Do you believe every word of the scriptures?

[prisonchaplain]

You can ask the same questions about the Bible...etc.

This is a stretch, imho. There are "Bible difficulties." Some struggle with the supernatural episodes, arguing that miracles are superstition. Others debate the age of the earth, whether some passages, when taken literally (4 corners of the earth, etc.) are anti-scientific.

However, the apologestics are pretty good in discussing those issues. See:

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4808861271392271&pid=1.7&w=118&h=179&c=7&rs=1

Also, to my knowledge, there are no claims that the Bible is full of anachronisms. Scholars debate when various books were written, and who the authors are. Those discussion tend to come down to how much supernatural we are willing to accept. Older dating, and traditional authorship require more acceptance of the miraculous than later dating does. As an example, did the prophet prophesy accurately about a future event, or was the author really describing a current or past event, and how it fit God's will?

I cannot discuss the BoM intelligently, but I can say that suggestions that the Bible is full of unexplainable anachronisms would not be accurate.

[prisonchaplain]

The bible mentions unicorns and the use of corn. Clearly the translation is using similarities where no equivalent word exists or where the meaning best fits the word in question.

Apparently more modern translations use words like "wild ox." The Hebrew word means something like beast-with-horns. See: Why does the KJV Bible mention the unicorn?

[Quin]

I'm also researching the church and I also love the focus on family and and clean living. But I can't for the life of me accept all the unsubstantiated stuff in the Book of Mormon. I also have issues with some of the claims made by Joseph Smith such as he did more for the church than Christ himself.

I have studied the information on Mormon websites such as FAIR and MormonThink.com but the more I learn the more bizarre it gets. Can I be a Christian and a Mormon at the same time?

Your comments would be much appreciated.

Ever gone to midnight catechism? As in the comedy show? (My Dax's family is catholic, we go periodically).

One of the more hilarious parts of it is the definition of "Christian". Specifically the tree branch section that starts off with the Catholic Church, and then follows all offshoots of RUssian & Greek orthodox, down to the broom bristle style branching, twists, and turns of Protestantism.

ALL are Christian.

Although many, if not most, have claimed none of the rest are.

Simple test:

There are 3 religions of Abraham (in order)

- Judaeism

- Christianity

- Islam

2 revere Jesus of Nazareth.

Christians believe him to be the son of God or God himself (trinity)

Muslims believe him (Issa) to be a prophet of God

If its a religion of Abraham, and it's not Judaeism or Islam, it's Christian.

Q

[tovarisch]

Thanks again for all your responses. My takeaway from this discussion is that I am going to stop reading apologetics about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I read the Book of Mormon and loved most of it and disliked none. If I am going to accept the LDS church, it will be because because of desire (Alma 32) and the Holy Spirit's guidance. No amount of apologetic writing is going to convince me that the Book of Mormon is absolutely factual.

I like what Finrock wrote, "There was an intellectual and factual knowledge but no substance, no true wisdom." It's pretty obvious that I want to believe in the truth that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints presents: That's why I'm on this forum and have read so much in recent weeks. I'm going to switch tactics. Instead of reading about the Book of Mormon's historicity, I am going to get LDS study materials and study the Book of Mormon and live what I learn. Hugh Nibley can wait.

The above said, it's great to know that believing LDS acknowledge these issues.

[bytebear]

Apparently more modern translations use words like "wild ox." The Hebrew word means something like beast-with-horns. See: Why does the KJV Bible mention the unicorn?

But isn't that the point? The current society gets to decide what those original words mean in context. Why do we give Bible translators a pass on obvious anachronistic choices, but not Joseph Smith/God/Urim&Thummim?

I think a more interesting discussion would be on various foreign language translations of the Book of Mormon, and why Mormon translators choose various words and phrases in foreign languages. It's also interesting to see which versions of the Bible we use in foreign languages. We chose the KJV because Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon uses that Bible translation as the basis for his words, but what if Smith spoke German, or Italian, or Spanish? How would the translation differ?

Edited September 2, 2013 by bytebear

[prisonchaplain]

Bytebear...it would be interesting to know why the KJV translators chose the word unicorn. However, I still perceive that discussing the accuracy of the KJV on given words is a different discussion from whether or not the BoM has anachronisms.

1. Only a small faction of independent Baptists argues that the KJV translation is inspired in the way the original texts are.

2. We want to believe that God directs translators who are committed to the faith and the rendering of his Word. However, again, we do not say that translations are inspired of God.

3. The BoM, as I understand it, is considered an inspired English version. Perhaps it's more interpretation than translation, since the wording is believed to come directly to Joseph Smith, from God, and not through linguistic knowledge.

