How Can We Know When We Hear

[TrashcanMan79]

Origenâ??s quotes match what we have today as the NT.

Hmmm. How does Mark 6:3 read in your Bible?

[consiglieri]

Ah, well, perhaps we will never know what Neighbor's response would have been.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Freedom in Truth]

Precisely what he dictated may not be contained in the current text of our Book of Mormon. I think Royal Skousen highlighted some of the possible inconsistencies between the printer's manuscript and what actually made it into the printed version.

I have read that about 25% of the original manuscript still survives. So 25% of the BoM should be entirely accurate because it can be checked with the original manuscript. Also, most of the printed BoM was proofread -

Printerâ??s statement - â??[Oliver] Cowdery held and looked over the manuscript when most of the proofs were read. Martin Harris once or twice, and Hyrum Smith once, Grandin supposing these men could read their own writing as well, if not better, than anyone else; and if there are any discrepancies between the Palmyra edition and the manuscript these men should be held responsible.â?

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/JHGilbert.html

Though we will never be perfectly without human error, look at the methods employed by Jewish scribes to assure accuracy in copying what they considered a very Holy scroll of Godâ??s Word . What were the careful methods of proofing the text employed by Cowdery, Harris, and Hyrum Smith? How did they show that they did their very best to produce an accurate text? JS didnâ??t even proof the text. 531 pages in the BoM, and over 3913 changes from the 1830 printed edition. That is over 7 changes per page. This in a book printed (not hand copied) from an English manuscript. Considering some of these changes were more than one word I would have to say that the early â??apostateâ? church did a better job of â??alteringâ? the Bible and corrupting Truth than JS did of restoring Truth. I think the â??apostateâ? church certainly would have caught the Johannine Comma, for their â??corruptionâ? of the Bible was much more consistent.

Mormons say JS restored â??plain and preciousâ? lost truth. With all the changes there have been to the BoM and your other texts, how do you know you have it right even now?

[Freedom in Truth]

Yes... Ive read the Bible several times. Have you?

Yes... I've studied it and not through "mormon" lenses either.

Even Martin Luther himself pointed to the fufillment of Rev 14:6 as 1830.

What Holy city?

Zion

They took her by force.

Yes, I have read the Bible over and over and over - many times. Have you read it before being a Mormon?

Martin Luther - was he hearing from God or from a demon? Did he hear from God sometimes and from a demon other times? If you consider him right at least once, then does that mean some of the things I say are right too?

[Freedom in Truth]

Yes, that is the definition I am using.

Have you read the OT prophets? Is there anything in their message that hadn't been repeated a hundred times before by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, etc? Repent, oh Judah, or you will be destroyed! Blah blah blah

Yes, I have read the OT prophets. Have you read the whole Bible?

Repentance is not the only thing the OT prophets said. I think it is very sad to have the impression that that is all the prophets said. You missed the love of God - the yearning of God for us - the offered redemption.

The OT, including the prophets, point to Jesus. They also show God never gives up on us. Jesus is the Word of God - the clearest revelation of God to us. I assume you believe this as well since you believe God didnâ??t say anything new to JS but repeated what had been said (but had been altered so God had to re-give the revelation).

[Freedom in Truth]

So God can only speak if He's got something to say that He hasn't said before? Got it. (But somehow I doubt you accept God's 'new' revelations to Joseph Smith...)

God still speaks, but if we made everything scripture we would have a zillion books. Is it really important to add to scripture that God told me to love my neighbor and take cookies to her? Even the Bible says in John 21:25 - â??Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.â?

I thought there were no â??newâ? revelations given to JS - that JS was only restoring truth that had been lost. Most of this restored revelation is not in the BoM. And, yes, I donâ??t accept it because it changes the character of God and of us. (If you told me tomorrow you didnâ??t care about chiasmus should I believe it is you?! Maybe, because people can change. But God doesnâ??t change, and human nature doesnâ??t generally change either.)

[Freedom in Truth]

Found a little list of 'Plain and Precious BOM Doctrines'. Do you believe that each and every one of these is adequately attested to in the Bible?

