The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[teddyaware]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Proof texting is a wonderful thing.

As if the solemn testimonies of the Apostles Paul and Peter have no impact on the discussion. How, I ask, is one supposed to address Paul’s intended meaning on grace without appealing to his writings, since his writings are all we have? Dismissive, hackneyed expressions are the stock in trade cop outs of those who know they’ve been bested and are nothing more than tacit admissions of defeat.

Edited August 1, 2022 by teddyaware

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

As if the solemn testimonies of the Apostles Paul and Peter have no impact on the discussion. How, I ask, is one supposed to address Paul’s intended meaning on grace without appealing to his writings, since his writings are all we have? Dismissive, hackneyed expressions are the stock in trade cop outs of those who know they’ve been bested and are nothing more than tacit admissions of defeat.

One must appeal to the totality of Paul's writings rather than proof-texting. Sticking to the latter "bests" no one.

[Rain]

16 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'm having so many thoughts regarding your questions. I'll try to pull them together:

• The New Testament canon as we know it really goes back to the Council of Rome in 382 B.C., to the commissioning of St. Jerome to produce the Vulgate Bible. The 73 books that Jerome translated into Latin, including the 27 New Testament books, were the expanse of Scripture until the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther objected to the deuterocanonical books (the seven books in the Septuagint that were not in the Masoretic Old Testament) and also objected to the Epistle of James. He kept the seven deuterocanonical books out of his 1522 translation of the Bible. There's a lot more to this--shelves of books--but that's an accurate blurb on this part of the story.
• The Catholic Church officially responded to the Protestant Reformation with the Council of Trent, which had three sessions that stretched from 1545-1563. In the third session of Trent, the 73 books of Scripture were reaffirmed, and very much in response to Martin Luther excluding the seven books. There was also language that reaffirmed the Church's teaching authority regarding the scriptures. These statements were in response to Martin Luther, but probably even more in response to the Munster Rebellion (Anabaptists, cue Navidad), which was thought to have been instigated by the Anabaptist insistence on the primacy of individual interpretation of Scripture. In the sense that Jerome is one bookend of a discussion of canon, The Council of Trent is the other bookend.
• Trent was about not removing books of Scripture, and not having individual interpretation run roughshod. Trent didn't directly address itself to the kind of "What if..." that could be put forward if, for example, the missing Pauline letter to the Corinthians was discovered.  
•  An interesting case is the rediscovery of The Didache, a book that was known in the early Church, was discussed as possibly being Scripture before being rejected, and was lost over the centuries until it was rediscovered in the 1870s. The Didache is dated by scholars between 50 and 150 A.D., and is treasured for the window it gives into the early, perhaps very early, Church. Catholics I know love The Didache--it's commonly used in RCIA (a class for inquirers) and is very, very Catholic. Some theologians and historians have made noise about The Didache and the canon, but I haven't seen those discussions gain traction. 
• If one or more of the works referenced in the New Testament itself were discovered and authenticated, I suspect they would be treated much as The Didache has been--with appreciation but without a need to be considered in terms of all the canon issues. 
• In the early years, many works were excluded from official use for being heretical because they contradicted the known apostolic writings and Sacred Tradition (the apostolic teachings that weren't written, but that were also passed on). Bart Ehrman has sold a lot of books making a fuss over these excluded books, but these books are gnostic, rooted in the Judaizer heresy that Paul condemned, and/or otherwise have the marks of fakery. 
• I don't know of any Catholic theologians or historians who have a notion of 'modern scripture.' I understand that my LDS friends do have such a notion. Moreover, when Latter-day Saints speak of the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly," it will make Catholics and others wonder if LDS folks don't have a unique notion of both scripture and canon. The accounts of Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon are unlike anything I know of in the Bible, or in Catholic prophetic activity. A man translating not through knowledge--like St. Jerome to produce the Vulgate--but through a mystical/spiritual process? That's a mic drop in a theological sense.

I had a Sunday School teacher who worked in the scripture department.  He told me once that translation was a misnomer when talking about the Book of Mormon as Joseph had no knowledge of the language it was written in so he couldn't actually translate it.  He preferred to call it inspired writing.

 

16 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

• If I put myself in LDS shoes, I can see how the canon discussions could feel like the winners writing history and excluding everyone else.    
• I texted one of my LDS family members about the deuterocanonical books, the seven excluded by Martin Luther and not usually included in Protestant Bibles (there are KJVs with the deuterocanonicals, though). Anyway, he said these books are known in LDS circles as 'The Apocrypha,' and that while they could be read and studied, he doesn't think Latter-day Saints pay them much attention.

I apologize for a bit of a ramble, and very much appreciate your questions and this discussion. I'm learning a lot from you and from others on this enjoyable little site.

 

 

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

13 lessons out of 50 if I counted correctly  

31 are devoted to the Gospels and Acts

6 for the rest

Doesn’t seem like we are ignoring Paul when we devote a quarter of the New Testament year to him.