It does little harm to our view of the Bible to say that the KJV may have a few odd wordings. I wouldn't pretend to be able to address the BoM contreversies, but they appear to be a different kind of discussion.

[SpiritDragon]

I tend to be of the all or nothing school of thought when it comes to the scriptures. I have read the Book of Mormon at least 20 times through and each time I have had the spirit confirm to me that it is the word of God. I have my answer from God and have no further need for man's opinion on the topic. I trust in God to give accurate and truthful answers to prayers and to have the full truth. I trust that man's understanding of anything is incomplete most of the time and often simply wrong. I take these so called anachronisms to be areas where man does not have all the answers, but God does.

I found it interesting on my mission how the book of mormon was constantly on trial, but the bible seemed to be generally accepted. I knew I had a testimony of the book of mormon, but not so much a testimony of the bible... other than that it was what ultimately what lead Joseph Smith to ask God about religion and was a catalyst to bring forth the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I made it a point to read the Bible through and pray about it as well to solidify my testimony of its truthfulness. Just as promised the Lord is willing to send the Holy Ghost to testify to the truth of all things. I fully believe the bible and book of mormon to be the word of God.

I found this website a little interesting... but off base:

Conclusion: There is No God « The Church Of Truthâ„¢

It essentially puts the bible on trial similar to how so many put the book of mormon on trial. Some of it may be explained away, some of it will be more difficult. We are all backed up to the wall of faith one day. It is the first principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ after all.

Ask and ye shall receive! The answer is available to all who ask with a sincere heart and real intent about the truthfulness of all the scriptures.

Does that mean there are no errors whatsoever in any of the scriptures? Of course not, but it means you can trust the message and draw your own conclusions based upon personal revelation and life experience.

[bytebear]

It does little harm to our view of the Bible to say that the KJV may have a few odd wordings. I wouldn't pretend to be able to address the BoM contreversies, but they appear to be a different kind of discussion.

I guess I will just have to disagree. I don't think the "controversial" of the Book of Mormon are all that controversial. And I don't think the Bible is just a matter of odd wordings. I think just the fact that there are books that were omitted from the Biblical canon because of doctrinal or political decisions is enough to raise eyebrows. It's one of the reasons God chose to preserve a people's writings to be saved and restored through a prophet. The Book of Mormon exists because the Bible has issues.

[mnn727]

I don't believe any scripture is 100% historical and accurate.

I do however believe you can learn lessons on how to become more Christ-like from any scripture.

[Traveler]

As I have read through the responses I have come to the conclusion that my view and understanding of the scriptures (LDS standard works) are quite different that just about everybody else.

Before I continue - I would like to point out some interesting facts. Perhaps the most glaring fact about scripture is that with a few rare exceptions of a few verses - there are no actual original documents of scripture - including the Doctrine and Covenants. In essence the entire body of scripture are copies. We can argue about the accuracy of such copies but such arguments are based on assumptions and speculations. Even our conference talks are often "altered" in their printed and published from what was spoken.

I think the point I want to make is that I do not believe scripture or the "Word of G-d" is at the core what many try to make it to be. But to make my point I will refer to scripture

2 Corinthians 3:3 - Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

In essence any written account - any book, parchment or even stone recording precious sacred words of scripture are by the nature of mortality - corruptible. The greatest scripture or understanding comes from living examples and even the written scriptures testify to this simple truth. The truth is that no individual is without flaw. And as flawed as any individual - I believe scriptural passages are even more flawed when viewed in the same manner and discerning eye.

So I believe the purpose and reason of scripture is to bring us to Christ (not define history, creation or the cosmos) but it seems that many think scriptures to be both Christ and G-d and so worship the written word thinking such scripture to be incorruptible. I appreciate the Book of Mormon that in its title page tells us that when we find errors that they are the errors of men and not to blame G-d. I believe this attitude should also apply over the men that fill positions within the church. I believe we are all flawed and that we can become lost as well as corrupted thinking there are no flaws.

The Traveler

Edited September 4, 2013 by Traveler

[McLainDow]

"Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever-And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations- And now if there are faults they are the mistakes of men"

- The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is not a history book. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is stated in the above quote taken from the first page. "This is a book which needs to be read with a spirit of prayer and meditation." ( Elder Enrique R. Falabella). Read it then pray about the truthfulness and see what you receive for your answer. Horses, and steel, and elephants cannot explain away the fact the Book of Mormon presents the gospel in a way that plain, easy to understand, inspired, and most of all beautiful. Some things I have to exercise faith about, but I have never had a question about the truthfulness of this book.