Good for you, TCM! You are good at research!

After reading some of the list, I would not now say that I definitely agree with those who claim that the BoM says nothing new as compared to the Bible (though it is mostly not new). But I would say that it is anything but clear. I am thinking that JS didnâ??t mean to change Traditional Christian doctrine - itâ??s possible that he just misunderstood it. After all, I have been repeatedly told that he wasnâ??t very smart.

It seems that Mormon doctrine is most like Catholicism, which is interesting to me because this is the Christian denomination they have most attacked historically.

Under Doctrines relating to the Savior and his mission, #2 - Alma 11:34-37. You think this is clear? Verse 35 says there is one God, which I know you donâ??t believe. In the last phrase - who is â??heâ?? The Son of God shall not save His people, yet verse 40 says He has come to redeem His people and to â??take upon him the transgressions of those who believe in his nameâ?. Verse 39 - the Son is the very Eternal Father? He is the â??beginning and the endâ? and the â??first and lastâ?? If I just read this without knowing Mormon doctrine I would understand that the Son is God (Trinity). I would be confused about whether or not Jesus was a Savior. (Nothing about Jesus paying the debt for only original sin is explained.)

#4 - Alma 42:5 - Living forever means we canâ??t repent? Adam could have possibly made Godâ??s word void and frustrated Godâ??s plan? Was God just lucky this didnâ??t happen, or is God sovereign?

Job 42:2 - "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.â?

Alma 42:7 - they were cut off from God spiritually? How then did God speak to them? How did he speak to their children? To Noah?

Alma 42:11 - â??laying it asideâ? - what is this talking about?

#5 - interesting that Alma 7:14 uses â??born againâ? and â??baptismâ? in 83 B.C. â??Baptismâ? is a transliteration of the Greek word â??baptizoâ?? created by the KJV translators - the Jewish word is â??mikvahâ?? (ritual cleansing, immersion). The OT doesnâ??t use â??born againâ? and â??baptismâ? - they are NT. Both these Alma citations sound NT.

#8 - How is the Greek word â??Christâ? used among Hebrews in 559-545 B.C.? Verse 7 - there is a God and he is Christ? Without Mormon theology to clarify I see the Trinity. Iâ??m also seeing that JS knew his NT.

It seems that JS put the NT into OT times. Though this clarifies some things for OT people, isnâ??t that what the NT did?

#10 - again, NT content and Trinitarian

#12 - â??resurrectionâ? - another word only found in the NT. When was Ether written? â??Jesus Christâ?? This is the Greek translation. Even if the book was written after Jesus lived on earth, I donâ??t know why Hebrew inhabitants not living in a Greek-speaking area would use a Greek translation.

I skipped to under Qualifications for baptism - not for infants - While I agree that baptism is not for infants I think the reasons stated here are illogical. Moroni 8:8 - little children are not capable of committing sin? Being accountable for your sin is one thing - being incapable of committing sin is quite another. The Bible says everyone sins. Verse 13, 15 - I guess the logic here is children canâ??t be capable of sinning because if they died without being baptized they would go to an endless hell and that wouldnâ??t be fair. But you all donâ??t believe in an endless hell for most people, and you believe people get a second change to come to the truth after they die. Also, there is a presumption that God and His ways can be totally understood. What about trusting that God is just without needing every detail?

The more of the BoM I read the more problems I see. And I had many, many problems with it before I read any of the text.

Would you like me to continue with the list?

[structurecop]

Repentance is not the only thing the OT prophets said. I think it is very sad to have the impression that that is all the prophets said. You missed the love of God - the yearning of God for us - the offered redemption.

Yes, I think the love of God got lost somewhere in Joshua.

The OT, including the prophets, point to Jesus. They also show God never gives up on us. Jesus is the Word of God - the clearest revelation of God to us. I assume you believe this as well since you believe God didnâ??t say anything new to JS but repeated what had been said (but had been altered so God had to re-give the revelation).

I think the Christology of the OT is debatable. I see the OT and the BoM as having markedly different messages. The BoM more closely resembles 2nd Century BCE Jewish pseudepigrapha than the OT proper.

