Published in 1979, the LDS Church concluded that there needed to be one central and acceptable translation of the Bible
Life after Ministry has devoted a series of articles titled Mormon Dilemmas. Currently, 153 short blog articles attempt to provide information to counter the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Located in the Pacific Northwest, the individuals who are behind the ministry group maintain a website as well as a blog. They are very active within the counter-cult community as well as evangelism efforts to sway individuals out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As will be shown forth, many of these so-called dilemmas are easily disproven, as well as misinterpretations of what Latter-day Saints actually believe.
The 8th Article of Faith: The Misrepresentation of Anti-Mormon Life after Ministry
The first statement that we will respond to is this:
Did you know that Mormon missionaries are instructed to give you a bible when they visit your home? The Mormon Church has 17 key beliefs that it describes as their Articles of Faith. One of those is the 8th Article of Faith that reads: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”
The obvious problem with this is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have 17 key beliefs that [are] described as [our] Articles of Faith. There actually exist thirteen Articles of Faith, one of which is the eighth Article of Faith. How can an apostate Mormon who claims to know all about Mormon Doctrine mess up and claim there are 17 when there really are only 13 ascribed as our key beliefs?
The second issue is the mentioning that Mormon missionaries are instructed to give you a bible when they visit one’s home. This is further from the truth. Full-time missionaries who are performing their duties and exercising their specific calling do not hand out Bibles. Many times, when they go into homes that already have a Bible, they ask for individuals to turn to particular scripture passages within the Bible. In a case where there is not a Bible, or the access to a Bible, Mormon Missionaries will share their own scriptures with investigators, or potential investigators. The only time any Mormon missionaries may bring a Bible is if the individual themselves request a Bible from www.mormon.org.
Let us continue:
You may have noticed the certain degree of finality about the Church’s stand regarding the Book of Mormon as compared to the wishy-washy statement about the bible. This belief comes from the Teachings of Joseph Smith, pp. 348, where Joseph Smith says that an “old Jew” changed the bible and therefore, it cannot be trusted. If that is true, we have a few questions for our Mormon friends:
Since Life after Ministry misrepresented two particular aspects of Mormon belief, we must ask if they are misrepresenting what Joseph Smith said here. It is a tactic of counter-cult ministry group to reference an LDS Source; however, they do so with such subjectivity as an attempt to provide support for their assertion. Therefore, let us go and see the exact context of what Joseph Smith said:
I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible – Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith – In, by, through, and everything else. Rosh – the head. Sheit – grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.” That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.
In its appropriate context, the “old Jew” referenced is nothing more than within a specified context of the Bible, that of the Creation account as recorded in Genesis. Joseph Smith claimed that there was a change in how the Creation account changed from a more henotheistic/polytheistic reference to a modern monotheistic reference. Modern scholarship within the Bible, discovery of the Ugaritic Text, and that of the Dead Sea Scrolls; as well as the more ancient Sumerian creation accounts that pre-date the Bible all conclude that there was a plurality of Gods involved within the creation of the world and humanity. Furthermore, when we come to the New Testament, we learn that Jesus Christ not only was present with the Lord (John 1:1 and 17:5), but that he also created all things (John 1:3, 10; Acts 7:50; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Hebrew 1:2, 10; 11:3; Revelation 4:11) by and through the power and authority of the Father. Even more interesting is that the first concept of a Theophany is mentioned where the Spirit of God moved upon the many waters. Religious scholars have also proven that there were a parallel between the Canaanite pantheons of Gods with that of Ancient Israel and there was a belief in a Divine Council.
This leaves the question open – what do Latter-day Saints mean by the Bible as far as it is translated correctly? Investigating this involves a journey through textual criticism, archaeological evidence, as well as modern discoveries that have come to light in relation to the Biblical Text. Because of this evidence, we now know that there have been particular changes to the Biblical Texts. One of those changes was the removal or changing of scripture references that contained a true polytheistic mentioning of Gods in Ancient Israel. Other changes included additional renderings of certain aspects of manuscripts. The Long Ending of Mark is one of the major ones where earlier manuscripts did not possess the later adaptation of the verses (9-20). Unfortunately, much of these scholarly research and information are not welcomed in the thinking of apostate and Anti-Mormons, because it truly exposes their faulty position.