When investigating the church I found it best to not believe everything I read on the internet or heard from family and friends that were reading negative media about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I found it best to investigate the doctrine of the church and see if I found it to be the truth. Doctrine is not found in something a general authority said 100 years ago when he was speaking at a stake conference. Doctrine is found in the scriptures and the teachings of all the prophets and apostles. I hope this helps.

[Swiper]

... uneducated twenty-five-year-old rural farm boy in 1830s America ...

Joseph Smith's lack of education is exaggerated. Yes, he only had 2-3 years of formal education, but he did not come from a family of uneducated ignoramuses. His father was a part-time teacher and they read a lot of books in the household. Home schooling is not a new concept. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

Joseph Smith's lack of education is exaggerated. Yes, he only had 2-3 years of formal education, but he did not come from a family of uneducated ignoramuses. His father was a part-time teacher and they read a lot of books in the household. Home schooling is not a new concept. :)

But . . . but . . . the Smiths were a bunch of ne'er-do-wells, and Joseph Smith Sr. was a drunk!

A little more seriously--sure, they aren't illiterate; but they aren't exactly naturalists either. By our standards it didn't take much to be a teacher in that period--"school" was reading, writing, and arithmetic. Even a generation later--you could find a literate guy and give him twenty copies of McGuffy's reader, and he'd be good to go. Zoology? Geography? Botany? History? Philosophy? Not in frontier grammar school, you didn't. As far as I know, it's beyond the question that the Smiths (like most other families of the period) could not afford an extensive private library--they may have borrowed; they didn't own.

As for Joseph himself, Lucy's position was always that Joseph was the least bookish of her kids. Emma was adamant that when they met, Joseph didn't have the force of concentration to dictate a coherent letter.

[prisonchaplain]

Protestants have a particular heavy investment in the accuracy of the Bible, since it is our final authority. LDS have prophets and added scriptures, and Catholics have church tradition and a leadership that can speak "without error," when such is declared.

[Zeitgeist]

A few comments on the ideas in this interesting thread:

1. Are Mormons Christians? Just today I read an article in sltrib.com about the Baptist leader Richard Land, who talks about classifying Mormons as a "fourth Abrahamic religion." A religion professor once told me that any sincere and competent person who self-identifies as a Christian should be regarded as a Christian.

2. I am a convert to the LDS church. To me, the historical questions about the Book of Mormon were rather like the historical questions about the Bible. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, and I don't see how every species of land animal could possibly fit into an ark of the dimensions given in Genesis. I have read that there is surprisingly little archaeological evidence for the Exodus. (Look up "The Exodus" in Wikipedia and see the section about historicity. It mentions anachronisms and contains this very interesting quote: "The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible, and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history. Nevertheless, the discussion of the historical reality of the exodus has a long history, and continues to attract attention." The rest of my family is Christian but non-LDS. They rib me a lot about the so-called historical problems of the Book of Mormon but they believe in the literal accuracy of the Bible, including the Exodus. Just the other day a Christian was asking me about the DNA data and the Book of Mormon. I hated to break the news to him, but that same DNA data points to Africa as the origin of humans, not to a Garden of Eden between the Tigris and the Euphrates.

3. The U.S. Declaration of Independence presents many, many historical facts (mostly complaints against the deeds of the King of Great Britain). Suppose that someone examined these historical claims and found that not all of them were perfectly accurate, and then argued that the entire Declaration was void and valueless because of a few errors in facts. That would be madness. We all see the Declaration as a set of noble ideas within a historical context, but the ideas have their own freestanding value. The historical context simply makes the ideas easier to understand. I've always felt the same way about the Book of Mormon. I can't prove one way or another whether the historical events in the Book of Mormon ever happened. A lot of people say they did happen, so I'll simply note that and move on. The power of the Book of Mormon flows from its description of how God moves and acts within the human world, not from the historical details of that human world.

4. I have also tended to compare the LDS church to a raindrop. You know how raindrops form? The air holds a lot of moisture, but then something happens to make the air unable to hold the moisture. The moisture then condenses around the nearest handy thing, like a speck of dust. To me, the Book of Mormon is like the speck of dust, and the motions of God are like the moisture. A huge "raindrop" called the LDS church condensed out of thin air around this Book of Mormon, but a lot of people confuse the speck with the raindrop.

Just my thoughts.

[Traveler]

A few comments on the ideas in this interesting thread:

1. Are Mormons Christians? Just today I read an article in sltrib.com about the Baptist leader Richard Land, who talks about classifying Mormons as a "fourth Abrahamic religion." A religion professor once told me that any sincere and competent person who self-identifies as a Christian should be regarded as a Christian.

