What would you say to someone...

[LDSCubsFan]

I read the history of Joseph Smith last night, as told in the triplex BOM/D&C/POGP book. It was the first time I had read the story since around the time of my baptism 12 years ago. Upon reading the part where JS says Moroni appeared to him three times during one night, and quoted verses of the Bible that were just a little different than as they appear in the Bible, something dawned on me. What would you say to a skeptic who claims that JS wrote the BOM, and the reason he made a point to say Moroni quoted the Bible a little different than how it is printed is to support JS's untruth that the BOM was necessary in part because messages in the Bible were lost in translation and/or to justify that the BOM portrays the gospel slightly different than the Bible?

Myself, I would answer the skeptic by saying that to believe JS had a vision is no more far-fetched than believing Moses or any of the other dozens of biblical characters had visions of angels. In fact, it even takes faith to believe in Christ.

I suspect many of my fellow Mormons will have reasons to refute skeptics based on personal testimony, such as personal feelings they received when praying about whether it was true. I personally have never had the burning in the bosom while reading any part of the BOM (or the Bible) or while praying whether or not it was true, although I experienced a burning in the bosom (or whatever it's called) while I was in the midst of investigating the LDS church with missionaries and this led me to get baptized.

[clevermoniker]

I think it all depends on the person asking the question. There are plenty of examples of mistranslations in the Bible, so this can be shown to be a fact. You can point to the things that were once in the bible but the Catholic church decided to have removed. The thing I've learned over the years is that arguing with them rarely does any good, and is often the only thing they are after.

Years ago when I was a teenager I worked for a Baptist pastor. He was regularly taking little jabs at the Church, any chance he got. An older woman who worked with us (who ironically was an excommunicated polygamist) confronted him on it one day and just asked him, "Have you read it? Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?". He, of course, said no. And this is a guy who learned Hebrew JUST so he could better understand the Bible. She told him that until he read it, she didn't want to hear another word about it because he had no right to comment on it.

That, in my opinion, is the best way to handle it. Ask them how they know the Bible to be true, and tell them that they can know the Book of Mormon to be true in exactly the same way.

[mordorbund]

What would you say to a skeptic who claims that JS wrote the BOM, and the reason he made a point to say Moroni quoted the Bible a little different than how it is printed is to support JS's untruth that the BOM was necessary in part because messages in the Bible were lost in translation and/or to justify that the BOM portrays the gospel slightly different than the Bible?

Myself, I would answer the skeptic by saying that to believe JS had a vision is no more far-fetched than believing Moses or any of the other dozens of biblical characters had visions of angels. In fact, it even takes faith to believe in Christ.

That's certainly one lesson to learn from the Moroni visit (that the Bible has been mistranslated), although I think if you wanted to drive that point home you'd be better served using the actual experience of obtaining the Joseph Smith Translation. The lesson I get from Moroni quoting the Malachi verses differently (Joel and Isaiah were verbatim) is that when the Lord sends His messengers they may use variations on familiar scripture to assign a mission.

Malachi prophesied

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

The angel Moroni recited a variation of Malachi's prophecy and told Joseph about his mission:

Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

While we're at it, let's talk about how the angel Gabriel came to Zacharias, cited a variation on the same prophecy, and explained to him John the Baptist's mission:

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

As long as we're taking lessons from this story, I'd have to add that Joseph's experience with Moroni is the matching bookend for what began some 1,827 years prior.

[NeuroTypical]

What would you say to a skeptic who claims that JS wrote the BOM, and the reason he made a point to say Moroni quoted the Bible a little different than how it is printed is to support JS's untruth that the BOM was necessary in part because messages in the Bible were lost in translation and/or to justify that the BOM portrays the gospel slightly different than the Bible?

I'd say "Surely, throughout history people have made up stuff and been fraudulent in their claims. Surely, if you put twenty people who make claims like Joseph Smith made, maybe 19.8 of them would be crazy or liars or whatever. But my belief in the truth claims of Joseph Smith and the BoM don't come from just reading what they had to say. My belief comes from a personal witness of the Holy Ghost, which confirmed to me that this particular sensational hard to believe story, happened to be the truth."

[uniderth]

I would point out that the point of the Book of Mormon is not to correct the Bible but to support it. The Bible also contains the fulness of the Gospel. The Book of Mormon witnesses to the truthfulness of the Bible and also contains the fulness of the Gospel.

Additionally the Bible is not as "corrupt" as many assume. We find by comparing the text with the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, the Old Testament is remarkably well translated. The things that are missing from the bible are those texts that were not included. These books(i.e. Book of Enoch, Gospel of Thomas, etc.) contain great truth but were left out of the Bible when it was compiled over time.

mordorbund mentioned the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. However this translation was not always about restoring corrupted teachings. While some clarifications are made in the Old and New Testament. The great majority of additions to Genesis came from Antiquities of Freemasonry and were providing additional information rather than restoring something that was lost in translation.

As far as the burning in the bosom I think we also overlook that true teaching can be known to be true because of the truth they possess. If a teaching is true then it will stand up against all scrutiny. For example the principle of love is true because we can observe the correctness of this teaching in the real world.