[Freedom in Truth]

Even if the Book of Mormon said exactly the same thing as the Bible, word for word, it would still tell us something.

It would tell us there's another book that has the same information. It would be another witness for the testimony that came from the first witness.

Think about the Book of Mormon as a person named Mormon and what Mormon said in his writings, and the Holy Bible as a person who said whatever he said. Take Paul, for example, and think of the Bible as Paul, or what Paul wrote as he shared what he thought. Both books were actually written by people, you know, so it's not like I am saying something weird.

Though I like you thoughts and spirit, I think of the Bible as people testifying to what God said and did.

If Paul told us something, and then Mormon repeated it, we would then have two people who were saying the same thing.

The Bible was written by over 40 writers - witnesses. Then there are witnesses within the text. How many witnesses do we need? Traditional Christians throughout the centuries were witnesses as well. The BoM, I have now found, does have some different teachings/understandings than the Bible. JS is not witnessing to the same Truth. The view of God in the BoM is slightly off, and this â??offnessâ? increases with the D&C and PoGP.

Now try thinking that Paul said the same thing as Mormon, but he used some different words to say the same thing... that the thoughts they expressed are in agreement, even though they both used some different words.

Now try thinking that Paul added something, a little more detail for instance, than Mormon did while Mormon said what he said.

See my point?

Even if someone said the same thing as the Bible using different words, would that need to be â??scriptureâ?? Christian authors and preachers have been doing just this for centuries.

The Book of Mormon has value as simply another witness, especially considering how the witnesses are in agreement. And some of the people who wrote the books added a thought here and there, even though they are all in agreement.

And btw, I would think that what I'm saying would be apparent to everyone, but it seems that some people don't think the way I do. But with a little more thought, I think it should become apparent.

Each witness adds some more strength to a testimony.

If one does not believe the BoM is from God then it has one author - JS (and maybe some others working with him). Even if one doesnâ??t believe the Bible is from God there would still be many authors over many years. This is stronger testimony that the Bible isnâ??t one manâ??s ideas (or a small group of men).

I do want to thank you for your kind post - it was refreshing to read.

[Freedom in Truth]

QUOTE(Freedom in Truth @ Feb 16 2007, 02:57 PM)

Origen quoted the New Testament 17,992 times - 9,231 of these quotes were from the gospels. Origenâ??s quotes match what we have today as the NT. (from Evidence That Demands A Verdict) Did Origen quote what he thought to be inaccurate revelation? He seemed to be able to know the difference.

Coming from Josh McDowell, I immediately have the feeling that number is either incorrect or skewed. Are there even 17,992 verses in the entire New Testament?

No the NT does not have 17,992 verses. However, it did not say everytime Origen quoted he quote a whole verse, or that he quoted a different verse.

If you would like, you can check McDowell -

". . . the quotations [of early church fathers] are so numerous and widespread that if no manuscripts of the New Testament were extant, the New Testament could be reproduced from the writings of the early church Fathers alone." A General Introduction to the Bible, Geisler and Nix, 430.

"These quotations are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts." Introduction to New Testament Textural Criticism, Greenlee, 54.

Also - The Text of the New Testament by Metzger, Our Bible, How We Got It by Leach, and Dean Burgon's index of New Testament citations by the church fathers of antiquity - 16 volumes, located in the British Museum.

[consiglieri]

No the NT does not have 17,992 verses. However, it did not say everytime Origen quoted he quote a whole verse, or that he quoted a different verse.

If you would like, you can check McDowell -

". . . the quotations [of early church fathers] are so numerous and widespread that if no manuscripts of the New Testament were extant, the New Testament could be reproduced from the writings of the early church Fathers alone." A General Introduction to the Bible, Geisler and Nix, 430.

"These quotations are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts." Introduction to New Testament Textural Criticism, Greenlee, 54.

Also - The Text of the New Testament by Metzger, Our Bible, How We Got It by Leach, and Dean Burgon's index of New Testament citations by the church fathers of antiquity - 16 volumes, located in the British Museum.

