ARTICLE: The Bible or the Book of Mormon?

[STR Ambassador]

The Bible or the Book of Mormon?
by Greg Koukl


The question of the authority of the Bible and its divine inspiration can be stated very simply: Is the Bible a book given by God to man, or is it a book produced by man--and merely by man--about God? Those are the only two options I think we're faced with. The Bible is either a divine product, or it isn't a divine product, but a mere product of human thinking. If it isn't a divine product, then human authorship is the whole story.

The way you can attempt to answer the question, "Is the Bible really inspired"--does it have a divine origin--is to see whether the Bible has marks of the supernatural.

It isn't enough to simply assume the Bible's authority from the beginning. Christians assume from the get-go that the Bible is God's word, and frequently they won't take it any further than that. Unfortunately, that isn't going to be good enough for most people. Many non-Christians assume from the get-go the Bible's not inspired. They revere the book, or respect it in some fashion, but as for it being the word of God? No. It's written by men and men make mistakes. That's their view.

Now, I think somebody who takes this view has to at least acknowledge, first of all, that they didn't actually reason to the conclusion that the Bible was not inspired. Unless, of course, they thought it was reasonable to conclude that since men were involved, the Bible must have errors.

That certainly doesn't follow, that since human beings may be prone to err, they're necessarily erring in the things they write about God. It may be that they are, but it doesn't automatically mean they are. It seems to me you have to look a little further before you can draw that conclusion. You have to look at the information itself. You have to look at the evidence. Men can err, but did they err in this case?

Another thing that this view doesn't take into consideration is that the Bible itself claims to be God's word. Now, of course, that doesn't make it true, per se. We've got to go further than the mere claim. But it is significant that many who don't believe in Christianity still respect the Bible. This book they respect makes this claim about itself over and over again, and if the book is worthy of respect, then certainly the claim is worthy of respect. It's worthy of careful consideration.

I think the way to answer the question is to see whether the Bible has the mark of the supernatural--whether it has God's "signature" on it--or not, or whether it simply seems to be a book just given by man, having all the marks of natural human beings, and the limitations thereof, and no sign of the supernatural. That's the tact I take in my defense for the authority of the Scriptures. I give some reasons why I think the Bible is supernatural and not natural. It's a book given by God to man, not merely a book by man about God.

But, inevitably, what's going to happen is, even if you make your case, someone is going to say, "All right, even if I accepted that in the originals--the autographs--we have an accurate representation of God's word, we don't have those documents anymore. In fact, they've disappeared and now we only have copies of copies of copies of copies." Or, sometimes people put it this way: "The Bible's been translated and retranslated so many times we can't trust what we have now."

Well, that's not the truth of the matter. Your Bible--your New American Standard, New International Version, King James, New King James, etc.--is not a translation of a translation of a translation. It's a translation directly from the best Greek manuscripts we possess. It's a direct translation from the Greek to the English, a one-step process. So, they miscast the problem. But they still have a legitimate concern about the issue of change.

I addressed this issue in a talk this morning ("Has God Spoken?"), and afterwards a friend told me about his visit to a Mormon temple in Utah, how he was taken aside and interviewed about his own religious beliefs. It was a gentle attempt at evangelizing by a Mormon representative there.

My friend has used Stand to Reason materials and has heard the radio show, and he was ready with some very good responses to the Mormon woman about the authority of the Scriptures. One of the things she came back with is, "Yes, we believe the Bible is inspired insofar as it's properly translated."

Now, this is a key point Mormons make, and they make it over and over again. I'm not sure why it's so important to make that point because it's uncontroversial. As a Christian, I would have to agree with it. I don't believe in a Bible that's improperly translated; I believe in the authority of the Bible if it's properly translated.

But, you see, Mormon's take a further step I don't take because I know better. They immediately presume, as does the man on the street, that the Bible has been changed down through the ages and that we can't trust what we have now.

I want to give you a couple of reasons why that objection is disingenuous coming from a Mormon. I want to give you some tools to respond to it.

The Mormons say that the Bible is God's word insofar as it is properly translated. Certainly, I agree with that. I don't know how anybody could disagree with it. Why do they make such a fuss over something as obvious as that? Because they're convinced it isn't properly translated because the texts we possess have been corrupted through transmission over the years.

Several years ago I was staying with a Mormon family for a couple of days and had an opportunity to check out their bookshelf. I pulled down a doctrinal book. This book wasn't a popular Mormon treatment, but one of their own theological works written by one of their chief theologians named McConky, I believe.

I paged through it and got to the section on the reliability of the Bible. There I found the rule just as I've quoted it above, but was stunned to also find the Bible summarily dismissed in the next sentence. This Mormon theologian claimed--totally contrary to fact--that the Bible has been changed so many times in its copying and recopying down through the years that no one knows what the original was like.

I was actually shocked to see a sophisticated theological work by a principle Mormon theologian offer such an academically lame response to this issue.

This is a question in the field known as "lower criticism," or "textual criticism." The goal of the textual critic is to reconstruct ancient manuscripts from surviving copies.

The issue of biblical textual reconstruction has been discussed time and time again by secular scholars. The academic evidence shows it's an open and shut case, not in favor of the Bible's corruption, but rather in favor of the Bible's textual purity.

This Mormon theologian did no homework. None. Zero. Zip. Because any homework in this area reveals quite a different thing--99.8 percent purity of the Scriptures--far better than any other manuscripts from antiquity, bar none.

This misleading approach is appealing to Mormon's for a reason: They don't want the Bible passing judgment on their doctrine, because their doctrine doesn't come from the Bible. It comes from Joseph Smith. And it doesn't fit the Bible; it contradicts it.

So, the easiest way to deal with this conflict is to give lip service to the authority of the Bible, saying, "Yes we believe it is inspired," and then they take away with the left hand what they give with the right, "but that doesn't matter, because we don't have the inspired Bible anymore. We've just got a cut-and-paste version that's nothing like the original. We do have the Book of Mormon, and the rest of Joseph Smith's writings, though, and my heart tells me these are inspired by God."

That's why you won't find Mormon doctrines in the Bible. You'll find them in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine of Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and the writings of Joseph Smith. And you won't here Mormons quote the Bible very much, except when it helps their case. Then the Bible suddenly takes on authority.

That's the first reason why I think Mormonism's qualifier about the authority of the Bible is disingenuous: When they have a verse that seems to make their case--never mind if they lift it out of context, which they do frequently--then they use it. Otherwise, "It's not properly translated."

