LDS Were parts of the Bible deleted by the great and abominable church?

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,529
6,408
Midwest
✟80,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
I was a Mormon for years. They were no more loving, obedient to Christ's commandments, kinder to their children, neighbors, and foreigners, helpful to the needy, and good to their spouses than Catholics and Protestants are. And yet their teachings mocked non-Mormon teachings. And they especially rejected the Trinity. They taught that people could be saved to lower kingdoms with visits from one of the lesser gods because they didn't tow the Mormon line. I had to study my Bible to see the difference.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,529
6,408
Midwest
✟80,125.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
It's rather funny to me, because the canard I've heard several times from LDS about this is that they believe in the Bible insofar as it is correctly translated, and yet from what I understand they eschew the actual translation that their prophet made of the Bible in favor of the KJV.

So I guess the Church went into irrecoverable, worldwide apostasy from c. 200 AD (or whatever date a Mormon finds convenient to use) until the time of Joseph Smith's 'restoration' of it in 1830, except between the years 1604 and 1611 when the Church of England (...which must've been guided by the Holy Spirit then, but not before or after for some reason) produced the KJV which the LDS recognize as the correct translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Go figure. The prophet Joseph Smith was chosen by God to restore His Church via the miraculous translation work he did to produce the Book of Mormon, but the Holy Bible? Nah...best to just leave that some English guys from the horrible, terrible, no-good apostate Church that is an abomination unto God.

Hmmm. :scratch:

And what's up with Joseph Smith's attempt to write the Book of Mormon in King James English in the nineteenth century?
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
It's rather funny to me, because the canard I've heard several times from LDS about this is that they believe in the Bible insofar as it is correctly translated, and yet from what I understand they eschew the actual translation that their prophet made of the Bible in favor of the KJV.

So I guess the Church went into irrecoverable, worldwide apostasy from c. 200 AD (or whatever date a Mormon finds convenient to use) until the time of Joseph Smith's 'restoration' of it in 1830, except between the years 1604 and 1611 when the Church of England (...which must've been guided by the Holy Spirit then, but not before or after for some reason) produced the KJV which the LDS recognize as the correct translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Go figure. The prophet Joseph Smith was chosen by God to restore His Church via the miraculous translation work he did to produce the Book of Mormon, but the Holy Bible? Nah...best to just leave that to some English guys from the horrible, terrible, no-good apostate Church that is an abomination unto God.

Hmmm. :scratch:
Are you interested in trying to understand LDS theology on the matter?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Actually, Apostle Paul dictated in King James English to an amenuensis who wrote it down in Koine Greek, and..

Seriously, I cannot find my New Revised Standard Version, the Bible I take to sunday school, maybe I left it there

dzheremi, I also read a lot from Orthodox Study Bible (my son became Orthodox) -- I like the commentary notes a lot

and I do like King James Version a lot -- ya know -- historically, King James was a flaming homosexual...

I am GLAD there are dozens of translations/versions
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
And what's up with Joseph Smith's attempt to write the Book of Mormon in King James English in the nineteenth century?

Jacobean English was pretty much the form of English most English-speaking Protestants would have been familiar with, so that was effectively the language of the day when it came to religious material.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,565
13,723
✟429,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Jacobean English was pretty much the form of English most English-speaking Protestants would have been familiar with, so that was effectively the language of the day when it came to religious material.

The problem with this is that the BOM does not reflect proper usage of the time, either in its high form (as in religious readings) in Joseph's own time or earlier. The frequent confusion of pronouns, for instance, casts it quite clearly as a poorly done imitation of the KJV, with very little regard for how the language of that era was used. So whether or not it sounds non-standard to us today doesn't really matter; the point is it wouldn't have passed muster then, either.

From wiki:

2 Nephi 1:30–32, Lehi speaks to Zoram: "And now, Zoram, I speak unto you: Behold, thou art the servant of Laban...if ye shall keep the commandments of the Lord, the Lord hath consecrated this land for the security of thy seed with the seed of my son." You/ye are plural pronouns and thou/thy are singular pronouns, but the text switches back and forth between them.

+++

LDS apologists have tried to address some of the many errors that appear in the BOM, even claiming that they are evidence in favor of the text rather than against it, but generally speaking the examples they use are not of the same type as the above. For instance, if you click the link you'll read about how it was once acceptable to write “The wars and weapons are now altered from them days”, rather than "those days", as we would today. Yes, that sounds like an error to the modern, educated ear, but that's a confusion between the third person accusative pronoun (accusative form of 'they') and a demonstrative pronoun ('those'). Those two types of pronouns do not form a cohesive paradigm:

I > me; you > you; he > him; she > her; they > them; we > us; etc.

That's a paradigm. If you know the language, you know this, even if you've never seen it laid out in a systematic fashion.