[livy111us]

Alternate readings from the Bible are nothing new. Even in the first few centuries after Christ there were variants to the Bible. Here are some examples from Early Christian Fathers:

Luke 13:6– "Behold, now these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree, but I find none" (ANF 1:518)

KJV Luke13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.

Gen. 3:15"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall be on the watch for (observabit) thy head, and thou on the watch for His heel." (ANF 1:548)

Cyril of Jerusalem, intro and translation by Edward Yarnold, S.J., (London, Routledge 2000).

Letter to Constantius 68-70: Note 8, at end of text: “One MS adds: ‘as you ever give glory to the holy and consubstantial Trinity, our true God, to whom all glory belongs for ever and ever. Amen.’ However, as Cyril nowhere else uses the Nicene term ‘consubstantial’ [homoousios], preferring the term ‘like’ [homoios], and generally prefers scriptural language to philosophical, the sentence is likely to be an interpolation /see intro 33-56/” (195, note 8).

The manuscripts of Cyril’s works give an outline at the beginning of his 18 catechetical discourses, to which Yarnold adds the following: “It can be seen that the baptismal Creed in use in Jerusalem was similar to the Nicene Creed, though without the anti-Arian formulas. Some MSS insert the Nicene Creed itself at the end of 18.12; but this is probably a scribal addition” (88).

Catechesis 10.6: Cyril first quotes Gen. 1.26-7 and then says: “‘The text does not restrict the divine dignity to the Father alone, but included the Son, to show that man is not only the work of God but also of our Lord Jesus Christ’” (121). Note 4 at this point reads: “Some MSS continue: ‘who is also true God.’” (198).

Catechesis 11.4: “Scripture says also with regard to other men: ‘you are sons of the Lord your God.’ And in another place: ‘I said, ‘you are all gods and son of the Most High’’ [Ps 82.6; John 10.35]. ‘I said,’ not ‘I begot.’ They received adoption when God spoke, and did not enjoy it before. But Christ did not first exist in one form before being begotten in another, but he was begotten as Son from the beginning, Son of the Father in every way like his Begetter [‘3], Light begotten from Light, Truth from Truth, Wisdom from Wisdom, King from the King, God from God, and Power from Power” (130). Note 3: “Cyril avoids using the term homoousios, preferring to speak of ‘similarity’ rather than identity. Some MSS add ‘eternal from the eternal Father,’ which was perhaps added in order to reject the Arian belief that ‘there was when the Son was not’” (198-9).

Mystagogic Catechesis 3.3: “…Christ’s grace which imparts to us his own divinity through the presence of the Holy Spirit” (177). Note 7 reads: “Accepting the minority reading parousiai instead of Piedagnel’s parousias.” 204, note 7.

Mystagogic Catechesis 4. 1. This teaching of blessed Paul is sufficient to give us assurance concerning the sacred mysteries to which you were admitted when you became ‘of one body’ [Eph 3.6] and one blood with Christ. For we heard Paul declare just now: ‘for on the night on which our Lord Jesus Christ was betrayed, taking bread and giving thanks he broke it and gave it to his disciples saying: ‘take, eat, this is my body.’ And taking the cup and giving thanks he said: ‘take, drink, this is my blood’’/1/” (179). Note 1 reads: “St. Paul’s account of the Last Supper does not include the words ‘take, eat,’ ‘take, drink.’ In fact the word ‘take’ before ‘drink’ does not appear in the gospel accounts either, but it is found in some Egyptian liturgies, such as that of the Deir Balyzeh papyrus. Moreover, Cyril quotes the words ‘this is my body/blood’ in an order which is not to be found anywhere in the New Testament, though it is followed in the Palestinian Liturgy of St. James. It seems likely therefor that Cyril is quoting from the liturgy here, which incidentally provides evidence that his liturgy included an Institution Narrative. Cf. Edward Yarnold, ‘Anaphoras without Institution Narratives?,’ Studia Patristica 30 (1997): 395-410, esp. 405-6; 409-10; introduction, sec 4.

Basil of Caesarea

“The existence of textual variants to this passage [Life of Moses 2.82], which omit all reference to universal salvation, testifies to the scandal felt by later Greek readers at Gregory’s espousal of this position; see the note of J. Danielou in his edition, ad loc (SC 1.155 [and translation, note 102]); also his article ‘L’Apocatastase chez saint Gregoire de Nysse,’ RSR 30 (1940): 328-47, esp. 329-37. The same uneasiness of later scribes on Gregory’s espousal of the apokatastasis theory is attested by glosses and variants in a number of manuscripts of his De Anima et Resurrectione, which has unfortunately not yet been critically edited” Brian E. Daley, S.J., The Hope of the Early Church (Cambridge 1991): 241, note 23.

Tertullian

“The Apologeticum, in account of its great importance, boasts by far the largest number of manuscripts. It has a tradition of its own…. No less than thirty-six codices preserve its text and constitute the so-called Vulgata recensio…. But there is another text tradition which differs from the Vulgata recensio a great deal…. No less than 900 variants…. Thus we know that in the tenth century there were already two different groups of manuscripts, the one represented by the Vulgata recensio, the other by the Fuldensis. The question is, how can this difference be explained?” Quasten, Patrology 2: 260-1. Both versions have been altered, 262.

