Another Mormon Paradox?

[consiglieri]

Good point. It is not a paradox. A paradox would be the church stating that the Bible is the only word of God, and the prophet stating there were other words....

Technically, that would be a contradiction. (See my other thread on this issue.)

Dear Scottie,

The paradox I perceive is that Mormons (in)famously claim the Bible to be both incomplete and imperfect, and yet my experience at Church has been that they nevertheless act like KJV-only Christians of the fundamentalist ilk.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scottie]

The paradox I perceive is that Mormons (in)famously claim the Bible to be both incomplete and imperfect, and yet my experience at Church has been that they nevertheless act like KJV-only Christians of the fundamentalist ilk.

I think irony would be a closer fit.

[consiglieri]

I think irony would be a closer fit.

You may be right, but "irony" gets so over-used.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You may be right, but "irony" gets so over-used.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Oh the irony of it all. Mwhahahahaha.

[cinepro]

I think many lds do not know much about the bible other than it was created by popular vote.

In the two years that we study the Old and New Testaments, is there even a single lesson on where they came from, and why we use the KJV in preference to other translations?

Here's what the CES Manual for the New Testament says:

WHICH VERSION OF THE BIBLE SHOULD I USE?

There are a large number of Bible translations now in existence. The translation recommended for Latter-day Saints has been clarified many times by the Church leaders. The following are examples of such counsel:

[Zakuska]

I remember when I first came home from my mission that I was sitting in Sacrament meeting and saw some one there with a Green Dragon. I wanted to go over and show them all the verses that where missing, but I resisted.

Over the years I look back on that experience and laugh. I think Ive grown since then and try not to be so judgemental.

[volgadon]

In the two years that we study the Old and New Testaments, is there even a single lesson on where they came from, and why we use the KJV in preference to other translations?

Personally,I think the 1st lesson should discuss things like that.

[Facsimile 3]

Technically, that would be a contradiction. (See my other thread on this issue.)

Dear Scottie,

The paradox I perceive is that Mormons (in)famously claim the Bible to be both incomplete and imperfect, and yet my experience at Church has been that they nevertheless act like KJV-only Christians of the fundamentalist ilk.

I'm one of those fundamentalist King James Version defenders. I have no problem being fixed in tradition in that sense. It has given me so much more advantage in all aspects of my reading in English. I love dressing differently for church on Sunday and I love dressing up my language for scriptures and prayer. Isn't it interesting how the common people in America during the life of Joesph Smith could read and understand the wording in the King James Version, but also speak it, and pray with it as well? I found it sad as I served my Mission in very active christian areas, that the people didn't understand very well, the English in my King James Version as I taught from it. James 1:5, forget about it. I had to basically interpret the whole thing for them after reading it.

I know the valid argument that we are naturally evolving away from that kind of English and I understand that. It's certainly not the fault of the Prescriptivist, but rather the NIV represents more concessions by the ministers to keep the fold coming by lowering the standards of dress and putting dunkin' donuts in the houses of worship.

[volgadon]

It has given me so much more advantage in all aspects of my reading in English.

Very true.

[cinepro]

Personally,I think the 1st lesson should discuss things like that.

That would be pretty optimistic, since in the Old Testament Gospel Doctrine classes, the Old Testament isn't even used until the 6th week!

[Obiwan]

Because the Church has designated the KJV as the "official" Bible of the Church (english speaking) anyway.

It's inappropriate for you to be using a different Bible in Church consig.... Man, sometimes you are simply off your rocker....

Use it in your personal studies all you want, but not in Church. Of course, you could maybe "add" something to your teaching (a particular point) that may be indicated in another version (as long as it's appropriate and your teaching accurately). But, that's different from bringing another Bible in and teaching from it or something.

Oh, and one other thing.... NIV is actually one of the WORST versions you could be using. It's "Evangelicalised"..... Meaning many of it's translations have the evangelical version of what it should be saying, not what it most likely ACTUALLY said in many cases.

[Jeff K.]

Had to share a moment.

I read the title to my young daughter "another mormon paradox". She miss heard and then responded, first shoes for Haiti and now Mormon socks?

[paulpatter]

1. Mormons are taught from Primary that the Bible is the Word of God, but only insofar as it is translated correctly.

2. Mormons are taught at least from their youth that the Book of Mormon came forth largely to restore many "plain and precious things" that had been taken from the Bible.

3. Most Mormons are aware that Joseph Smith prayed his way through the Bible in order to provide an "inspired version."

Now for the paradox:

Why do so many Mormons become uncomfortable when I bring a different Bible than the KJV to church and quote from it?

Any thoughts?

It's not a paradox. It is, however, less than insightful for an LDS teacher to deny himself/herself the Church's KJV Bible because of the invaluable--and numerous-- cross-references to LDS scripture that it provides. Why would any LDS teacher want to do that?

[wenglund]

Why do so many Mormons become uncomfortable when I bring a different Bible than the KJV to church and quote from it?

Perhaps it is because they, like some here, tend to focus too much on the negative and may be overly critical of their fellow saints, and concern themselves with matters of relative unimportance in terms of coming to Christ and becoming like him.

Or, perhaps it is because everyone else in the class has KJV versions of the Bible, thus making it difficult for the entire class to follow along when you quote from a "different Bible".

Who knows? Hopefully, it isn't made into that big of a deal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lance in TX]

I think many lds do not know much about the bible other than it was created by popular vote. and I also think many LDS do not bother with the bible because "so long as it is translated correctly". so as consig pointed out LDS it seems many lds do not treat the Bible as equal value to the BoM of Doctrine and Covenants.