But did you know, Freedom in Truth, that if we used the early church fathers to do the reconstructing of the New Testament, that many of the verses would read differently than we have them now?

And when I say this, I am referring specifically to the Apostolic Fathers, who were the closest in time to the authors of the New Testament.

We would also have some nice verses to add to the New Testament that are nowhere found in the New Testament as we currently have it.

Does this do anything to your theory?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Freedom in Truth]

At least one; Celsus, writing before Origen's observation of the same phenomenon, commented:

'Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism.'

-as quoted by Origen in Contra Celsus 2.27

Are you disputing that scribes intentionally and unintentionally corrupted mansuscripts when copying them? If so, I would enthusiastically recommend Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus.

I am not disputing that scribes intentionally and unintentionally altered manuscripts when copying them. I am disputing that the revelation/message of God was altered. I am also disputing that the changes affected most or all of the texts.

If the alterations were in most of the manuscripts then how do we have such agreement in the texts in content? Or do you think "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" is a meaningful change?

Of the thousands of variants, how many did Ehrman point out? And how many of those alter revelation?

The Mormon God couldn't protect His Word, and He couldn't restore it through JS. Or is it that JS exercised his free will and did not choose to restore the Bible?

I think Ehrman should write a book on the almost 4000 variations of the BoM.

[Freedom in Truth]

Not even close. There are less than 9,000 verses in the NT. (That appears to be the general consensus of a Google search into the matter, anyway). Perhaps a more meaningful statistic McDowell could have given us would be how much of the NT Origen quoted. If Origen quoted John 3:16 over three thousand times, it would seem a bit irrelevant (if not misleading) to argue that the New Testament is free from error because "Origen quoted the New Testament over 3,000 times, and in each instance his quotation matches exactly to our present day Bible!"

See Post # 185.

[structurecop]

Also - The Text of the New Testament by Metzger, Our Bible, How We Got It by Leach, and Dean Burgon's index of New Testament citations by the church fathers of antiquity - 16 volumes, located in the British Museum.

As Consiglieri mentioned, if we were to reconstruct an original document based on the Church Fathers extant writings, we would also have to add entire books to the NT.

[TrashcanMan79]

I thought there were no â??newâ? revelations given to JS - that JS was only restoring truth that had been lost.

Your understanding is wrong. The Ninth Article of Faith (authored by Smith) states:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I think I have cited this AoF to you twice before, and each time to correct a notion not unlike the one you have expressed here. Mormonism considers itself a restorative faith, but one that holds that God will reveal things He has not before.

Do you accept that this is the Mormon understanding of its faith?

[TrashcanMan79]

But did you know, Freedom in Truth, that if we used the early church fathers to do the reconstructing of the New Testament, that many of the verses would read differently than we have them now?

We would also have some nice verses to add to the New Testament that are nowhere found in the New Testament as we currently have it.

I think there's a few verses we would have to omit, as well...

[structurecop]

I think there's a few verses we would have to omit, as well...

The Aland-Aland (and most likely the Nestle-Aland) Novum Testamentum Graece relegated 30 verses to the apparatus, plus put 10 into the "questionable" category. This is the critical-text edition of the New Testament upon which the NRSV (Metzger's baby, and a great translation) depends.

[TrashcanMan79]

Of the thousands of variants, how many did Ehrman point out?

The verses that Ehrman mentions as being possible additions, alterations, or having variants that affect meaning are:

Hebrews 1:3

John 21 (entire chapter)

John 1:1-18

John 7:53 - 8:12

Last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel

1 John 5:7-8

1 Corinthians 5:8

Romans 12:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Luke 12:8-9

John 17:15

Revelations 1:5

Romans 5:1

John 5:39

John 1:3

Mark 1:2

Matthew 24:36

Matthew 17:12-13

Luke 5:38-39

Matthew 1:16

Mark 9:29

Luke 11:2-4

John 5:3-4

1 Timothy 3:16 (important to note that most scholars doubt Paul wrote this epistle at all)

Acts 20:28

Mark 1:41

Luke 22:43-44

Hebrews 2:8-9

Luke 2:33

Luke 3:22

Luke 22:17-19

Luke 24:12

Luke 24:51-52

Mark 15:34

1 John 4:2-3

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Romans 16:7

Acts 17:4

Luke 23:33-34

Matthew 27:26

Matthew 1:21

John 4:22

Luke 6:1-4

Luke 23:32

Matthew 27:34

Mark 14:62

Mark 6:3 (You never told me how this verse reads in your Bible. In doing so, perhaps we could test your assertion that 'Origen’s quotes match what we have today as the NT.')