There are three questions that Life After Ministry postulates. We will look at and answer these three questions:
1. Who was the old Jew who did this?
The more appropriate answer is that, based on scholarly research, there are several complex issues when addressing Textual Criticism. Scholars have discovered there are four different and distinct literary styles that permeate within the first five books of the Bible. This is referred to as the Documentary Hypothesis and is acceptable within Jewish and Christian Scholarship concerning the Biblical Text. Along with this, most English translations of the Bible are based on the Masoretic Text. One of the more problematic issues relating to textual variants of the Masoretic Text is that through the reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls. While Scholars believe, there is some stability within the Masoretic Text as we have it today, there are minor and major variants the Dead Sea Scrolls have illuminated within the Masoretic Text. One such major change is that of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 where the Masoretes removed and deliberately changed the tone of the passage in order to remove a polytheistic view of God. In fact, even the Septuagint predates the Masoretic Text by thousands of years and contains some textual variants as well.
2. What parts of the Bible are translated correctly and which are flawed?
To answer this specific question would require a serious study and publication of all known inconsistencies of the Biblical text. For brevity sake, we will only investigate a small portion of some minor and major problems of the Text. As previously mentioned, one of the most problematic changes within a Biblical passage concerns that of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the changing of the Sons of God to the Sons of Jacob. This came about in light of the discovery of not only the Ugaritic text in 1924, but also the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Both archaeological findings revealed that Ancient Israel held to a more polytheistic/henotheistic belief. Scholars and students of the Bible have now concluded that the passage of Deuteronomy was changed in light of the prevailing monotheistic belief of the Jews. Some minor aspects of flawed scripture texts within the Bible include the Long ending of Mark.
3. Why does the Mormon Church give potential converts a corrupt bible when it can give the most correct book ever?
This question is superfluous in that they are attempting to beg a question that has nothing to do with what is being presented. They already view that Latter-day Saints dismiss the Bible. On the contrary, Latter-day Saints hold a belief in the Bible, understand the Bible, study and read from the Bible more so than many modern Evangelicals have.
In the landmark work – Articles of Faith – James E. Talmage provides a thorough and scholarly understanding of the preeminence of the Bible in the life of the Latter-day Saint Christian. Talmage says this:
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. In the respect and sanctity with which the Latter-day Saints regard the Bible they are of like profession with Christian denominations in general, but differ from them in the additional acknowledgment of certain other scriptures as authentic and holy, which others are in harmony with the Bible, and serve to support and emphasize its facts and doctrines.
Talmage further provides this insight:
The historical and other data upon which is based the current Christian faith as to the genuineness of the Biblical record are accepted as unreservedly by the Latter-day Saints as by the members of any sect; and in literalness of interpretation this Church probably excels.
From here, we continue reading more of what Talmage shares, specifically as pertaining to what we mean by as far as it is translated correctly:
Nevertheless, the Church announces a reservation in the case of erroneous translation, which may occur as a result of human incapacity; and even in this measure of caution we are not alone, for Biblical scholars generally admit the presence of errors of the kind – both of translation and of transcription of the text. The Latter-day Saints believe the original records to be the word of God unto man, and, as far as these records have been translated correctly, the translations are regarded as equally authentic. The English Bible professes to be a translation made through the wisdom of man; in its preparation the most scholarly men have been enlisted, yet not a version has been published in which errors are not admitted. However, an impartial investigator has cause to wonder more at the paucity of errors than that mistakes are found at all. There will be, there can be, no absolutely reliable translation of these or other scriptures unless it be effected through the gift of translation, as one of the endowments of the Holy Ghost. … Let the Bible then be read reverently and with prayerful care, the reader ever seeking the light of the Spirit that he may discern between truth and the errors of men.
To this, Latter-day Saints revere the Bible as the authentic Word of God, however understand and know that there are some instances where errors within the translation and transmission of the text itself have occurred. We, therefore, provide the best translation of the Biblical text based on the King James Version to those who wish to read and understand the Bible. In fact, the King James Version of the Bible that is used by the LDS Church is based on modern day scholarship, a work that took place and published in 1979. BYU did a documentary of the coming forth of the King James Bible that is used today worldwide.
