of the modern definition or by the definition he ascribes to ancient Israel. He also talks about the "species-uniqueness" of Yahweh, what is your view on that with regard to LDS belief?

I understand where you are coming from. But using that logic wouldn't one be best off simply using the JST in it's most complete form as published by the RLDS and bypass the KJV altogether? Translators do not base their translation on other versions of the Bible. Translations are based upon early Hebrew and Greek fragments and manuscript. The JST isn't based on either the KJV or early manuscript. The changes made are revelatory in nature more like the BoMoses. One could argue that studying the scriptures with a BoM a JST and the NIV would be just as valid as using a KJV with footnotes. Honestly, using the full JST instead of the KJV may be better as our version of the KJV does not contain the complete JST, just small selections.

Correct this is the view modern Jews and mainstream Christianity for that matter. What Hieser is suggesting is that that was not the case of ancient Israel. In other words when we read “there is none else” is a reference to comparability not nonexistence. I don’t think that Mormons will ever fit the description of monotheist by either definition. However, what we believe is closer to that of how ancient Israel worshipped Yahweh and recognized him as part of a grand council than mainstream Judaism or Christianity today. The context for this is Psalm 82. Polytheism certainly promotes negative connotations of Greek and Roman gods, however it is probably the closest. There is an good argument toward Monolatrism to which I tend to lean. Some have suggested Henatheism which is an incorrect assessment in my opinion. Both of these however are forms of Polytheism. Theism may be too general a term for many, but it certainly applies to Latter-Day Saints.

Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah" - FAIRMormon Critics often target textual changes and other variants made to the BoM (while ignoring those in the Bible incidentally) many of which are significant when compared to the 1830 edition. Royal Skousen has done amazing work in this area if you are interested comparing various BoM publications to the small portion of original BoM manuscript and near complete Printer’s manuscript. Changes in the Book of Mormon

This is a good point. Any restoration is not necessarily limited to the text. More to the point I was making however is that the JST goes far beyond simply correcting one particular version of the Bible namely the KJV. This would also apply to portions of the BoM also changed by JS such as K. Benjamin to Mosiah among others.

LDS Christians are often accused of defining terms differently than non-LDS Christians and in such cases are often accused of being deceptive. There are many examples of this but one I found interesting is the term Monotheism. Non-LDS Christians will claim Monotheism does not accurately describe the belief system of Latter-Day Saints with regard to the Godhead, and they are right in terms of how Monotheism is defined today. Monotheism, by its modern definition, is the belief that only one God will ever or has ever existed. This is not what Mormons believe. How would ancient Israel have defined the term monotheism? Dr. Heiser is a Hebrew scholar and academic editor for Logos Bible Software and a Christian. He has written many papers and books on the subject of monotheism in ancient Israel. In a paper titled “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” he explains that ancient Israel while worshiping only one God, Yahweh, did not disregard the fact that other deities existed. Furthermore, the existence of other elohim cannot always be defined as idols or human, but in fact other deities that were as real as Yahweh to the OT authors.

I think the bigger problem for TBM's is this concept that all other translations besides the KJV are somehow lesser or corrupt translations. That is a far more slippery slope imo. Don't let tradition become doctrine.