re: Inspiration of Triple

[prisonchaplain]

This question comes as an offshoot of recent strings about the inspiration "God-breathed" nature of the Bible. There seemed to be general agreement that the original manuscripts of the Bible were inspired. The questions arose concerning later manuscripts, and then of translations.

So, I thought, what about the Triple? It was translated by Joseph Smith. However, since the teaching is that his work was inspired by the Holy Ghost, his original translations would be considered inspired. I understand, and do not believe the Church denies, that many changes (probably all minor and stylistic) have been made, for example, to the BoM.

My question then, what is the LDS understanding of inspiration of Scriptures? And, are the translations of the Triple into other languages considered 100% reliably inspired, or "as far as they are translated correctly."

Before posting this inquiry, I hoped to gain some insight from official sources. This is what I found:

Scriptures

[annewandering]

The only time any of them are going to be perfect is if God Himself did the translating. Inspiration can do a good job but even divine can have mans typos. ^^

[Dravin]

The caveat applies. Honestly, if you took the Triple and subjected it's books to the same processes and time that the Bible did I'd expect similar results. In the context of lost scripture* we are missing the entire 'Book of Lehi', 116 pages of modern scripture was lost during the course of Joseph Smith translating of the Book of Mormon. So clearly the Book of Mormon wasn't incapable of having an error of transmission if you would. It was foreseen and re-translation was forbidden but we can see in the incident how even if inspired scripture can be lost and tampered with (in the case of the plans of those who stole the manuscript). Considering we see something like this happening with our own modern scripture it's not much of a stretch to accept it could happen to ancient scripture, particularly when it's not a Prophet of God in charge but unauthorized, even if well meaning, persons?

*That we don't consider translation to be strictly a matter of conversion of the Bible from one language to another has been covered in threads leading up to this one.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Dravin

[prisonchaplain]

I was thinking more of translating the BoM into Spanish or Chinese, etc.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I'm starting to subscribe to the school of thought that the BoM, for example, was not a direct translation from one language to another. It was "19th century revelation" that was triggered by the plates. Same with the papyri. There are documented problems with its translation based on the experts in languages. So, if you want to believe it is inspired, it was a trigger for inspiring thoughts rather than a direct translation from one language to another.

I find the whole thing a lot easier to believe when I look at it this way -- rather than a literal translation from one language to another. This explains various errors and such, and means everything doesnt' have to be a literal translation.

I was reading "Mormon America" recently, a book by non-members that is fairly balanced in its view, not colored by a desire to be faith-promoting, but to be accurate in representing several views simultaneously based on facts available. This was one interpretation given even by some LDS folks.

Some will pull out the dichotomy that it's either completely true as a literal translation, or it's middle ground, and that anything in between is hokus. Fine, you can believe that, but I now consider that to be an alluring false dichotomy. Just as I do the comment that "if you're not for us, you're against us".

[Spartan117]

If there ever was an error found in a language translation, they would be able to verify and correct it by comparing it to the source.

[prisonchaplain]

Spartan...thank you for that direct and simple solution. One of the aspects of Islam I raise an eyebrow about is the requirement for those who really want to understand the Quran to learn Arabic. Translations are not considered to be scripture. While I understand that the oroignal document, whether religious or not, is always more exact than a translation, I struggle with the idea that a universal God would require his followers to learn another language just to understand him.

[Just_A_Guy]

My question then, what is the LDS understanding of inspiration of Scriptures? And, are the translations of the Triple into other languages considered 100% reliably inspired, or "as far as they are translated correctly."

I think the truth is some sort of middle ground, PC. The Church doesn't view either the English or foreign translations of the BoM as inviolate--you've probably heard about some of the changes in the 1981 edition; and the Church has in the past replaced older foreign translations of the Book of Mormon with newer versions. (The English version is particularly complicated because there were differences between the original (of which we only have part) versus the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon; Joseph Smith then offered a corrected edition based on the printer's manuscript in 1837 and another edition based at least partially on the original manuscript in 1840.)

On the other hand, because we fundamentally believe that we have divine authority and that our leadership (and, hopefully, those they appoint to do the translation work) has a "direct line" with the ultimate Author of the scriptures; I think we tend to place more confidence in the official Church translations than we would in--say--a group of (to us) anonymous translators hired by King James, or linguistic experts at a largely secular institution.

[prisonchaplain]

JAG...you make sense. Most of our more modern translations were created by an open committee of scholars, most from a variety of church-sponsored or endorsed universities. The NIV, for example, had Catholic, mainstream, evangelical, and pentecostal scholars on the committee.