They'll point to the book of Ezekiel (37:19), for example, where the Lord talks about combining the stick of Judah with the stick of Joseph. This, they say, is a clear prophecy that the Bible ("the stick of Judah") is to be joined with the Book of Mormon ("the stick of Joseph") to comprise the full revelation of God. They ignore, of course, the context itself in which God actually gives the interpretation (v. 21), which has nothing at all to do with the Book of Mormon.

Now, I guess they must believe that, even though the Bible in general can't be trusted, this particular verse has survived intact and has been translated properly, or else certainly they wouldn't be quoting from it. Odd.

You see, this is cheating, ladies and gentlemen. When the text speaks against the Mormon view, they dismiss it as not being translated accurately. But when it speaks for their view--at least when they can make it look like it does, on first glance--well, then the Bible's accurate. That's cheating.

It's also cheating because they haven't shown academically that the manuscripts of the Bible can't be trusted because of the way they've been handed down. You'd think that if they were really concerned about God speaking through the Bible--that the only way to get at God's word is to have it translated accurately--they would do the homework. After all, if they say it's God's word, then you think they'd do the work to find out what has come down in tact and what hasn't survived.

But they don't do that. In fact, when my friend pointed out to the Mormon that the Bible hasn't been changed and that it is authoritative, his information was just dismissed. She moved on to something else.

It was just dismissed! You'd think somebody who doesn't trust the Bible because they think it hasn't been properly translated, when she's shown that it can be trusted because it is properly translated, would then say (if they were genuine in their concern here), "Well, I'm glad I've learned that! Now I can go to the Scripture with full confidence and draw the truth from it, and I can weigh the Book of Mormon against the Bible (since the Bible came first, after all)." But no, it's just ignored.

You know, if you've talked with Mormons very much about the authority of their documents, when all of their quasi-apologetics for their books have been dismembered (and it's easy to do), they always fall back on an argument that you cannot dismember: "I believe in my heart that the Book of Mormon is really from God."

We can respect such a belief. But can you see how, if that's what one ends up falling back on, it's disingenuous to pretend like there are evidences that really matter for your view and against the Bible's authority? If what you end up doing is ignoring contrary evidence, and you finally fall back on a defense that cannot be refuted, even in principle--because I can't change what you think is happening in your heart--then that shows you don't really care about the evidence at all. What you care about is protecting your own belief system, whether it's true or not. That is what's disingenuous. The evidence ultimately doesn't seem to matter.

By the way, there's one other point that could be offered here. When a Mormon says, "The Bible's inspired insofar as it has been properly translated," your first question should be, "Do you mean to say that if the Bible has been changed, it shouldn't be trusted?" They're going to say, "Of course it shouldn't be trusted if it's been changed." Then ask this question, "How many times has the Book of Mormon been changed?"

The Book of Mormon has been changed hundreds of times, as a point in fact. This is very well documented. We do have the original documents of the Book of Mormon and we have the current ones and there are hundreds of changes. So even by their own rule, the Book of Mormon is a fraud. But that doesn't matter because Mormons have a burning in their hearts.

And that shows why it's so dangerous to depend on feelings alone when issues of eternal truth are at stake.


Stand to Reason - www.str.org - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries...ble/borbom.htm

[ajohnson]

STR Ambassador,

Your commentaries are wonderful. They're thought provoking, logical, and normally right on target. Thanks for all the time and effort you take to compose your articles.

Best regards,

Alan

[Bloodnut]

== The question of the authority of the Bible and its divine inspiration can be stated very simply: Is the Bible a book given by God to man, or is it a book produced by man--and merely by man--about God? Those are the only two options I think we're faced with.

Then it appears that a false dichotomy has been created. It is more likely that the text of the Bible was given to us by men, as they were led by the spirit of God. This is a key factor, which distiniguishes the difference in approach Mormons and Bible scholars take on Bible. In determining what the Bible actually is, we must first throw all options on the table and sift through the evidence and discard what is proved to be false. When we entertain notions that God just "gave us" the Bible, it is automatically implied that the text is divine from start to finish. Admittedly, Mormons do not hold to this strict notion. But it must be emphatically clarified that we do not hold such a position of inerrancy for and scripture, LDS scripture included!

But it is the viewpoint expressed above that allows our moder-day Evangelists to propogate false notions about the Bible. Since they have already decided the Bible is what they claim it to be -given by God - then any criticial thought is immediately shunned and looked down upon as an attempt to attack God and his divine providence.

== The Bible is either a divine product, or it isn't a divine product, but a mere product of human thinking. If it isn't a divine product, then human authorship is the whole story.

Again, the false dichotomy serves no purpose but to build a straw man and then beat him down. I am of the opinion that most of the Bible was written under inspiration, but that some of it was not. This was hardly a problem in early Christian thinking, as Origen was one to question whether or not some of Paul's comments were of divine origin. Some have had serious doubts about the Songs of Solomon, which appear to be little more than soft-core pornography. Indeed, non-biblical texts such as the Book of Enoch seem to have influenced the NT writers moreso than several other books we find in the OT.

== It isn't enough to simply assume the Bible's authority from the beginning. Christians assume from the get-go that the Bible is God's word, and frequently they won't take it any further than that.

And unfortunately such is the case here.

== Unfortunately, that isn't going to be good enough for most people. Many non-Christians assume from the get-go the Bible's not inspired. They revere the book, or respect it in some fashion, but as for it being the word of God? No. It's written by men and men make mistakes. That's their view.

My view involves both, as it is for most Christian scholars, since it can hardly be denied that men really did write the Bible. Given this factual premise we have to ask ourselves if these men were struck down with divine perfection while they were writing. I find no reasonable basis for this assumption. All throughout the Bible we see examples of prophets falling into sin left and right. The only reason to assume they would be perfect when writing scripture, is theological. There is no reason or rationale to assume otherwise. Evangelicals need some sort of infallible groundwork, so they assume the men who wrote the Bible did so under what they call "divine providence." This of course merely begs the question. But we will get into this shortly.

== Now, I think somebody who takes this view has to at least acknowledge, first of all, that they didn't actually reason to the conclusion that the Bible was not inspired. Unless, of course, they thought it was reasonable to conclude that since men were involved, the Bible must have errors.

Precisely. Men were not just involved. Men wrote the text.