His Adversus Marcion was copied and distributed by a “brother, who became afterwards an apostate. He, as it happened, had transcribed a portion of it, full of mistakes, and then published it. The necessity thus arose for an amended work” Quasten, Patrology 2: 274, text quoted

Jerome:

Against the Pelagians 2.5: with reference to Matthew 5.22: “He who is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to judgment’; although in many of the ancient copies, the phrase, ‘without cause’, has not been added, so that we should not be angry, to be sure, even with cause” (FOC 53: 302)

John Chrysostom

Francis T. Gignac, S.J., “Evidence for Deliberate Scribal Revision in Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles,” in Nova et Vetera. Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton, ed. John Petruccione (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America 1998): 209-225.

Psalm 109:3 [septuagint] ‘Before the morning star, I begot you.

KJV Psalm 110:3 [Masoretic system] in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

[sIDE NOTE:The KJV represents a translation from the Masoretic (traditional) vocalization. The Septuagint translators apparently understood the consonants (yldtyk) differently, and translate as "I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning." Some Hebrew manuscripts also read the way the LXX did. There are six textual notes for this verse in the Word Biblical Commentary. On this word, they say,

"The military context suggests that the basically abstract י?ל?ד?ו?ת?, "youth," is used concretely and collectively with the sense "young men." In its only other occurrence, Eccl 11:9–10, it means "youth, boyhood." For the development in meaning, Syr. ?alyût(a), "youth, young men," may be compared. LXX and Syr. understood as י?ְ?ל?ִ?ד?ְ?ת?ּ?ִ?י?ך?ָ?,

"I have begotten you," a pointing found in many Heb. MSS. This reading is preferred by many, including Kraus ([1989] 344–45). It recurs in Ps 2:7 with reference to the divine legitimation of the Davidic king. There are many parallels between Pss 2 and 110. Is this a further one, or has the overall similarity encouraged this variant? The structure of the psalm suggests the latter: the divine oracles in which Yahweh speaks seem to be clearly marked out by their introductions in vv 1,4. After the third-person reference to Yahweh in v 2, the difficulty of postulating a divine "I" at this point has been noted by a number of scholars; divine speech structurally fits only vv 1 and 4. The form in MT is irregular. The yod could theoretically indicate a pl. (cf. GKC §95u), but a pl. is not expected here. It could be abnormal scriptio plena, though if the psalm is early this is unlikely to be an original form. The form may represent a mixed reading, combining textual variants י?ַ?ל?ְ?ד?ֻ?ת?ְ?ך?ָ?, "your youth," and י?ְ?ל?ִ?ד?ְ?ת?ּ?ִ?י?ך?ָ?, "I have begotten you."]

[Just_A_Guy]

Upon reading the part where JS says Moroni appeared to him three times during one night, and quoted verses of the Bible that were just a little different than as they appear in the Bible, something dawned on me. What would you say to a skeptic who claims that JS wrote the BOM, and the reason he made a point to say Moroni quoted the Bible a little different than how it is printed is to support JS's untruth that the BOM was necessary in part because messages in the Bible were lost in translation and/or to justify that the BOM portrays the gospel slightly different than the Bible?

I would suggest that the skeptic compare the scripture as quoted in KJV Malachi with the scripture as quoted in JS-H, and then compare both of those to the same passage as quoted in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 25). Oddly, the BoM text tracks the KJV, not the JS-H. If JS-H 1:38-39 is supposed to be "proof" that the Book of Mormon's text is more correct than the Bible's, then why does it point to a specific verse in the Bible whose Book of Mormon equivalent is virtually the same?

Something else is going on here. In his conversations with Joseph Smith Moroni may not have been "correcting" the book of Malachi so much as he was "likening" it.

I suspect many of my fellow Mormons will have reasons to refute skeptics based on personal testimony, such as personal feelings they received when praying about whether it was true. I personally have never had the burning in the bosom while reading any part of the BOM (or the Bible) or while praying whether or not it was true, although I experienced a burning in the bosom (or whatever it's called) while I was in the midst of investigating the LDS church with missionaries and this led me to get baptized.

Personally, in real-life conversations I've kind of moved past baring my soul with formal, solemn witnesses of faith (which I tend to find exhausting, and which non-Mormons seem to find off-putting anyways). I'm perfectly comfortable just saying "yeah, God talks to me. If you want to know how, I'll tell you. Otherwise, next question, please."

Edited March 1, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[laffopuritain]

What would you say to a skeptic who claims that JS wrote the BOM, and the reason he made a point to say Moroni quoted the Bible a little different than how it is printed is to support JS's untruth that the BOM was necessary in part because messages in the Bible were lost in translation and/or to justify that the BOM portrays the gospel slightly different than the Bible?

That would require an incredible amount of foresight. Joseph had this vision in 1823, and didn't complete the BoM until 1830. I don't think a 17 year old con man (which is what he would be if indeed he made it all up) could think that far ahead.