In conclusion, the Mormon Dilemma pertaining to the Bible and the acceptance of the Bible is no dilemma at all. The true dilemma here is that of the Life After Ministry where they: (1) Erroneously ascribe 17 key beliefs as defined by the Articles of Faith when there in reality are only 13 key beliefs defined by the Articles of Faith: (2) Mormon missionaries are not instructed to handout an LDS King James Bible, except for the case where the person who has inquired and requested a copy of the LDS King James Version of the Bible; (3) Does not draw the conclusion that the Church of Jesus Christ is attempting to appear mainstream “Christian” by utilizing a “bait and switch” tactic; and, (4) Is not incredibly irresponsible nor mislead and confuse potential converts because there is no misleading of anything when Mormon missionaries present the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The true misleading and confusion rests upon Life After Ministry and it is to them that they suffer such dilemmas in an attempt to obfuscate the position of the Latter-day Saint faith.
This was a very useful post. Not about the anti-Mormon “ministry”, although I think it is fine that you are dealing with that. Rather, to me, I was interested to see some concrete evidence to support the mistranslations, particularly deletions, of the Bible. Revising the Bible, in connection with the ancient Hebrews’ change from polytheism to monotheism, is a little like the rewriting of accounts of the past in Orwell’s book 1984. Is there some source that collects more information of this type? Thank you.
Does “old Jew” refer to the individual’s age or the fact that he lived in ancient times?
James,
Thank you for responding to this article and sharing your thoughts. There are definitely good resources to look up and research on the various topics, especially that pertaining to the nature of Deuteronomy 32:8-9. There are a couple of good books. The first is titled The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwehisms to Judaisms and is a collection of scholarly essays on a variety of topics centering on the nature of Ancient Israelite and Canaanite theology and conception of God. Margaret Barker is another good source with her book, The Great Angel: A look at Israel’s Second God. Mark S. Smith wrote two books: The Early history of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel; and, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts.
Additionally, there are some good papers one can find online pertaining to this:
God Among the Gods: An Analysis of the function of Yahweh in the Divine Council of Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82 = A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the School of Religion in Candidacy for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Religious Studies by Daniel Porter: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=masters
Here is a list from scholarly journals (requires access to Academic Search Premier):
The Heavenly Council and its Type-scene published in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament; Volume 31.3 – 2007 by Min Suc Kee of the Department of Christian Studies, Baekseok University, Anseo Dong 115, Cheonan Si, Choong Nam, Korea. Can be accessed at http://JSOT.sagepub.com digital ID 10.1177/0309089207076356.
Isaiah 51:9-11 and the Rhetorical Appropriation and Subversion of Hostile Theologies by Jeremy M. Hutton of Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ: Published June 1, 2007 in the Journal of Biblical Literature.
The Binding of YAMM: A new edition of the Ugaritic Text KTU 1.83 published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, October 1998 by Wayne T. Pitard.
A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8 by Jan Joosten, published in Vetus Testamentum on October 1, 2007
Ugaritic Studies and Israelite Religion: A Retrospective view. Published in the Near Eastern Archaeology of March 2002 by Mark S. Smith.
Ugaritic Literature and the Bible published in the Near Eastern Archaeology of December 2000 by Simon B. Parker.
There are many other articles one could find on the subject, as well as scholarly and academic research. Many of this is substantially supported how the text of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 was significantly changed by the Masoretes who did not lile the polytheistic teaching and rendering of a Divine Council. This, because of their adaptive and evolved monotheistic beliefs that is entirely based on the Shema. Any reference to a polytheistic Divine council of deity was deleted, changed, or declared heretical and in error. When in reality, archaeology has proven just the opposite. This truly challenges the nature and heretical doctrine of pure inerrency of scripture and threatens the ignorance of many Christians because to accept such notions means that their reliance on the fact that the Bible had not been tampered in such a manner because of its “perfect preservation” becomes faulty, and it also challenges the central core doctrine that they strongly claim is Biblically Based in that there was only One God of Ancient Israel and that Ancient Israel fell into periods of apostasy in developing a belief in multiple Gods when it is the opposite that is true and based on actual archaeological and scholarly research. In a sense, for the modern Evangelical Christian to even accept this evidence, they would have to conclude that Latter-day Saints are correct and that their criticism is false.