== That certainly doesn't follow, that since human beings may be prone to err, they're necessarily erring in the things they write about God.

If Evangelicals want to beg the question here, and postulate that these men were given temporary states of perfection, then this is a burden they will have to prove. It is not a burden for non-Evangelicals to leap to these baseless conclusions about perfection of the text.

== It may be that they are, but it doesn't automatically mean they are. It seems to me you have to look a little further before you can draw that conclusion. You have to look at the information itself. You have to look at the evidence. Men can err, but did they err in this case?

Yes, in many cases they did. It is such a proven fact that it isn't even worth arguing about.

== Another thing that this view doesn't take into consideration is that the Bible itself claims to be God's word.

Here we begin with the absurdity of the popular Evangelical position. For one to claim the Bible says anything about itself, is to really demonstrate an extreme lack of knowledge about the Bible's history and transmission. To be sure, we know from hard evidence that "the Bible" as it is now, didn't even exist until the late fourth century. Biblical scholars, even those on Koukl's side of the fence, will not deny this. In fact, the first New Testament book wasn't even penned until a decade or so after Christ's ascension, and the last book was written just before the turn of the first century. According to Bruce Metzger,

"For early Jewish Christians the Bible consisted of the Old Testament and some Jewish apocryphal literature. Along with this written authority went traditions, chiefly oral, of sayings attributed to Jesus. On the other hand, authors who belonged to the 'Hellenistic Wing' of the Church refer more frequently to writings that later came to be included in the New Testament. At the same time, however, they very rarely regarded such documents as 'Scripture'. Furthermore, there was as yet no conception of the duty of exact quotation from books that were not yet in the full sense canonical. Consequently, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascertain which New Testament books were known to early Christian writers; our evidence does not become clear until the end of second century."(Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development pp. 72-73)
Koukl knows very little about the topic from which he bloviates, and should probably keep his day job as a talk show host. His own Evangelical authorities are mopping the floors with him.

== But it is significant that many who don't believe in Christianity still respect the Bible. This book they respect makes this claim about itself over and over again, and if the book is worthy of respect, then certainly the claim is worthy of respect. It's worthy of careful consideration.

Nonsense. The Bible never makes any claims for itself because the Bible wasn't aware of its own existence. The Bible wasn't even thought of by the time of the NT Christians. Their scriptures, remained to be primarily the Old Testament, among several other books that never found their way into the canon. But this is another can of worms that causes problems for the assumptions Koukl lays out. But we will cover these shortly.

== I think the way to answer the question is to see whether the Bible has the mark of the supernatural--whether it has God's "signature" on it--or not, or whether it simply seems to be a book just given by man, having all the marks of natural human beings, and the limitations thereof, and no sign of the supernatural. That's the tact I take in my defense for the authority of the Scriptures. I give some reasons why I think the Bible is supernatural and not natural. It's a book given by God to man, not merely a book by man about God.

The problem with this position is that the Evangelical sets his own standard of proof, and expects it to serve as proof for those who do not accept such a standard. The main problem is that this form of argumentum relies so heavily on the fallacious methods of circular reasoning.

== Your Bible--your New American Standard, New International Version, King James, New King James, etc.--is not a translation of a translation of a translation. It's a translation directly from the best Greek manuscripts we possess. It's a direct translation from the Greek to the English, a one-step process. So, they miscast the problem. But they still have a legitimate concern about the issue of change.

Since Koukl finds no reason to provide references to these claims, I can only assume he is tearing down another straw man argument.

== It was a gentle attempt at evangelizing by a Mormon representative there. My friend has used Stand to Reason materials and has heard the radio show, and he was ready with some very good responses to the Mormon woman about the authority of the Scriptures. One of the things she came back with is, "Yes, we believe the Bible is inspired insofar as it's properly translated." Now, this is a key point Mormons make, and they make it over and over again. I'm not sure why it's so important to make that point because it's uncontroversial. As a Christian, I would have to agree with it. I don't believe in a Bible that's improperly translated; I believe in the authority of the Bible if it's properly translated.

Not controversial? Koukl must be losing touch with his own crowd. Is he not at all aware of the KJV only movement? Indeed, this is very controversial for critics of the LDS faith who make much use of this popular phrase. They complain about it when they accuse us of attacking the Bible. So many times I've told our critics that Mormons believe in the Bible too, only to hear self-defeating comebacks like, "No, you only believe it so far as it is translated properly." Chapter 3 of Marvin Cowan's book, "Mormon Claims Answered," spends a great amount of space complaining about this very statement. Matthew Slick, owner of CARM, insists that "Mormonism casts strong doubt upon the reliability of the Bible. It says that the Bible has been corrupted and many plain and precious truths have been lost. The 8th Article of Faith states: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly..." So I'm not sure what Koukl is getting at by agreeing with us on this point. If Koukl has no problems with this, then kudos to him for being reasonable. However, it is disingenuous for him to pretend that most LDS critics have no problems with it and that the issue is not controversial.

== But, you see, Mormon's take a further step I don't take because I know better.

No, he doesn't take it a step further because he refuses to accept the evidence. The only "step" Mormons take is when we accept the Bible for what it is. But the problem exists because Evangelicals have exalted the Bible to such a divine status, that any critical thought regarding that status is deemed heresy against God Himself! This is akin to the Islamic attitude towards the Koran.

== They immediately presume, as does the man on the street, that the Bible has been changed down through the ages and that we can't trust what we have now.

Wrong. It is true that we believe it has been changed -as indicated by the evidence- but we never claim that it is "not to be trusted." Koukl seems to be missing an important fact here. Mormons read the Bible moreso than Protestants do. We revere the Bible highly, and respect it tremendously. According to a study by Barna Research, "The study also revealed that barely half of all Protestant adults (54%) read the Bible during a typical week. Barna pointed out that Mormons are more likely (67%) to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants."(Protestants, Catholics and Mormons Reflect Diverse Levels of Religious Activity, Barna Reasearch Report, July 9, 2001.)

This must come as a shock for Evangelicals, who assume Mormons are the ones with a low opinion of the Bible. But Barna, if it has any theological bias, it would not be toward the LDS faith. Yet, its finding are very telling, and should help put to rest many of the lame Evangelical attacks on Mormonisms "view" of the Bible.

== I want to give you a couple of reasons why that objection is disingenuous coming from a Mormon.