This list does not include the hack job Matthew and Luke did on Mark's Gospel when writing their own.

And how many of those alter revelation?

Since one's opinion of which Biblical verses contain 'revelation' is rather arbitrary and subjective, I will let you decide which of the above verses bear on your understanding of 'revelation'.

The Mormon God couldn't protect His Word

Doesn't look like your God is faring any better. In fact, God's failure to preserve His word directly contributed to Ehrman's loss of faith.

I think Ehrman should write a book on the almost 4000 variations of the BoM.

Actually, there have been well over 100,000 changes to the Book of Mormon. But I share your desire for Ehrman to write about it. I think it would be wonderful. (Though I wonder if you would accept his criticism of the Book of Mormon more readily than you accept his critique of the Bible.)

[Freedom in Truth]

Either way, I'm hoping that Mr. McDowell has insights to the following question of mine...

Were the following in the original manuscripts?:

Matthew 23:14

Mark 9:44,46

Mark 11:26

Mark 15:28

Luke 4:4 (the words "but by every word of God")

Luke 9:55,56 (the words "and said, Ye know not what matter of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them")

Luke 17:36

Luke 22:43,44

Luke 23:17

Well, I can give you my insights to your question. However, my question to you is - did you read this list? Did you look up the verses and think about them? I found some of them rather silly. For example, Mark 9:44, 46 - the phrase found in these verses is questioned, yet the exact same phrase is repeated again in verse 48. So is it really important to you that the phrase might not have been in verse 44 and 46?

Many of the â??questionableâ? verses are repeated in another gospel, or in the OT. I found no doctrine at stake.

Every single variant listed below (by your uncited source) is in the KJV Bible, the version Mormons have chosen. If variants are important to you, maybe the church should look at other versions.

And, each and every single variant is in the JST. All 9 variants are in the JST. Some variants are slightly modified (without changing content), some are exact but verses nearby are modified - this proves JS read the section. Therefore, JS missed every single variant. This is not fallibility - this is failure. He missed restoring the Bible back to its original text 9 out of 9 times.

Matthew 23:14

Not in my Bible but footnoted - in JST (23:11) with slight changes (damnation changed to punishment).

Mark 9:44,46

Not in my Bible but footnoted. Phrase is in verse 48. Same phrase is in JST (9:41, 48) though JS modified the section.

Mark 11:26

Not in my Bible but footnoted. Verse is the same as Matt. 6:15. In JST (11:28) with slight changes (ye and which changed to you and who).

Mark 15:28

Not in my Bible but footnoted. In Isaiah 53:12b. In JST (15:33) with slight changes (saith changed to said).

Luke 4:4 (the words "but by every word of God")

Not in my Bible. Matt. 4:4 has â??but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. Deut. 8:3b - â?? . . . man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.â? JST has the phrase - the verse is exactly like the KJV. (JST modified verse 5 though.)

Luke 9:55,56 (the words "and said, Ye know not what matter of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them")

Not in my Bible but footnoted. In JST, unchanged (verse 58 changed). Similar verses - Psalm 34:22, John 3:17.

Luke 17:36

Not in my Bible but footnoted. KJV - â??Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.â? Verse 35 - â??Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.â? Wow - verse 36 is so different from verse 35 - I donâ??t know what to believe! (Sorry - it's been a long day and this seems silly! In JST (17:35) with one change ( left out men).

Luke 22:43,44

In my Bible but footnoted. In JST it is modified a little (his sweat changed to he sweat). Similar verses - Matt. 4:11, theme of Jesus suffering - too many verses to list.