While they do not have the level of authority and an LDS-published translation would for LDS, we can "trust but verify."

[Spartan117]

Spartan...thank you for that direct and simple solution. One of the aspects of Islam I raise an eyebrow about is the requirement for those who really want to understand the Quran to learn Arabic. Translations are not considered to be scripture. While I understand that the oroignal document, whether religious or not, is always more exact than a translation, I struggle with the idea that a universal God would require his followers to learn another language just to understand him.

I completely agree. My very first Sunday School class at an LDS Church was about the millennium. The first thing the teacher touched upon was that all righteous people, LDS or not, who are abiding a terrestrial law will make it through the Second Coming and into the millennium. Membership in ANY church was not a free pass. I loved that. I can't think of too many churches that have that belief. Usually it is the exact opposite, that if you aren't a member of that church you are usually going to hell. The LDS Church makes bold claims for sure. But I can't think of any other church that makes the claim of "one true church" AND says you won't burn in hell if you don't join. You aren't damned if you never had a "proper" baptism into THE church, babies aren't damned if they die before a "proper" baptism, and you don't have to learn a ridiculously hard language. And, you will get to personally take part in your ancestors ordinances, everyone will have the opportunity to hear about the gospel, in this life or the next. It's like no child left behind. Without the uselessness.

[prisonchaplain]

I completely agree. My very first Sunday School class at an LDS Church was about the millennium. The first thing the teacher touched upon was that all righteous people, LDS or not, who are abiding a terrestrial law will make it through the Second Coming and into the millennium. Membership in ANY church was not a free pass. I loved that. I can't think of too many churches that have that belief. Usually it is the exact opposite, that if you aren't a member of that church you are usually going to hell.

Your thought about other churches was mostly true up to about 50 years ago. Today, beliefs have changed. The Catholic Church now sees great potential for non-Catholic churches, and even some hope for non-Christians.

Can non-Catholics be saved, according to the Roman Catholic Church?

[Justice]

I recently (before any of the recent Bible threads) read a long (very) critical text analysis of all Book of Mormon texts and releases. We have some of the original manuscript, and we have nearly all of the printer's manuscript. We also have all versions where changes were made to the text. It would surprise most members to learn how many changes have been made.

By far, the vast majority of changes happened when they hand copies the original to create a printer's copy, and the mistakes made it type-setting. Preparing the Book of Mormon for printing (both together) resulted in a huge amount of textual errors.

One thing I found interesting is this critical text analysis found patterns in expression. In one area, there was a place where Joseph Smith changed a passage to what he felt was more accurate, but by so doing, broke the pattern of language found for that phrase.

What did I get from reading it?

An even firmer testimony that it was produced in the manner Joseph SMith said it was. They found an incredible amount of Hebrew literary styles and phrases.

FAIR Topical Guide: Changes in the Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon/Textual changes - FAIRMormon

Book of Mormon Critical Text Project Completes Text Analysis - Insights - Volume 29 - Issue 3

Someone else had a link to the entire presentation of a critical text analysis of the Book of Mormon... would love if you would link it in this thread.

[Wingnut]

So, I thought, what about the Triple? It was translated by Joseph Smith.

To clarify, the "triple" consists of the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The first and parts of the third were translated by Joseph Smith. Other parts of the third and all of the second were received through direct revelation and recorded later.

My question then, what is the LDS understanding of inspiration of Scriptures? And, are the translations of the Triple into other languages considered 100% reliably inspired, or "as far as they are translated correctly."

Anecdotally speaking, I have a friend who served in the Durban, South Africa mission almost 10 years ago. The native language of many of the people she taught was Zulu. It was the only language many of them could read. Yet the Book of Mormon was not available in Zulu. A few selections were: Moroni 10, and 3 Nephi 11. The copies of the Book of Mormon that she distributed as a missionary were all in English. I asked her why the Church didn't have a Zulu version available; obviously there was a significant Church presence in South Africa: there's been a temple in that country since 1985. She explained that the language was incomplete, and could not render an accurate translation, or at least that translators hadn't yet figured one out. Rather than corrupt the messages in the Book of Mormon, only minute portions were translated for distribution, and the purer original text used for the rest.

[mordorbund]

I think Justice's point about having modern prophets to providing "translations" for us is a valid one. A If you take a look at literary classics that get translated to English, you'll see that translations are updated regularly. The reason is because 1) our perspective of the language changes based on what we learn about the culture, and 2) because our culture changes so our language has a changed meaning. This means that even a work in English will need to be "translated" after a couple of hundred years when the meaning changes or becomes obscured (Shakespeare anyone?).