I want to give you several reasons why we should reject Koukle's mischaracterization of the LDS position:

"We are all aware that there are errors in the Bible due to faulty translations and ignorance on the part of the translators, but the hand of the Lord has been over this volume of Scripture nevertheless, and it is remarkable that it has come down to us in the excellent condition in which we find it."(President Smith, Joseph Fielding Doctrines of Salvation, 3:191)

"We are not called to teach the errors of translators but the truth of God's word. It is our mission to develop faith in the revelations from God in the hearts of the children, and 'How can that best be done?' is the question that confronts us. Certainly not by emphasizing doubts, creating difficulties or teaching negations ....The clause in the Articles of Faith regarding mistakes in the translation of the Bible was never intended to encourage us to spend our time in searching out and studying those errors, but to emphasize the idea that it is the truth and the truth only that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts, no matter where it is found."(Cannon, George Q. Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, selected, arranged, and edited by Jerreld L. Newquist [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987], 472 )

"the Bible being our standard, we received no Revelations contrary to it." (History of the Church, vol.4, p.85)

"He (Joseph Smith) then took up the Bible. 'I believe' said he, 'in this sacred volume. In it the 'Mormon' faith is to be found. We teach nothing but what the Bible teaches. We believe nothing, but what is to be found in this book'. . . .He closed by referring to the Mormon Bible, which he said, contained nothing inconsistent or conflicting with the Christian Bible, and he again repeated that all who would follow the precepts of the Bible, whether Mormon or not, would assuredly be saved." (History of the Church, vol.4, p.78-79)

"Do you believe the Bible? If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do. Wherein do you differ from other sects? In that we believe the Bible, and all other sects profess to believe their interpretations of the Bible, and their creeds." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.119)

"We give great credit to the Apostles, translators, and the fathers that have preserved and handed down the Bible to us, their children, and defended it through blood and fire. In this they have certainly bequeathed a great blessing to the world, if they will be guided by the plain instructions contained in that book." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 1: 242 - 243.)

"Occasionally, a few in the Church let the justified caveat about the Bible—“as far as it is translated correctly” (A of F 1:8)—diminish their exultation over the New Testament. Inaccuracy of some translating must not, however, diminish our appreciation for the powerful testimony and ample historicity of the New Testament. ...So when we read and turn the pages of the precious New Testament, there is a barely audible rustling like the quiet stirrings of the Spirit, something to be 'spiritually discerned.' (1 Cor. 2:14.) The witnessing words came to us—not slowly, laboriously, or equivocally through the corridors of the centuries, but rather, swiftly, deftly, and clearly. Upon the wings of the Spirit these words proclaim, again and anew, “JESUS LIVED. JESUS LIVES!”(Maxwell, Neal A. “The New Testament—A Matchless Portrait of the Savior,” Ensign, Dec. 1986, 20)

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Holy Bible as the foremost of her standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and doctrine."(Talmage, James E. Articles of Faith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], 214)

"This book [the Bible] is of priceless worth; its value cannot be estimated by anything that is known among men upon which value is fixed. . . . To the Latter-day Saints it should always be a precious treasure. Beyond any people now upon the face of the earth, they should value it, for the reason that from its pages, from the doctrines set forth by its writers, the epitome of the plan of salvation which is there given unto us, we derive the highest consolation, we obtain the greatest strength. It is, as it were, a constant fountain sending forth streams of living life to satisfy the souls of all who peruse its pages.(Cannon, George Q. Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, selected, arranged, and edited by Jerreld L. Newquist [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987], 471 see also JD 22:260-61.. May 8, 1881)

"I believe the Bible. I love the Bible. It stimulates me. It lifts me. It inspires me. And, I never tire reading its pages." (Kimball, Spencer W. Conference Report, October 1966, p.21)

== The Mormons say that the Bible is God's word insofar as it is properly translated. Certainly, I agree with that. I don't know how anybody could disagree with it. Why do they make such a fuss over something as obvious as that?

They do so because their knee-jerk reaction is to attack Mormonism on the blind assumption that it must be wrong.

[Bloodnut]

== Several years ago I was staying with a Mormon family for a couple of days and had an opportunity to check out their bookshelf. I pulled down a doctrinal book. This book wasn't a popular Mormon treatment, but one of their own theological works written by one of their chief theologians named McConky, I believe. I paged through it and got to the section on the reliability of the Bible. There I found the rule just as I've quoted it above, but was stunned to also find the Bible summarily dismissed in the next sentence. This Mormon theologian claimed--totally contrary to fact--that the Bible has been changed so many times in its copying and recopying down through the years that no one knows what the original was like. I was actually shocked to see a sophisticated theological work by a principle Mormon theologian offer such an academically lame response to this issue.

This is pure sloppiness on Koukl's part. If he wants to pretend to be scholarly, he could at least be responsible enough to provide the reference. I'll provide comments from McConkie with the assumption that this is what Koukl read:

"That they have not come down to us in their perfect form is well known in the Church and by all reputable scholars. Only a few fanatics among the sects of Christendom close their eyes to reality and profess to believe in what they call verbal revelation, that is, that every word and syllable in some version or other of the Bible is the exact word spoken by Deity..."I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers," the Prophet said. "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 82.)
So what of the errors found in the Bible? Does Koukl really have a stranglehold on scholarship or is he simply speaking in ignorance, hoping his listeners will just take his word for it? New Testament scholar David Trobish, who is well known for his work on the Pauline Epistles, commented on the position of the 19th century Mormon leaders. Orson pratt once said, "We all know that but a few of the inspired writings have descended to our times, which few quote the names of some twenty other books which are lost", Trobisch responds, "This is right. True for both the OT writings (Chronicles) and NT (1Cor 5, John 21:24f etc.)" In response to Pratt's statement, "What few (manuscripts) have come down to our day, have been mutilated, changed and corrupted, in such a shameful manner that no two manuscripts agree," Trobisch said, "This is true more for the NT than the OT. There is probably no sentence in the NT that has the same wording in all extant manuscripts (there are about 5600 manuscripts; a conservative guess is that we have to deal with 80,000 to 100,000 variants in the NT alone). However, the Hebrew text of the OT was transmitted with virtually no changes since the 2nd century CE. Earlier versions found in Qumran show some variations, but very little compared to the NT and other ancient writings."

== This is a question in the field known as "lower criticism," or "textual criticism." The goal of the textual critic is to reconstruct ancient manuscripts from surviving copies.