You are sooooooooo completely wrong on this. As a matter of fact, we study it in depth constantly.

In seminary (Youth Scripture Study), my daughter studied the New Testament all last year. The year before they studied the Old Testament. This year they are studying the Book of Mormon and next year the D&C and Pearl of Great Price. Then they start with the Old Testament again. She has to memorize tons of verses and be able to discuss them.

In Institute (College Scripture Study), they have classes on Old Testament, New Testament, BoM, etc..

In Gospel Doctrine, last year we studied the New Testament and the year before the Old Testament. 52 weeks of New Testament and 52 weeks of Old Testament.

I would say that LDS (at least around here) know more about the Bible than most other Church members in other Churches. I have talked to many and the do not study it anywhere as much as we do.

[quote name=frankenstein' date='29 January 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1264789244'

post='1208795640]

consig...as for why they would cringe when you bring a different one in and read from it...probably because they think you seemingly tend to teach a personal agenda, rather than the lesson as outlined, and rather that give the benefit of the doubt they are jump the gun and cringe.

[handys003]

Each time when you re-translate the scriptures it is based on an opinion already formed. That means rearranging the scripture can lose it's context of what the original author intended. Let's look at an example;

Matt:6:1 KJV

1 ^aTake heed that ye do not your ^balms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Matt 6:1 NSRV

[handys003]

Let us look at another scripture:

Matt 5:22 KJV

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is ^aangry with his brother ^bwithout a cause shall be ^cin danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, ^dRaca, shall be ^ein danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matt 5:22 NSRV

But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,^* you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult^* a brother or sister,^* you will be liable to the council; and if you say,

[David T]

You will note in the KJV "without a cause" is missing in the NSRV version. This is necessary as "cause" adds a whole new set of meaning whereas the NSRV takes that "cause" away.

Actually, 'without a cause' is a later addition. In fact, Joseph Smith agreed that it was better without 'without a cause'. Check out the JST.

Handy, instead of comparing english translations to the KJV as the defacto, try comparing them to the greek and hebrew manuscripts. (This was J. Reuben Clark's problem). The KJV isn't the 'original', contrary to popular belief. In fact, it's more of a revision of previous translations merged together. Most of the New Testament is pure Tyndale.

[zerinus]

The paradox I perceive is that Mormons (in)famously claim the Bible to be both incomplete and imperfect, and yet my experience at Church has been that they nevertheless act like KJV-only Christians of the fundamentalist ilk.

That is a statement of your perception of things. It does not mean that it is correct. My perception is different. I don't see it that way.

[consiglieri]

That is a statement of your perception of things. It does not mean that it is correct. My perception is different. I don't see it that way.

Which means that your perception is incorrect.

[zerinus]

Which means that your perception is incorrect.

I think that yours is!

[Lightbearer]

1. Mormons are taught from Primary that the Bible is the Word of God, but only insofar as it is translated correctly.

2. Mormons are taught at least from their youth that the Book of Mormon came forth largely to restore many "plain and precious things" that had been taken from the Bible.

3. Most Mormons are aware that Joseph Smith prayed his way through the Bible in order to provide an "inspired version."

Now for the paradox:

Why do so many Mormons become uncomfortable when I bring a different Bible than the KJV to church and quote from it?

Any thoughts?

First, I think that most Mormons have a deep and abiding respect and reverence for the KJV of the Holy Bible. Sure we understand that the translation is not "perfect" (insofar as it is translated correctly) but modern revelation would trump any other translation anyway. Other than the JST there are no other authoritative translations of the Bible into English that is authorized to be used in teaching by the Missionaries or other teachers in the Church. These other translations as already pointed out will have the doctrinal bias of the translators and scholars, so I do not believe I can learn much of anything of value from them. Some other translations may have some obscure references or isolated instances that the phrasing may help in our understanding of some passages, but I tend to think that it is not required of us as members of the Church to use these other translations for any real understanding of the text because generally we read the Bible in the light of modern scripture and whatever may be gleaned from any secular scholarship might be good, or might not. We do not believe doctrines are true just because the world agrees with us (or not). And we certainly do not put our trust in the teachings of men over the revelations of God to His living Prophets.

So I would really get worried if Mormons were comfortable when a Gospel Doctrine teacher starts quoting from an unauthorized translation, implying that we can learn anything more from the worldly scholars who produce these modern renditions, than we can from our modern prophets and apostles.

[Lance in TX]

So I would really get worried if Mormons were comfortable when a Gospel Doctrine teacher starts quoting from an unauthorized translation, implying that we can learn anything more from the worldly scholars who produce these modern renditions, than we can from our modern prophets and apostles.

My daughter's Seminary teacher did that. She was teaching using the NIV. The Bishop found out and she was counseled in the correct version to use: KJV. The teacher still carries and uses the NIV for her PERSONAL study, but when she is teaching she uses the KJV only now.

[consiglieri]

I think that yours is!

Which proves mine to be right!

[consiglieri]

So I would really get worried if Mormons were comfortable when a Gospel Doctrine teacher starts quoting from an unauthorized translation, implying that we can learn anything more from the worldly scholars who produce these modern renditions, than we can from our modern prophets and apostles.

I take it you are not familiar with the DSS update to Deuteronomy 32:8 reflected in the NRSV?