We see this in D&C 89. We are prohibited from "hot drinks", which could lead to a world of trouble in figuring out who is living the Word of Wisdom. Fortunately, modern prophets have clarified what this means for us. Some other phrases have not been "translated" so clearly for us.

[Guest pestmall]

Bed bugs

controlling and extermination. we provide a list of do it yourself bed bug control pesticides treatments to kill. Get rid of bed bugs is to just use pesticides that are especially intended to be used on your mattress.

[Spartan117]

The Catholic Church now sees great potential for non-Catholic churches, and even some hope for non-Christians.

"Potential salvation" as talked about in the link you posted is far and away from them now being "inclusive" to non-Christians. My problem with their use of "non-Christian" to describe Jews and Muslims, is their definition also includes us.

Response on the validity of baptism conferred by «mormons»

RESPONSE TO A 'DUBIUM'

on the validity of baptism conferred by

«The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints»,

called «Mormons»

Question: Wheter the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.

From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.

+ Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER

Prefect

+ Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.

Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli

Secretary

What they mean by "invalid" is ...

THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM CONFERRED IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER

it is clear that the Baptism of Mormons cannot be considered valid; since it is not Christian Baptism, the minister cannot have the intention of doing what the Catholic does.

Why is a baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints NOT Christian?

there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

The measuring stick of mainstream Christendom, the Trinity. It can't be explained, it can't be justified, it was never taught by Christ, it was never taught by the Apostles, it is not in the scriptures, but it is the sign of "true Christianity" first and before anything else.

We believe in the divinity of Christ, He is God and we would fall at His feet to kiss His sandal and worship Him- irrelevant.

We believe Christ lived a perfect sinless life- irrelevant.

We believe "that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ" and that mankind's salvation is indeed through Him alone-irrelevant.

We believe Christ is "the Holy One of Israel"who was told of in the Old Testament- irrelevant.

The priority of mainstream Christianity has no concern for any of the things I listed above, it's that we accept the findings of ecumenical councils first and before anything else. Councils where ideas are submitted, debated, and voted upon. Which ever theory doesn't get voted out is the winner. (Just like on Survivor) It is the findings of these councils of men (where doctrine doesn't come from revelation or even scripture, but from popular vote) that the foundations of "true Christianity" are set. The creeds become the standard, even before biblical teachings.

Another standard for "true Christianity" seems to be keeping "Jesus Christ" out of the name of the church and preferring the name be (usually) after the person who started the church. Which oddly is never Jesus Christ. For example, calling yourself a Lutheran, after the teachings of Martin Luther, is qualification enough to be accepted into the mainstream Christian club. Calvinism, Arminianism, all fine. I mean, nothing like that ever happened before.

But "Church of Jesus Christ" and we worship Joseph Smith? We're the cult? If he had called the Book of Mormon the Book of Joseph Smith instead, and we called ourselves "Smithsonians" we would be more in line with orthodox Christianity than we are now. Prophetic succession, you're a cult. Baptist succession, you're a church. A Christian Church.

I'm not trying to prove validity for one belief or another here. There are tons of threads that already cover the doctrinal stuff. I'm not trying to drag the same argument from thread to thread. I'm trying to point out the double standard that is applied to Mormons. Especially in contrast to the Catholic Church. I like the way that article presents everything. It doesn't dress this ugly thing up in an expensive suit and parade it around as something it isn't:

Protestant denominations and the Anglican Communion would presumably fall under the category of "heretics and schismatics." Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, etc would presumably be considered "Pagans."

And a Mormon baptism isn't a Christian baptism. The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints both make claim to divine authority. The Catholic Church is just more popular with over a billion members. Which I submit is another contradiction to the Christianity chronicled in the Bible.

"Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation."

Catechism trumps scripture. Creeds replace revelation. Mormons will never be accepted into mainstream Christianity, prophets, apostles, angels, visions, we're much too biblical.

[rameumptom]

Given how each language has deficiencies in meaning, etc., I doubt even God could perfectly translate the writings of the scriptures into all languages. Languages are created by imperfect people, and therefore would of necessity create a barrier for God to use them perfectly, unless he changed the language first.

Paul admitted that we "see through a glass, darkly" and the writers in the Book of Mormon often tell us of their weakness in writing. One even states that Reformed Egyptian is not as precise a language as Hebrew, but even then the Hebrew language had changed over the centuries from its original form, and so could not be perfectly duplicated!

This is the exact reason why Peter tells us that the scriptures are not for personal interpretation, but to be used with the guidance of prophets who are inspired by the Spirit of God.