Which is an impossible task, as textual critics themselves will readily admit.

== issue of biblical textual reconstruction has been discussed time and time again by secular scholars. The academic evidence shows it's an open and shut case, not in favor of the Bible's corruption, but rather in favor of the Bible's textual purity.

Koukl is in fantasy land.

== This Mormon theologian did no homework. None. Zero. Zip.

On the contrary, McConkie claims to have spoken the voice of scholarship in his day, and Koukl on the other hand offers us nothing but his own say so! I've corresponded with several professional Textual critics and they concurr wholeheartedly with what LDS leaders have stated. I can only imagine that Koukl has confined his reading to strictly conservative apologetic works.

Bible scholar Bart Ehrman respond to this level of biblical criticism:

"It strikes me as a pity that most doctoral candidates in New Testament are not trained even to use the apparatus of the standard Greek text, the Nestle-Aland 27th ed., that most divinity school students are not taught the fundamental problems of the textual tradition that they are expected to teach or preach, and that most of the laypersons in the churches to which the graduates of divinity school go are left completely unaware of the problems of the texts of the books that they themselves revere as Scripture." He goes on to say that, "Within the pages of the New Testament there are textual variations that have not yet been satisfactorily resolved and that have profound effects, not just on a word here or there, but on the entire meaning of entire books and their portrayals of Jesus... These textual problems cannot simply be swept under the table and ignored. Commentators, interpreters, preachers, and general readers of the Bible must recognize their existence and realize the stakes involved in solving them." (Ehrman, Bart Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies - Lecture One: Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text Kenneth W. Clark Lectures, Duke Divinity School, 1997 )

And from an email I received a few year ago, Ehrman had this to say:

1) We do not have the original texts of any of the books of the NT
2) The manuscripts we have *all* contain textual changes from the originals
3) Among the hundreds of thousands of changes found in the manuscripts, most are of no or little significance for interpreting what the authors had to say (many of them are differences just in spelling!)
4) But there are many that do matter, sometimes in very significant ways.
5) Some of these significant changes involve Christian doctrines about God, Christ, the world, etc.
6) Some of these are *not* easily resolved, and scholars continue to debate, in these instances, what the original text was.(emphasis his)

Bruce Metzger identified two types of scribal alterations: "...those which involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient, and those which introduce into the Scriptures ‘proof’ for a favorite theological tenet or practice."(Metzger, Bruce. The Text of the New Testament. Its transmission, corruption, and restoration (Oxford 1968): 201. ) "The number of deliberate alterations made in the interests of doctrine is difficult to assess. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and many other Church fathers accused the heretics of corrupting the scriptures in order to have support for their special views." (p.195)

== Because any homework in this area reveals quite a different thing--99.8 percent purity of the Scriptures--far better than any other manuscripts from antiquity, bar none.

This is Josh McDowellism, not BIblical scholarship at work. This smoke and mirror job adds up the known errors and then contrasts them with the number of words in the Bible. The purpose of this tactic is to come up with a percentage that would make the errors seem virtually non-existent. This is the same manuever used by web-host agencies, who advertise their "uptime" as 96%. Sounds pretty good right? But the reality of this number results in about an hour of "down time" every day! Given the extraordinary claims Evangelicals make for the Bible's transmission, we should expect far more than the 99.8% figure. Especially when one single word in a sentence can make or break a theological position. But do not be fooled into thinking scholars are arguing that we know what 99.8% of the original text said. That is not what they claim. Koukl is merely blowing smoke and tilting mirrors again.

== This misleading approach is appealing to Mormon's for a reason: They don't want the Bible passing judgment on their doctrine, because their doctrine doesn't come from the Bible. It comes from Joseph Smith. And it doesn't fit the Bible; it contradicts it.

This is absurd psychoanalysis that has no basis in reality. It is a proven fact that Mormons read the Bible more than Protestants - after all, why read it when you're paying a guy to read it to you every sunday? It is a proven fact that scholarship supports every claim LDS leaders have made about the Bible. It is a proven fact that the Bible is always left open to interpretation, and it is this Evangelical, oftentimes anti-Mormon interpretation of the Bible that conflicts with LDS doctrine - NOT the Bible itself. It is deceptive for Evangelicals to constantly make this claim, arrogantly presuming that their reading of the Bible is void of any interpretation at all. When an Evangelical "Christian" explains a Bible verse, it is "Bible doctrine." When a Mormon quotes the Bible, it is "twisting." That is the song and dance that has been taken for granted in anti-Mormon circles.

Koukl is trying to sell his own interpretation of the Bible under the guise of an ad for "The reliability of God's Word." Mormons are perfectly content with everything the Bible says, and they do not dismiss Bible verses out of hand because of translation issues. This deception on the part of Koukl is unacceptable.

==the easiest way to deal with this conflict is to give lip service to the authority of the Bible, saying, "Yes we believe it is inspired," and then they take away with the left hand what they give with the right, "but that doesn't matter, because we don't have the inspired Bible anymore. We've just got a cut-and-paste version that's nothing like the original. We do have the Book of Mormon, and the rest of Joseph Smith's writings, though, and my heart tells me these are inspired by God."

One would think Koukl was actually citing a Mormon since he uses the quotes, but in reality he has created an imaginary Mormon puppet to plead his straw man arguments for him. This is done for the obvious purpose of creating a win-win scenario. McKeever and Johnson do this all the time. Aren't there any real Mormon statements they can use? When someone consistently cites nonexistent persons, the critical thought alert should jump to Defcon 5. But the Evangelical listeners pay no mind to that because Koukl is a fellow "Christian" who is to be trusted, no questions asked. His own rant isn't even allowed to be challenged on the very thread it is advertised.

Bottom line is, when you can speak for your opponent, chances are you just might end up winning the debate.

== That's the first reason why I think Mormonism's qualifier about the authority of the Bible is disingenuous: When they have a verse that seems to make their case--never mind if they lift it out of context, which they do frequently--then they use it. Otherwise, "It's not properly translated."

I challenge Koukl to provide one single example of a verse being "mistranslated" according to Mormons. Should be an easy task given the many times this charge is made.

== You see, this is cheating, ladies and gentlemen.

No, it is lying and deceiving, and Koukl should be very ashamed of himself. But he isn't. Which should be revealing in and of itself.

== When the text speaks against the Mormon view, they dismiss it as not being translated accurately.