Luke 23:17

Not in my Bible but footnoted. In Matt. 27:15, Mark 15:6, John 18:39. In JST exactly like KJV. (JST modified verse 12 and 25)

[Hammer]

Well, I can give you my insights to your question. However, my question to you is - did you read this list? Did you look up the verses and think about them? I found some of them rather silly. For example, Mark 9:44, 46 - the phrase found in these verses is questioned, yet the exact same phrase is repeated again in verse 48. So is it really important to you that the phrase might not have been in verse 44 and 46?

Many of the â??questionableâ? verses are repeated in another gospel, or in the OT. I found no doctrine at stake.

Every single variant listed below (by your uncited source) is in the KJV Bible, the version Mormons have chosen. If variants are important to you, maybe the church should look at other versions.

And, each and every single variant is in the JST. All 9 variants are in the JST. Some variants are slightly modified (without changing content), some are exact but verses nearby are modified - this proves JS read the section. Therefore, JS missed every single variant. This is not fallibility - this is failure. He missed restoring the Bible back to its original text 9 out of 9 times.

Matthew 23:14

Not in my Bible but footnoted - in JST (23:11) with slight changes (damnation changed to punishment).

Mark 9:44,46

Not in my Bible but footnoted. Phrase is in verse 48. Same phrase is in JST (9:41, 48) though JS modified the section.

Mark 11:26

Not in my Bible but footnoted. Verse is the same as Matt. 6:15. In JST (11:28) with slight changes (ye and which changed to you and who).

Mark 15:28

Not in my Bible but footnoted. In Isaiah 53:12b. In JST (15:33) with slight changes (saith changed to said).

Luke 4:4 (the words "but by every word of God")

Not in my Bible. Matt. 4:4 has â??but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. Deut. 8:3b - â?? . . . man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.â? JST has the phrase - the verse is exactly like the KJV. (JST modified verse 5 though.)

Luke 9:55,56 (the words "and said, Ye know not what matter of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them")

Not in my Bible but footnoted. In JST, unchanged (verse 58 changed). Similar verses - Psalm 34:22, John 3:17.

Luke 17:36

Not in my Bible but footnoted. KJV - â??Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.â? Verse 35 - â??Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.â? Wow - verse 36 is so different from verse 35 - I donâ??t know what to believe! (Sorry - it's been a long day and this seems silly! In JST (17:35) with one change ( left out men).

Luke 22:43,44

In my Bible but footnoted. In JST it is modified a little (his sweat changed to he sweat). Similar verses - Matt. 4:11, theme of Jesus suffering - too many verses to list.

Luke 23:17

Not in my Bible but footnoted. In Matt. 27:15, Mark 15:6, John 18:39. In JST exactly like KJV. (JST modified verse 12 and 25)

This reverses the suggested theory that JS tried to 'change' the Bible to fit his doctrines in the BoM and D&C.

So now we know that according to you, authority amongst us, that JS was right on all along.

[TrashcanMan79]

And, each and every single variant is in the JST. All 9 variants are in the JST. Some variants are slightly modified (without changing content), some are exact but verses nearby are modified - this proves JS read the section. Therefore, JS missed every single variant. This is not fallibility - this is failure. He missed restoring the Bible back to its original text 9 out of 9 times.

What little I have read of the Mormon attitude toward Smith's version of the Bible does not reflect that it is considered solely a restoration of the Bible's 'original text' (you are aware, I trust, that no 'originals' exist at all for comparison?). For example,

To regard the New Translation [i.e. JST] as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text.

- from Joseph Smith Translation as a restoration of the original Bible text

A similar sentiment is expressed by Stephen Robinson in How Wide the Divide:

Of course we believe the JST is "inspired," but that is not the same thing as saying it always restores the original texts of the biblical books.... [T]he Joseph Smith translation should be understood to contain additional revelation, alternate readings, prophetic commentary or midrash, harmonization, clarification and corrections of the original as well as corrections to the original. (emphasis in original)

Is there an authoritative statement, binding on the LDS, which would make the above views inconsistent with 'official' Mormon doctrine on the matter of the JST? (There may well be, I'm not asking rhetorically.)