That all said, it is remarkable how much quality of knowledge we still can gain from all the scriptures, regardless of the language it is translated into. And that is especially true when we follow the Spirit of God.

[Vort]

Given how each language has deficiencies in meaning, etc., I doubt even God could perfectly translate the writings of the scriptures into all languages. Languages are created by imperfect people, and therefore would of necessity create a barrier for God to use them perfectly, unless he changed the language first.

I agree, but I would suggest the deficiency is not really in the language. Rather, it is in the very nature of communication using flexible tokens (e.g. the spoken word). Multiple meanings are not merely desirable; they are irreplaceable. This leads to linguistic usage that plays off the multiple meanings, resulting in inherently ambiguous statements. It is unavoidable.

The only solution is to have a guide that tells you when your interpretation is correct, much like Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon translation experience. Thus, the primacy of the gift of the Holy Ghost and the reason we receive this gift immediately upon baptism into the Church.

[Traveler]

This question comes as an offshoot of recent strings about the inspiration "God-breathed" nature of the Bible. There seemed to be general agreement that the original manuscripts of the Bible were inspired. The questions arose concerning later manuscripts, and then of translations.

So, I thought, what about the Triple? It was translated by Joseph Smith. However, since the teaching is that his work was inspired by the Holy Ghost, his original translations would be considered inspired. I understand, and do not believe the Church denies, that many changes (probably all minor and stylistic) have been made, for example, to the BoM.

My question then, what is the LDS understanding of inspiration of Scriptures? And, are the translations of the Triple into other languages considered 100% reliably inspired, or "as far as they are translated correctly."

Before posting this inquiry, I hoped to gain some insight from official sources. This is what I found:

Scriptures

I believe that most understand that the study of scripture is not an absolute prerequisite of salvation and eternal life. I think we can agree that illiterate individuals can be saved. As inspiring as any or all perfectly preserved scriptures since the dawn of time can be - they are not nor should scripture be considered the source of enlightenment and salvation.

I believe scriptures are one of the means by which we can learn of and be inspired concerning divine things but the scriptures are 100% absolutely worthless to that soul that does not repent (including the forgiving of others) and look unto Christ for salvation. It is by the grace of G-d through Christ that any possibility of salvation comes to man.

I find it rhetorically flawed to claim that salvation comes by grace only and then to purport that scripture can validate or inspire a soul any more than works. For myself, I find this seemingly contradiction between works and scripture quite interesting in the arena of competing religious ideologies. I find no hint that man will be judged based on knowledge or even inspiration obtained from scripture. But I do find indications that man will be judged on what knowledge and inspiration was obtained from works. We are also counseled not to seek out teachers based on their knowledge of scripture but rather by their works (fruits). But what I find most troubling in the argument of scripture importance is that Satan has access to all scripture in original which he is happy to use in his temptations and intended damnation of man.

It is evident to me (from scripture and other experiences) that there is an evil counter temptation that whenever G-d provides something helpful to mankind that the particular something is tempted to become the object of trust rather than G-d. For me this is obviously most evident in those that purport scripture as being infallible - “G-d breathed” - thus their object of trust (trust being a form or type of worship). Often when I encounter someone that seems to trust scripture as they would G-d; I rhetorically argue the true principle that all scripture is textually flawed - especially the BIBLE!!!

This, I believe does two things. First it will immediately identify someone (LDS or otherwise) that worships scriptures rather than G-d because they will ignore obvious textual flaws either pretending such flaws do not exist or that such flaws cannot contribute to the intellectual spiritual confusion that is so abundant in religion today. And second a true seeker of truth - that is unafraid of truth - there can follow a meaningful discussion valuable to both of us. In other words I argue that scripture text are flawed to identify someone that worships scripture as their G-d and is not interested in the true living G-d.

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

This question comes as an offshoot of recent strings about the inspiration "God-breathed" nature of the Bible. There seemed to be general agreement that the original manuscripts of the Bible were inspired. The questions arose concerning later manuscripts, and then of translations.

So, I thought, what about the Triple? It was translated by Joseph Smith. However, since the teaching is that his work was inspired by the Holy Ghost, his original translations would be considered inspired. I understand, and do not believe the Church denies, that many changes (probably all minor and stylistic) have been made, for example, to the BoM.

My question then, what is the LDS understanding of inspiration of Scriptures? And, are the translations of the Triple into other languages considered 100% reliably inspired, or "as far as they are translated correctly."