When? Where? Who?

This is all theatrics that has no basis in reality.

== It's also cheating because they haven't shown academically that the manuscripts of the Bible can't be trusted

No Mormon has said anything about the Bible not being "trusted." It is something altogether different to say there are errors, and then to say the Bible cannot be "trusted." This was a slick manuever by Koukl, who follows the usual anti-Mormon polemic, by inserting a word like this one. He has to of course, since the LDS don't offer him the ammunition he so desperately seeks.

== In fact, when my friend pointed out to the Mormon that the Bible hasn't been changed and that it is authoritative, his information was just dismissed. She moved on to something else.

And let's see how Koukl just "moves on" from the challenge I present him.

== You'd think somebody who doesn't trust the Bible...

Since this doesn't apply to Mormons, Koukl is merely playing a song to his own crowd. But none of it is based in reality. It is based in Koukls inability to deal with the REAL LDS position.

The rest of this bloviation from Koukl attacks the spiritual witness, and I will get to that in another response

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Notice

Bloodnut you are aware that double posts responding to the same post are not allowed on the forum. Second, please review the posting guidelines for this section. STR is a guest ministry on our site, please tone down the aggression in this area.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Bloodnut]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: DDW

You are also mmore than aware that contesting a Moderator decision in the thread is against the rules. In fact my notice contained this instruction:

***If you wish to take issue with this notice do not do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead.
If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Locker Room unless told otherwise.

Please govern yourself accordingly. Thank you.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Bloodnut]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Trout]

Moderated By: troutk13

Bloodnut,

If you wish to continue to have issue with how this thread is being moderated, please do so in the Locker Room. Continuing to do so here in the thread is very disrespectful both to the moderating team, and to the good folks at STR. Feel free to PM either myself or Dee Dee Warren if you have any questions about the decisions that we have made, but please refrain from positing any more complaints here.

Thanks
troutk13

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Tenshi]

The Bible or the Book of Mormon?
by Greg Koukl

...

But, inevitably, what's going to happen is, even if you make your case, someone is going to say, "All right, even if I accepted that in the originals--the autographs--we have an accurate representation of God's word, we don't have those documents anymore. In fact, they've disappeared and now we only have copies of copies of copies of copies." Or, sometimes people put it this way: "The Bible's been translated and retranslated so many times we can't trust what we have now."
Well, that's not the truth of the matter. Your Bible--your New American Standard, New International Version, King James, New King James, etc.--is not a translation of a translation of a translation. It's a translation directly from the best Greek manuscripts we possess. It's a direct translation from the Greek to the English, a one-step process. So, they miscast the problem. But they still have a legitimate concern about the issue of change.

Yes, but I would like to point out that those "best greek manuscripts" we possess are not direct copies of the original, but copies of copies of copies, by very human and falliable scribes. Also, for the vast majority of the books in the bible, we have not one early greek manuscript, but several, and they DIFFER. That is a key fact that is overlooked by many people, and means that there is more of an error factor introduced by the possibility of the translators siding with the wrong document, so to speak, when deciding which one is right. I would agree that they do a fairly good job, but there is definately a possibility for error.

...
One of the things she came back with is, "Yes, we believe the Bible is inspired insofar as it's properly translated."
Now, this is a key point Mormons make, and they make it over and over again. I'm not sure why it's so important to make that point because it's uncontroversial. As a Christian, I would have to agree with it. I don't believe in a Bible that's improperly translated; I believe in the authority of the Bible if it's properly translated.

The reason we make such a big deal about is because many Christians, probably even the majority of Christians, claim that the Bible is the inerrant, 100% accurate word of God. To quote from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

One of the most common attacks against our church comes from our belief that the Bible is not 100% accurate in its present form. That's why we make such a big deal out of what seems (at least to me) quite obvious.

But, you see, Mormon's take a further step I don't take because I know better. They immediately presume, as does the man on the street, that the Bible has been changed down through the ages and that we can't trust what we have now.

Not at all. This is a complete misrepresentation of our position. Read the eighth article of faith again. "We believe the Bible to be the Word of God..." Many people focus on the next part, the as long as translated correctly part, but we NEVER assume that the Bible is in any way untrustworthy. It is simply that, whenever a conflict were to occur between scientific fact and the bible, or the modern revealed word of God, we can assume that the Bible is in error. In my view, however, such a conflict has yet to arise. If you could point one out, I would be most grateful.

...
The Mormons say that the Bible is God's word insofar as it is properly translated. Certainly, I agree with that. I don't know how anybody could disagree with it. Why do they make such a fuss over something as obvious as that? Because they're convinced it isn't properly translated because the texts we possess have been corrupted through transmission over the years.

See my response above as to why we make such a fuss about it.

Several years ago I was staying with a Mormon family for a couple of days and had an opportunity to check out their bookshelf. I pulled down a doctrinal book. This book wasn't a popular Mormon treatment, but one of their own theological works written by one of their chief theologians named McConky, I believe.
I paged through it and got to the section on the reliability of the Bible. There I found the rule just as I've quoted it above, but was stunned to also find the Bible summarily dismissed in the next sentence. This Mormon theologian claimed--totally contrary to fact--that the Bible has been changed so many times in its copying and recopying down through the years that no one knows what the original was like.
I was actually shocked to see a sophisticated theological work by a principle Mormon theologian offer such an academically lame response to this issue.
This is a question in the field known as "lower criticism," or "textual criticism." The goal of the textual critic is to reconstruct ancient manuscripts from surviving copies.
The issue of biblical textual reconstruction has been discussed time and time again by secular scholars. The academic evidence shows it's an open and shut case, not in favor of the Bible's corruption, but rather in favor of the Bible's textual purity.
This Mormon theologian did no homework. None. Zero. Zip. Because any homework in this area reveals quite a different thing--99.8 percent purity of the Scriptures--far better than any other manuscripts from antiquity, bar none.

I would agree with you that such a statement seems rather extreme. Whence does it come? I have never heard it. I believe you are citing Elder Bruce R. McConkie, probably his most famous work, Mormon Doctrine. I do not have a copy of that book available, but I would like to point out that all opinions expressed therein are those of Elder McConkie himself, and not the Church, or its members. I don't believe that, nor does anyone else I know.