Whereas demonstrative pronouns are just...demonstrative pronouns. They do vary by distance from the speaker (here/there), and whether they're used with singular and uncountable nouns (this/that) or plural and countable nouns (these/those), but they are not inflected as non-demonstrative pronouns are, which makes the confusion between them a lot less damning than the kinds of examples from the BOM such as the above (as that particular confusion between singular and plural would not have been characteristic of Early Modern English, when those pronouns were still in common use; by Joseph Smith's time, however, they had mostly fallen out of use outside of religious readings, which explains why they would be found in the BOM as they are, since they fell out of use beginning in the early 17th century and were basically gone about 1800 -- Joseph, if he was as uneducated as LDS propaganda likes to say he was, would not have known how to use them correctly, but certainly the Almighty would have).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
It's rather funny to me, because the canard I've heard several times from LDS about this is that they believe in the Bible insofar as it is correctly translated, and yet from what I understand they eschew the actual translation that their prophet made of the Bible in favor of the KJV.

So I guess the Church went into irrecoverable, worldwide apostasy from c. 200 AD (or whatever date a Mormon finds convenient to use) until the time of Joseph Smith's 'restoration' of it in 1830, except between the years 1604 and 1611 when the Church of England (...which must've been guided by the Holy Spirit then, but not before or after for some reason) produced the KJV which the LDS recognize as the correct translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Go figure. The prophet Joseph Smith was chosen by God to restore His Church via the miraculous translation work he did to produce the Book of Mormon, but the Holy Bible? Nah...best to just leave that to some English guys from the horrible, terrible, no-good apostate Church that is an abomination unto God.

Hmmm. :scratch:
We know that the JS translation is the best, but we do not use it when we talk on this forum. If I quoted from it, you would treat us like you treat Jehovah Witnesses who have their own translation and quote from it. So we use the KJV, which Jesus tells us is the best translation of the bible.

There is one other element. The bible that JS retranslated, when he died fell into the hands of his wife Emma, who did not go west with the rest of the church. We are not positive that it was tampered with after it was lost to the leaders of the church. So we read it and we revere it as an excellent translation, but we use the KJV in our missionary work.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I too see no guarantee for the Mormon that they should trust in the bible. If the Church was utterly devoid of the spirit of God and given by God to man's own power and spirit then the bible it produced and preserved should not be trusted to any significant degree within Mormonism since it is either full of potential errors (teaches against what Jospeh Smith practised) or is just out of date and needs to be surpassed by another text, preferably one explaining the apparent need of multiple temples and elaborate rituals.

I suppose the only parts of the bible LDS can trust are the parts their prophets have quoted from but even their prophets contradict each other so that's not a garuntee.
We read the bible every day and love the stories, parables and doctrine. We know there are errors and contradictions, but we are willing to deal with them and we still love the bible and read it every day, along with the BOM.

It is in the context of someone saying that the BOM contradicts the Bible. I am willing to say that the Bible contradicts itself, which it does, but we love the Bible anyway, and we read it every day to be inspired and uplifted and to remain faithful to Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I was a Mormon for years. They were no more loving, obedient to Christ's commandments, kinder to their children, neighbors, and foreigners, helpful to the needy, and good to their spouses than Catholics and Protestants are. And yet their teachings mocked non-Mormon teachings. And they especially rejected the Trinity. They taught that people could be saved to lower kingdoms with visits from one of the lesser gods because they didn't tow the Mormon line. I had to study my Bible to see the difference.

Our teaching do not mock, they just explain more and give more detail.

The bible testifies of what LDS teaches about heaven. You have just lost sight of that part of the doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,083
3,768
✟290,975.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
We read the bible every day and love the stories, parables and doctrine. We know there are errors and contradictions, but we are willing to deal with them and we still love the bible and read it every day, along with the BOM.

It is in the context of someone saying that the BOM contradicts the Bible. I am willing to say that the Bible contradicts itself, which it does, but we love the Bible anyway, and we read it every day to be inspired and uplifted and to remain faithful to Jesus Christ.

How can you love that which is fundamentally corrupt and cannot be trusted because of those who handled it for the last 1800 years? That's the major problem I don't think has been addressed. Mormons have to admit there are corrupted parts, things that have been edited to fit Christian ideas (such as where Paul talks about celibacy being superior to marriage? Or maybe the complete lack of mention of Mormon rites which are necessary to obtain the highest possible salvation) but there is no real means of identifying the good parts from the bad except for denying those parts which are problematic to Mormon doctrine. That raises the question of whether or not Mormons are simply being selective in what they agree with in the bible and what they disagree with.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟219,919.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We know that the JS translation is the best, but we do not use it when we talk on this forum

So we use the KJV, which Jesus tells us is the best translation of the bible.