Exodus 33 is one of the best places to illustrate not only mistranslation, but probable tampering with the text of the Bible in the translation/transcription process. In verse 11 it says:
“And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.”
Then just nine verses later, in verse 20, the supposedly “inerrant” text has a blatant contradiction:
“And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.”
So which was it? Did God speak to Moses face to face? If so, How did Moses see God’s face and live?
I guarantee you that we’ll find some day that there was some Medieval monk translating or transcribing a Bible by hand and he saw this part about God appearing face to face. His church’s doctrines and creeds told him that this would be impossible, so he went to see the bishop about it. The bishop didn’t want any part of the problem, so he punted it to the archbishop. The monk went to the archbishop about it on the bishop’s recommendation. The archbishop told him, “Of course no one can see God, just add something in there that says that it would be impossible and be done with it. There’s no sense confusing the riff-raff.”
The monk surely didn’t want to argue with the archbishop, because he might have been burned at the stake or had his tongue ripped out for questioning the wisdom of adding something to the text of the Bible. So he went back to his lowly chamber and made the addition. As he continued translating, he ran into another problem in verses 21-23.
“And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.”
How is it that a church who asserts that God is an incorporeal spirit that can’t be seen, who is without body, parts, or passions has a Bible that says that God put his HAND over Moses, and then turned around so Moses would only see his BACK PARTS, but not his FACE (you know, the one that he isn’t supposed to have, that no one can see and live)?
The monk probably looked at this and wondered what to do about it. He surely didn’t want to have to go back to the archbishop with another doctrinal dilemma–that would mean the rack or the gallows for sure! So, he just translated it and left it, figuring that nobody was going to look at Exodus much anyways.
I guarantee you that, knowing human nature, that’s what happened in many cases when the Bible went through the hands of the great and abominable Church that took away many plain and precious truths from it. Exodus 33 is a perfect place to show that, not only are there mistranslations, but there are intentional insertions into the text to explain away another part of the text that doesn’t agree with an “orthodox” tenet of a creed.
Greg – I just saw your comment and it was in the SPAM Que. Thank you for your response. Our ward missionaries had come across a person who mentioned Bart Erhman and asked me about it. I checked out the copy of the book from our library and am in the process of reading it at the moment. Ehrman studied under Bruce Metzger and went from being a conservative Christian who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible to an agnostic that accepts the Historical approach because of the many various contradictions within the Biblical text. Some of which I had not even heard of before. It is no wonder that many evangelical Christians, when they come face to face hard cold facts of true Biblical Scholarship that many of them lose their faith and walk away with unbelief in God because they have been taught all their lives that the Bible is 100% perfect and without blemish or error. It is no wonder many Anti-Mormon and Apostate Mormons have a harder time coming to realize that the Bible has truly been altered and there is no reconciliation on some of the contradictions one finds – including those of the Resurrection accounts in the gospels.
Yet, as a Latter-day Saint, when we see these things, we recognize them for what they truly are, the faults of men and not God and still accept and hold to the belief that the Bible is God’s word and that by and through the power of the Holy Spirit we are able to ascertain those truths and apply those truths in our lives.
Pingback: Faith: Pt.1 – Definitions. « Loftier Musings
I’m always curious about this and suspect you may have the knowledge and expertise to provide an answer. Not knowing which verses or parts of verses you would disregard as faulty, I will reference what is commonly included in the Biblical text and allow you to answer accordingly.
As best I understand it, somewhere around 57 AD Paul wrote the following warning in his first epistle to the church at Corinth:
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Cor. 11:13-15)
I pay most careful attention to his warning that satan can appear as “an angel of light.” (“truth”) Then, apparently later the same year, he wrote this to the church at Galatia:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8-9)
Once more we see a warning against trusting even an angel, particularly if they bring “truth” or “good news” that had not already been given. (Indeed, Paul includes himself as one to be cursed were he to do so!) As far as I know, the most significant of new teachings from an angel were first those given to Mohammad (puportedly even from Gabriel), those to Joseph Smith (from Moroni), and I believe in a far less significant way to Ellen White. Certainly these were subsequent to anything Paul had taught! Therefore, my question, which I would certainly describe as a “Mormon dilemma.”