...
They'll point to the book of Ezekiel (37:19), for example, where the Lord talks about combining the stick of Judah with the stick of Joseph. This, they say, is a clear prophecy that the Bible ("the stick of Judah") is to be joined with the Book of Mormon ("the stick of Joseph") to comprise the full revelation of God. They ignore, of course, the context itself in which God actually gives the interpretation (v. 21), which has nothing at all to do with the Book of Mormon.

I will agree that v.21 has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, but I don't see how it has anything to do with the two sticks either. Here is the passage:

Scripture Verse:

Ezekiel 37:15-21 (KJV)
15 15 ¶ The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,

document.write(drawVerse(16,65807));16 16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:

document.write(drawVerse(17,65808));17 17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

document.write(drawVerse(18,65809));18 18 ¶ And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?

document.write(drawVerse(19,65810));19 19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

document.write(drawVerse(20,65811));20 20 ¶ And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

document.write(drawVerse(21,65812));21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

Now, v.16 makes it pretty clear that those sticks are scripture (they are written upon at the request of the Lord) Now, you could argue that the stick of Joseph refers to some other scripture (to which I would reply Which other scripture?), but it seems fairly clear, at least to me, that he is talking about scripture. What do you claim he is talking about?

...
The Book of Mormon has been changed hundreds of times, as a point in fact. This is very well documented. We do have the original documents of the Book of Mormon and we have the current ones and there are hundreds of changes. So even by their own rule, the Book of Mormon is a fraud. But that doesn't matter because Mormons have a burning in their hearts.

I would like to point ouot here that the VAST majority of those changes were grammatical and or typographical in nature. The MOST major change I am aware of is 2 Nephi 30:6, which was changed from "a white and delightsome people" to "a pure and delightsome people" Not exactly a major change there. If you know of any more impressive changes, please point them out.

And that shows why it's so dangerous to depend on feelings alone when issues of eternal truth are at stake.

First of all, I would like to point out that we NEVER depend on feelings alone. At every general confrence that I have watched or heard, at least one of the general authorities has encouraged us strenuously to study and meditate on the scriptures, THEN pray about them. We are never encouraged to just accept our feelings without any additional work on our part. And second of all, what else are we supposed to trust, if not the Holy Spirit? The doctrines of men, which change from year to year? Our local pastor, whose only qualification is a college degree? Which local pastor, for they most definately do not all agree. The Bible? We do trust in it. But we don't hold to it above God's Holy Spirit. What other basis do you suggest?

[ajohnson]

I'm not going to refut all you've said, but I would like to get clarification on something.

First of all, I would like to point out that we NEVER depend on feelings alone. At every general confrence that I have watched or heard, at least one of the general authorities has encouraged us strenuously to study and meditate on the scriptures, THEN pray about them. We are never encouraged to just accept our feelings without any additional work on our part. And second of all, what else are we supposed to trust, if not the Holy Spirit? The doctrines of men, which change from year to year? Our local pastor, whose only qualification is a college degree? Which local pastor, for they most definately do not all agree. The Bible? We do trust in it. But we don't hold to it above God's Holy Spirit. What other basis do you suggest?

Which scripture? Holy Bible or Book of Morman?

How do you know it's the real Holy Spirit if it goes against the Holy Bible?

Scripture Verse:

Galatians 1:6-9

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

You don't believe the Book of Morman is a different gospel,(I've read it and have had many discussion with Mormans).

Another question I have is why doen't you believe the Book of Mormon is a different gospel?

If you prayed to your jesus and your holy spirit gave you a non-feeling towards something that goes against your Book of Morman would you accept this as truth?

Why or why not?

Regards,

Alan

[Tenshi]

Which scripture? Holy Bible or Book of Morman?

Both. And the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, by the way. We are encouraged to read ALL scripture.

How do you know it's the real Holy Spirit if it goes against the Holy Bible?

I have yet to see one verse of the Book of Mormon which goes against one verse of the Bible. Now, your interpretation of a verse in the Book of Mormon might go against your interpretation of a verse in the Bible, but I would argue that there exists a VALID interpretation for which they do not conflict, and have yet to have that postition disproven.

Another question I have is why doen't[sic] you believe the Book of Mormon is a different gospel?

I don't believe the Book of Mormon to be a different gospel because it preaches the SAME message as the Bible - the good news (gospel) of Christ's atonement for our sins.

If you prayed to your jesus and your holy spirit gave you a non-feeling towards something that goes against your Book of Morman[sic] would you accept this as truth?

Why or why not?

First of all, what is with the whole MY Jesus, YOUR Jesus thing? My Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea to the virgin Mary, as the Son of God, performed miracles, taught people, called 12 disciples, suffered for our sins, died on the cross, and rose again three days later. Who's your Jesus?

Second of all, the Holy Spirit doesn't give non-feelings. Had you ever felt it, you could not possibly describe it as a non-feeling. It is one of the most powerful feelings I have EVER experienced.

Finally, as to your actual question, I am unsure of how I would react, but it is rather irrelevant because God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and thus will say nothing that is not consistent with what he has already said, nor do anything which is inconsistent with what he has already done.

Regards,

Tenshi

[ajohnson]

First off my appoligies for my spelling. I limit myself to two hours on TWeb and I don't take the proper time to proof read my posts.

Both. And the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, by the way. We are encouraged to read ALL scripture.

So, all of these are scripture? Interesting. So you reject the idea of the closed canon? (pg 398 from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism).

I have yet to see one verse of the Book of Mormon which goes against one verse of the Bible. Now, your interpretation of a verse in the Book of Mormon might go against your interpretation of a verse in the Bible, but I would argue that there exists a VALID interpretation for which they do not conflict, and have yet to have that postition disproven.

How could you follow a god that changes his mind? For example,

1) Section 101 in the 1835 D & C outlawed the practice of polygamy. In 1876, Section 101 was dropped and Section 132 was added - encouraged the practice of polygamy.

2) The in 1890 Section 132 was dropped (again, no polygamy).

3) The ban against preisthood for black members was lifted in 1978 going against Abrham 1:26.

I don't believe the Book of Mormon to be a different gospel because it preaches the SAME message as the Bible - the good news (gospel) of Christ's atonement for our sins.

First of all, what is with the whole MY Jesus, YOUR Jesus thing? My Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea to the virgin Mary, as the Son of God, performed miracles, taught people, called 12 disciples, suffered for our sins, died on the cross, and rose again three days later. Who's your Jesus?

I combined the two because they were related.