More lds double speak? Which one is actually "the best"?? And where did Jesus speak of "the best" translation??

"If" (big IF!) Jesus told you that the KJV is the best, then why do you "know" the JS translation is the best? Aren't you going against what Jesus thinks?
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
How can you love that which is fundamentally corrupt and cannot be trusted because of those who handled it for the last 1800 years? That's the major problem I don't think has been addressed. Mormons have to admit there are corrupted parts, things that have been edited to fit Christian ideas (such as where Paul talks about celibacy being superior to marriage? Or maybe the complete lack of mention of Mormon rites which are necessary to obtain the highest possible salvation) but there is no real means of identifying the good parts from the bad except for denying those parts which are problematic to Mormon doctrine. That raises the question of whether or not Mormons are simply being selective in what they agree with in the bible and what they disagree with.
LDS agrees with everything in the bible. What we do not agree with is your interpretation of critical verses in the bible.

What seems to be a conflict, we work through it, and find the answers. We know there is a lot of plain and precious thing that have been taken from the text, but we love what there is and read and study everyday.

For instance: Why can't you and I agree on the process of salvation? You get your information from the bible, and I get my information from the bible. That seems like the most important question that needs to be answered by the bible, but the bible answers it in such a way that seems to cause more divide than concesus.

Why is that? It is because:
1) certain passages of the bible have been taken out of the bible that would make it more clear.
2) certain passages in the bible are corrupted, either on purpose or by innocent copy errors, or by translation difficulties (hundreds of translations). It is the cause of much error.
3) all scriptures relating to salvation are not included in the final analysis, only certain salvific scriptures are studied seriously, depending on a religions particular agenda.

So if we can't agree on what we have to do to be saved, forget about agreeing on the nature of God and Jesus and the HS, the after life, the life before, exaltation, etc., etc., etc.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
More lds double speak? Which one is actually "the best"?? And where did Jesus speak of "the best" translation??

"If" (big IF!) Jesus told you that the KJV is the best, then why do you "know" the JS translation is the best? Aren't you going against what Jesus thinks?
I agree that was double talk.

So Jesus helped JS to adjust the bible. We would use that, except it fell out of the church's hand and could have been compromised.

So Jesus told us to use the KJV, and that is what we do.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,083
3,768
✟290,975.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
LDS agrees with everything in the bible. What we do not agree with is your interpretation of critical verses in the bible.

What seems to be a conflict, we work through it, and find the answers. We know there is a lot of plain and precious thing that have been taken from the text, but we love what there is and read and study everyday.

For instance: Why can't you and I agree on the process of salvation? You get your information from the bible, and I get my information from the bible. That seems like the most important question that needs to be answered by the bible, but the bible answers it in such a way that seems to cause more divide than concesus.

Why is that? It is because:
1) certain passages of the bible have been taken out of the bible that would make it more clear.
2) certain passages in the bible are corrupted, either on purpose or by innocent copy errors, or by translation difficulties (hundreds of translations). It is the cause of much error.
3) all scriptures relating to salvation are not included in the final analysis, only certain salvific scriptures are studied seriously, depending on a religions particular agenda.

So if we can't agree on what we have to do to be saved, forget about agreeing on the nature of God and Jesus and the HS, the after life, the life before, exaltation, etc., etc., etc.

There are some strange contradictions in your post. How can you agree with everything in the bible when in points 1 and 2 you clearly believe the bible has been edited to a Christian view? It should logically follow that you don't follow the bible, as it has been preserved, but dismiss it because it cannot be trusted with it's message of salvation. The bible for instance does not require a man be married in order to achieve the greatest blessing, in fact he can obtain it, whereas Mormonism makes it a requirement that in order to achieve a higher salvation one must be married. Christians might be divided over the meaning of Salvation (Sola Fide vs the ancient way) but we do agree that Mormon teachings depart utterly from the biblical message. This makes sense mind you, given your apparent disbelief in the text.

I see no difference between what you as a Mormon do with the text and what a Muslim or Gnostic might do with the biblical text. I believe we have good reason to trust the textual integrity of the bible based on it's transmission and that we can positively identify textual corruptions and have critical versions of the bible. Is this conviction of the bible's corruption based on a solid textual analysis or merely Mormon belief in how evil the Church that Christ established became? Because at a certain point we are able to analyse ancient copies of the bible to establish their reliability. If the corruption of the text was as absolute as you believe it, why do we tend to find uniformity amongst most of the biblical texts despite the wide geographical spread and different groups (with different theological interests) copying the text? Shouldn't we expect (if Mormon accusations are correct) biblical texts preserved by Roman Catholics to have the Pope explicitly mentioned as Peter's successor?
 
Upvote 0