[TrashcanMan79]

God still speaks, but if we made everything scripture we would have a zillion books.

Why, when God spoke anciently, were His words recorded, collected, and regarded as scripture, but not now? Is your God a changing God?

[Hammer]

Why, when God spoke anciently, were His words recorded, collected, and regarded as scripture, but not now? Is your God a changing God?

Why were the apocrapha eliminated? Most if not all biblical scholars study it in order to understand the Bible. They also study Josephus and other ancient historians of the day. So why would anyone think the Bible was enough?

God is not a changing God. But His people are a changing people. The world is a changing world. God doesn't put the same bandaid on a different sore.

Ridgedness is a sin and is not the same thing as unchanging.

[Doctor Steuss]

Every single variant listed below (by your uncited source) is in the KJV Bible, the version Mormons have chosen. If variants are important to you, maybe the church should look at other versions.

It appears others have already engaged your comments, but I felt the need to respond to what I bolded above (your undercover claim of me being dishonest and plagiarizing). You are quite right that I did not cite the source, so here you go... my dad. That is a short list of scriptures he has found over the years while studying his scriptures; which include the KJV, MNT, NIV, PRS, WET, and NAB. (Yes, these other versions are Bibles that he [a Mormon] has chosen).

As far as other versions go, I was unaware that there was something in the Articles of Faith, or anywhere else in Mormon doctrine that require the use of only the KJV. Maybe all of those saints in non-English speaking countries need to get with the program. And no, variants aren't overly important to me, since I was taught from a young age that the Bible (any version) is not inerrant.

[Paul Ray]

... I think of the Bible as people testifying to what God said and did.

Yes, so do I... and those people also testified to what other people said and did.

The Holy Bible is a record of history from people who wrote what God inspired them to write.

... just as the Book of Mormon is a record of history from people who wrote what God inspired them to write.

The Bible was written by over 40 writers - witnesses. Then there are witnesses within the text. How many witnesses do we need?

One, personally, if our personal witness is God. But I also like to hear from all people who are prophets... including yourself, if you are a true prophet of God.

Traditional Christians throughout the centuries were witnesses as well.

Yes, I agree. The more the merrier.

The BoM, I have now found, does have some different teachings/understandings than the Bible.

Yes, just as each prophet in the Bible adds some different teachings/ understandings.

Try imagining the Holy Bible without any of the writings in the book of _____ (pick any book), and then imagine those writings in the Book of Mormon instead.

JS is not witnessing to the same Truth.

I believe he is. He is just adding some more details that you won't find in the Bible... as all other prophets have added to the scriptures.

The view of God in the BoM is slightly off, and this â??offnessâ? increases with the D&C and PoGP.

I have found a way to harmonize just about everything that is written in those records, without contradicting anything written in those records. You might think they are "off", but I testify that they're not. And God has assured me that my understanding of those issues is correct.

Even if someone said the same thing as the Bible using different words, would that need to be â??scriptureâ??

I define scripture as anything written while using inspiration from God.

If someone said the same thing while simply using other words, they would simply be writing a translation.

Christian authors and preachers have been doing just this for centuries.

I agree.

If one does not believe the BoM is from God then it has one author - JS (and maybe some others working with him).

I agree, if what they believe is correct.

The Book of Mormon is either another record of scripture or it is a book that was written by mere men.

Even if one doesnâ??t believe the Bible is from God there would still be many authors over many years.

Yes, but they would be writing as only mere men, without God's inspiration.

God's inspiration is necessary for the writing of scripture. Without that, it is writings of only mere men.

This is stronger testimony that the Bible isnâ??t one manâ??s ideas (or a small group of men).

The Bible was either written by mere men, without God, or it was written with inspiration from God... just as the Book of Mormon was either written by mere men, without God, or it was written with inspiration from God.

I do want to thank you for your kind post - it was refreshing to read.

You're welcome.

Do you have any gum?