Your jesus is the spirit brother of lucifer. My Jesus is God incarnate,, God in human flesh. 100% God and 100% man. My Jesus created Lucifer - your jesus is his brother.

Second of all, the Holy Spirit doesn't give non-feelings. Had you ever felt it, you could not possibly describe it as a non-feeling. It is one of the most powerful feelings I have EVER experienced.

I was just trying to be clear, you said

First of all, I would like to point out that we NEVER depend on feelings alone. At every general confrence that I have watched or heard, at least one of the general authorities has encouraged us strenuously to study and meditate on the scriptures, THEN pray about them. We are never encouraged to just accept our feelings without any additional work on our part.

So first you never depend on feeling alone, then your holy spirit only gives feelings. So I was trying to understand what and how you determin truth other than your feelings. So I was trying to get you to explain an non-feeling.

Finally, as to your actual question, I am unsure of how I would react, but it is rather irrelevant because God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and thus will say nothing that is not consistent with what he has already said, nor do anything which is inconsistent with what he has already done.

If you really believe He's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (which I agree with you), I would seriously question all the changes your religion claims God had them make.

Remember this, your religion claims to have "inspired words of our living prophets (LDS church manual Gospel Principles, pg 55) become scripture". In my book, inspired words are the very words of God and are infallible. But your religion has a history of change it's doctrines.

Have you read the Holy Bible, cover to cover? I've read both Book of Mormon and the Bible - cover to cover. There are plenty of differences. The major one being who Jesus Christ is and why/how He can atone for my sins (and yours).

Regards,

Alan

[Tenshi]

So, all of these are scripture? Interesting. So you reject the idea of the closed canon? (pg 398 from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism).

I don't have a copy of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, so I'm afraid I can't respond adequately to whatever you're citing from it. As to the idea of closed cannon, we most definately reject it. Read the 9th Article of Faith again. "...and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." And yes, the D&C and PoGP are scripture. Why else would they be included in the quadruple combination? (a quadruple combination is the standard form in which the scriptures are sold by the church)

How could you follow a god that changes his mind? For example,

1) Section 101 in the 1835 D & C outlawed the practice of polygamy. In 1876, Section 101 was dropped and Section 132 was added - encouraged the practice of polygamy.

2) The in 1890 Section 132 was dropped (again, no polygamy).

3) The ban against preisthood for black members was lifted in 1978 going against Abrham 1:26.

How can you? See, for example, Jonah 4:3. Jonah, a prophet of God, says that Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days, no ifs, ands, or buts. Yet, 40 days rolls around, and no destruction. Or, there's Exodus 12:14-24, which states that "ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever." Yet we Christians do not keep the passover. Or how about the Feast of the Firstfruits (Lev. 23:9-14), which says "it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations". Yet we don't keep the feast of the firstfruits either. Heck, we don't do ANY burnt offerings anymore, all of which were eternal statutes. GOD doesn't change, but his commandments to us do, depending on circumstances. Thus the neccessity of modern-day prophets and an open cannon.

Your jesus is the spirit brother of lucifer. My Jesus is God incarnate,, God in human flesh. 100% God and 100% man. My Jesus created Lucifer - your jesus is his brother.

The trinitarian viewpoint is based off of an interpretation of the scriptures I (and many other people) don't accept. While the majority of christians may accept it, that means little, if anything. The gospel is not a democracy, with doctrines chosen by the will of the people. He's still the person who suffered for our sins and died on the cross. Whether he was God incarnate or the Son of God has little to do with the important part.

So first you never depend on feeling alone, then your holy spirit only gives feelings. So I was trying to understand what and how you determin truth other than your feelings. So I was trying to get you to explain an non-feeling.

I never said ONLY. The Holy Spirit speaks through a still small voice (1 Kings 19:12), and sometimes in other ways as well. My objection was to your terming the burning in the bosom a "non-feeling". It is most DEFINATELY a feeling. I may have misunderstood what you meant by that. Apologies. And, again, I would ask what you suggest I base my testimony on, if not the promptings of the Holy Spirit? The Bible? Which one? How do I interpret it? This is, after all, not an area where one wants to err (what with eternal souls at stake). The local priest or pastor? What makes him more qualified? Something else? Also, what about your faith in the Bible? Upon what is that based? Mine is based on the Holy Spirit I await your suggestions and answers.

If you really believe He's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (which I agree with you), I would seriously question all the changes your religion claims God had them make.

Remember this, your religion claims to have "inspired words of our living prophets (LDS church manual Gospel Principles, pg 55) become scripture". In my book, inspired words are the very words of God and are infallible. But your religion has a history of change it's doctrines.

See my response on changing doctrines above. For more examples, go here.

Have you read the Holy Bible, cover to cover? I've read both Book of Mormon and the Bible - cover to cover. There are plenty of differences. The major one being who Jesus Christ is and why/how He can atone for my sins (and yours).

I have read the BoM cover to cover, and the vast majority of the Bible (I skipped those chapters that go on about who begat who, and kinda skimmed Revelations - that stuff is HARD to understand). As to the differences, again, it is a difference in interpretations. There are valid interpretation(s) for which there are no conflicts. Just as some christians accept literal transubstantiation, and others don't. Or as some accept the doctrine of the trinity and others don't.

[ajohnson]

I'll invite you to the same thing I invite the LDS missionaries that visit me. And it's the following;

Let's stick to one subject. How about the diety of Christ?

I'll explain how my Bible proclaims the Diety of Jesus Christ and you can explain to me how the Mormons say he's the spirit brother of lucifer. We'll stick to this one subject until we're done, then we can see if we want to go further. No rabbit trails, no tangents; just the Diety of Christ.

How about it?

regards,

Alan

[Tenshi]

Let's stick to one subject. How about the diety of Christ?

I'll explain how my Bible proclaims the Diety of Jesus Christ and you can explain to me how the Mormons say he's the spirit brother of lucifer. We'll stick to this one subject until we're done, then we can see if we want to go further. No rabbit trails, no tangents; just the Diety of Christ.

I have no issue with a debate on the doctrine of the trinity, all though if we're sticking to one subject, it should probably be my criticism of the article, as thats what this was originally about. Regardless, such a discussion is probably not appropriate for this thread, and thus should either be moved to the LDS section, or (better yet) we should take it up via email. My email adress is Tenshi at gmail.com. Feel free to start us off, either with a thread or a letter.

Regards,

Tenshi