Before posting this inquiry, I hoped to gain some insight from official sources. This is what I found:

Scriptures

I'd lean toward "as they are translated correctly" for each of them, I think we have the best translation for the moment in the BoM itself to the english used... however both JS and the prophets that have made the records at several time admit their faults and admonish the reader to not take fault with whereever they come up short but to trust in Christ and hte spirit.

I came across a FAIR article that was interesting in showing how (later) portions of the BoM follow more closely mayan symbolisms rather than giving accurate technical data (such as numbers) however this deals more with the original authors than it does with JS's translation.

And even currently as we translate the BoM into other languages it can be quite difficult to render certain concepts to those languages.

... but even with all that, human error still creeps in at avarious points along the process, and those are always being corrected as we find them.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I was thinking more of translating the BoM into Spanish or Chinese, etc.

Isn't it possible too that there are deficiencies in language. There is a language that is perfect which is the language Adam spoke when speaking with God. Shy of that there are going to deficiencies or multiple ways of translating those words. English, for sure, is not a perfect language.

[bytebear]

English, for sure, is not a perfect language.

uh huh!

[Guest gopecon]

One strength of the BofM (and D&C) being translated into other (non-English) languages is that we are always able to go from original English translation to Spanish, Chinese, etc. We don't have the additional steps that the Biblical manucripts have gone through.

One thing that is important to note...While the BofM is considered the "most correct of any book on Earth", the original authors allowed for their human weakness to have shown through. While they testified of the truth of their work, they acknowledged that errors may be found and that their language was not a perfect medium for conveying what they wanted to.

[prisonchaplain]

"Potential salvation" as talked about in the link you posted is far and away from them now being "inclusive" to non-Christians. My problem with their use of "non-Christian" to describe Jews and Muslims, is their definition also includes us.

Keeping in mind that Catholics do not believe in multiple heavens, but in only one--and yet they see salvation as available to non-Catholics. It may be irksome that they refuse to label you Christians, but I frankly am more concerned that they see salvation as available to deniars of Christ. Nevertheless, the openness they now express towards us is a huge change from the pre-Vatican II stance. I choose to highlight the progress...I'm pleased that they now see me as a "separated brother" rather than a hellbound PROTEST-ant (i.e. anti-Catholic).

I see your love for Christ, and that your beliefs and practices share many similarities with traditional churches. Yet, your doctrines vary signficantly. When you run into Catholics you can choose to berate the "non-Christian" label, or to converse in that area of openness.

Likewise, some LDS encourage me by saying the fully suspect that I'll at least enter the terrestial kingdom, and that it's not impossible I may yet enter the CK. They further offer that some LDS will not be found worthy to enter the CK.

I can focus on the scare quotes from past leaders, "All the churches are wrong, their doctrines are abominations..." OR, I can take hope in the openness...

Perhaps this is the cliched case of a glass half-empty/full?

[prisonchaplain]

This, I believe does two things. First it will immediately identify someone (LDS or otherwise) that worships scriptures rather than G-d because they will ignore obvious textual flaws either pretending such flaws do not exist or that such flaws cannot contribute to the intellectual spiritual confusion that is so abundant in religion today. And second a true seeker of truth - that is unafraid of truth - there can follow a meaningful discussion valuable to both of us. In other words I argue that scripture text are flawed to identify someone that worships scripture as their G-d and is not interested in the true living G-d.

The Traveler

I frankly find this post bizarre. Yet, I know that more than a few LDS suspect Protestants, in particular, of "Bibolatry." The Bible is God's word. It tells us what God says. So we study it. We memorize it. We believe that God inspired the writers, and that He will inspire our understanding of it. As the Psalmist says, the Word will be a light to our path...why?...so we may not sin against God.

To twist our devotion to God's word into some kind of idolatrous worship is just wierd to me. We do not bow before the Bible. We do not pray to it. Frankly, we do not even treat the physical book with much particular reverence. Instead, we follow in King David's tradition (Psalm 119), and we learn it, we pray for God to reveal it to us, to teach us from it. We delight in it, because it shows us the way God wants us to walk.

Most decisions we need to make in life can be informed by the words of the Bible. As an example, a young man asked his pastor to pray with him about a girl he liked. The pastor, knowing the situation, says, "Is she a believer in Christ." He says, "Well, not yet." The pastor responds, "Then, there is no need to pray. The Word is clear. You must not be unequally yoked." This young man responded, "So..You...a supposed man of God, will not pray with me!!!"

Prayer can deceive as easily as the Word, if we are pridefully bent on our own path. I suppose prayer itself could become a tool of idolatry and false worship. However, it would be bizarre for me to accuse anyone of "Prayerolatry."