If Paul was not moved by God to warn of these future events, if those warnings were not meant for Muslims and for Mormons, who were they meant for? Were they simply spurious and unnecessary? Though they seem to be simple and explicit, am I misinterpreting? Thank you for any time you might take to explain your view of this.
Michael-
Thank you for your comment. There are some issues that you do bring up. One is that concerning what the Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians about Satan appearing as if he were an angel of Light. Then you mentioned Mohammad and Ellen White. While I am not familiar with those situations and encounters, what I do know is that supposedly, Gabriel revealed to Mohammad what to be written. The Angel Moroni did not teach Joseph Smith anything doctrinal at all. Moroni only revealed to Joseph Smith where the plates were, the purpose of the plates, and his (Joseph Smith’s) role in bringing forth the plates. Now, one can say that Moroni may have been Satan deceiving Joseph Smith, but the problem that this criticism encounters is the nature of the visit and then the subsequent visits. Moroni warned Joseph Smith that he will be attacked. Moroni also warned Joseph Smith that because he was not yet prepared to take possession of the plates, he needed to meet with Moroni every year until he was prepared to take the plates. Moroni, according to documented records, guarded the plates from being possessed. Would Satan go to that great lengths to prevent just anyone from taking them? These are serious questions that need to be asked. Mohammad was not prepared like Joseph Smith, and I could be wrong on this, and therefore the comparison between Joseph Smith’s encounter with Moroni and Mohammad’s encounter with Gabriel are two different situations that have no similarities to one another.
The next problematic such criticism faces is that Paul did not just warn the Corinthians that even if an Angel of Light were to appear and teach them, it is that if an Angel of Light were to appear and teach them something that is totally contrary to what Paul was teaching, and what the other Apostles were teaching. What did the Apostles teach, and what did Paul teach? Jesus Christ crucified and then having risen from the grave with a physical body of flesh and bone to which he still possesses. In short, they preach the atonement of Jesus Christ, whereby men can repent and return back to our Heavenly Father. Thus, Paul was not warning about personal Revelations or even angelical ministrations when it complies with what the Apostles taught, but only when an angel appears and to teach something that would take away from the gospel and teach men to not focus on the Atonement of Jesus Christ for their salvation.
Contrary to what many believe, the Book of Mormon does not take away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There are many instances in the Book of Mormon where men are called to repent, called to look to Christ, called to obey, called to forsake their sins, the consequences of wickedness and the blessings inherit with righteous living.
Nephi recounts his experience with the Lord where he is told this:
Would Satan – appearing as an Angel of Light make such promises? What about this passage in 2 Nephi 6-8:
Any serious study in the way the Adversary operates, convincing a young Farmboy to produce a work as that of the Book of Mormon that talks about the redemption of Humanity, to create a fraudulent and false religious belief system would be the same level of criticism the Pharisee’s and religious leaders of the First Century used to accuse Christ of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Satan would never make this work about how man can be saved because that would defeat his purpose and agenda. Therefore, the criticism does not stand and therefore it was not a false “angel” or Satan in dressed as an “Angel of Light” that appeared to Joseph Smith, but the Angel of Moroni who was sent from the heavenly courts by the Father to reveal to the young man that there were plates with engravings of a long lost culture and civilization and how our Heavenly Father loved them just as much as he loves us today. This work also testifies to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and who Jesus Christ is. The Koran does not testify of Christ, Ellen G. White does not testify of Christ in the manner in which the Book of Mormon testifies of Christ – and there is a specific reason why.
This specific reason is because the Book of Mormon testifies to the reality of Jesus Christ and the Atonement by which men are saved. Its sole purpose is to draw all men unto Christ. In fact, Moroni 10:6-7 attests to this reality:
This, of course, is after Moroni 10:4-6 that is known as the promise of Moroni. Nothing that is good denieth Christ. To state that the Angel Moroni was Satan to deceive Joseph Smith and to start a fraudulent religion would have to serious prove that the Book of Mormon does not testify of Christ and the Atonement of Jesus Christ. One may say it does, but it is because they have not truly taken the time to really read and study for themselves to prove whether it does or does not deny Jesus Christ and the Atonement and the means by which we are saved. Anyone who does truly read the Book of Mormon with an open heart, a humbled spirit, and a thoughtful and purposeful search will definitely see that it does not deny Christ, but that it does just the opposite, Testify of Jesus Christ.