2. I am a convert to the LDS church. To me, the historical questions about the Book of Mormon were rather like the historical questions about the Bible. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, and I don't see how every species of land animal could possibly fit into an ark of the dimensions given in Genesis. I have read that there is surprisingly little archaeological evidence for the Exodus. (Look up "The Exodus" in Wikipedia and see the section about historicity. It mentions anachronisms and contains this very interesting quote: "The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible, and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history. Nevertheless, the discussion of the historical reality of the exodus has a long history, and continues to attract attention." The rest of my family is Christian but non-LDS. They rib me a lot about the so-called historical problems of the Book of Mormon but they believe in the literal accuracy of the Bible, including the Exodus. Just the other day a Christian was asking me about the DNA data and the Book of Mormon. I hated to break the news to him, but that same DNA data points to Africa as the origin of humans, not to a Garden of Eden between the Tigris and the Euphrates.

I would comment on this particular item #2: The points your make are both amazing and important. The importance is somewhat lost in our culture and traditions. Not only does the DNA point to Africa but the time frame is off by over a magnitude of 10 - the origins of human DNA converge to a single "Adam and Eve" well over 60,000 years ago - not 6,000 years ago.

What I find so amazing and important has to do with human perception and culture trends. I have yet to fine a critical argument against the Book of Mormon, that if taken as true as it is argued, will also apply to the Bible and disprove the Bible in the same manner. What I find interesting and entreating is that those that publish and focus on such arguments are mostly "Christians" that believe the Bible to be the pure word of G-d and "The Authority" on truth. Why would they even consider using an argument that disproves the entire foundation of their theology wrong?

What is even more interesting is because I am a scientist and engineer; when I converse with other scientist (atheists) that discuss with me problems of the Book of Mormon and DNA - I suggest that our methods (mathematical fractals) that are used to model DNA rely in part on "best guess" speculations and that we do not have proven long term models of viral infections impacting DNA. Our modeling is based on observable and relatively short term localized parameters of stable societies. And then we apply these conclusions to a minority migrating society traversing multiple continents dealing with the stress and viral infections - we are in essence guessing at the DNA evolutionary divergence. What surprises me the most when having such a discussion is that my atheists friends are more willing to accept the possibility that the Book of Mormon is indeed a divine witness testifying of the truths that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of G-d. Where as my non-LDS Christian friends seldom concede any such possibility.

3. The U.S. Declaration of Independence presents many, many historical facts (mostly complaints against the deeds of the King of Great Britain). Suppose that someone examined these historical claims and found that not all of them were perfectly accurate, and then argued that the entire Declaration was void and valueless because of a few errors in facts. That would be madness. We all see the Declaration as a set of noble ideas within a historical context, but the ideas have their own freestanding value. The historical context simply makes the ideas easier to understand. I've always felt the same way about the Book of Mormon. I can't prove one way or another whether the historical events in the Book of Mormon ever happened. A lot of people say they did happen, so I'll simply note that and move on. The power of the Book of Mormon flows from its description of how God moves and acts within the human world, not from the historical details of that human world.

4. I have also tended to compare the LDS church to a raindrop. You know how raindrops form? The air holds a lot of moisture, but then something happens to make the air unable to hold the moisture. The moisture then condenses around the nearest handy thing, like a speck of dust. To me, the Book of Mormon is like the speck of dust, and the motions of God are like the moisture. A huge "raindrop" called the LDS church condensed out of thin air around this Book of Mormon, but a lot of people confuse the speck with the raindrop.

Just my thoughts.

I enjoy your thoughts and hope to encounter many more.

The Traveler

Edited September 13, 2013 by Traveler

[NightSG]

Thanks everyone for your responses, especially Changed for your explanation of heuristics (which is one of those things I've read a dozen times but never looked up) and Just_A_Guy for pointing out that a New York farmboy did as best he could given his background and education. I also like substituting obsidian for steel: What else would Joseph have though a short, black dagger was made of? Steel, most likely.

Wootz steel almost certainly dates back around 2500 years, (so at least to 500BCE) and would be very dark, and of a quality that would make daggers more likely than swords. Swords would be rare, and something of a chance happening. As for steel in the Americas, note that it was mentioned right there with silver and gold, (implying that it may have been rare, and something of a status symbol) but also note the big difference between those metals in Central America; steel in that climate will be a pile of rust in a few decades.

Frankly, I can't look at a macuahuitl without thinking "this thing's inventor knew about steel swords, but either didn't have enough steel to make one, or had some other reason to avoid using it." Of course, if I didn't know the name of it, I'd call it some sort of odd sword, too.