You could spend three months on Romans alone. Yes we do ignore Paul especially of the bulk are focused on Acts.

[Chum]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

I do need to learn how to express myself with less words, but there is always so much to say if I want to be clear

It was very inviting, all the way thru.

In my head, I keep contrasting your writing style with a posting format that hammers "You Must Believe This And Here's Why" over and over and over and over and over again.

sidebar: Those format differences are a solid parallel between good parenting and instruction that creates a permanent state of anxiety in kids.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Chum

[Teancum]

27 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

As if the solemn testimonies of the Apostles Paul and Peter have no impact on the discussion. How, I ask, is one supposed to address Paul’s intended meaning on grace without appealing to his writings, since his writings are all we have? Dismissive, hackneyed expressions are the stock in trade cop outs of those who know they’ve been bested and are nothing more than tacit admissions of defeat.

You cherry pick the passages you think prove your points. To be fair so do Evangelicals.  You have to take it as a whole and if you do the Mormon view of what Paul  has to say pretty much fails.

[InCognitus]

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Tell me, when it is the year to study the NT how much time is given to the Epistles of Paul.  That will prove my point quite well.

Calm already posted the answer, but here are actual statistics.  The total number of verses in the New Testament are 7,957.  The number of verses in Paul's epistles (including Hebrews) are 2,336.  That means that Paul's writings comprise 29.358% of the New Testament .

Based on the Come Follow Me reading layout for 2023, there are 49 lessons that cover chapters in the New Testament (one is for introductory material, and there's a separate lesson for Easter and Christmas, like we do every year).  Out of those 49 lessons, 14 weeks are set aside to cover Paul's epistles.  That means 28.571% of the time covers Paul's lessons.  That seems fairly even, although maybe you got us on the 0.786% difference. 

Wow.  I didn't realize that we neglected Paul by that 0.786%.   We need to do better than that.   But somehow I don't think that's what you really had in mind  

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

especially of the bulk are focused on Acts.

I am not sure what you mean, the bulk of what?  Not the 13 lessons I counted.  Acts does have 5 weeks of lessons out of the 30 of the Gospels and Acts, but that is only a tenth of the year while Paul is over a quarter of the year.

And we could spend a lot more on Paul…and on Matthew and John and on James and Revelations…but just because we only spend one year out of four on the NT and about a quarter of that on Paul…so 1/16th of our study time is on Paul, that is hardly ignoring him.  Outside the Gospels, which given their focus on the life of Jesus should be the foremost of Bible study imo, Paul is the biblical writer that is studied the most I believe (unless you assume Moses wrote the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, which I don’t).  And if you treat the Gospels separately, assuming equal time that would be 5 books studied in 30 weeks, so 6 weeks for each book.  Only the author of Luke and Acts (if the same) comes close to Paul at 12 weeks, but Paul would still be the most studied author of the NT.  Paul wrote a little less than a quarter of the NT if you go by word count, so spending a quarter of NT study time on Paul is not unreasonable.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Calm

[InCognitus]

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You could spend three months on Romans alone. Yes we do ignore Paul especially of the bulk are focused on Acts.

You do realize that a good portion of Acts focuses on Paul's missionary journeys and teachings, don't you?

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

You do realize that a good portion of Acts focuses on Paul's missionary journeys and teachings, don't you?

You could probably add two more weeks onto the 13 to make a total of 15 out of 50 that Paul is studied now you have mentioned this. (I took a brief look at the last two weeks’ lessons and they look focused on Paul.) So almost a third of the year on Paul and a fifth on all the rest of the apostles put together.

So several thousand references to Paul’s writings in General Conference in the last 50 years and a good portion of the New Testament year focused on Paul.

I am not seeing him being ignored.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Calm

[InCognitus]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not seeing him being ignored.

We focus 14 weeks of study on Paul, and only 5 weeks of study (this year) on Isaiah.  I'd say Paul is being emphasized.

[Saint Bonaventure]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

I had a Sunday School teacher who worked in the scripture department.  He told me once that translation was a misnomer when talking about the Book of Mormon as Joseph had no knowledge of the language it was written in so he couldn't actually translate it.  He preferred to call it inspired writing.

 

 

From the limited reading I've done, it seems like there are different theories and ideas concerning what Joseph Smith did and how he did it. I appreciate that Latter-day Saints will see at least some of these theories as pointing to Joseph being a prophet and the Book of Mormon being scripture. 

It might be interesting to know which theories and approaches are supported by church leaders or scholars, or if there are schools of thought and so on.

Thanks for giving me a bit of a clue, as it were.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

From the limited reading I've done, it seems like there are different theories and ideas concerning what Joseph Smith did and how he did it. I appreciate that Latter-day Saints will see at least some of these theories as pointing to Joseph being a prophet and the Book of Mormon being scripture. 

It might be interesting to know which theories and approaches are supported by church leaders or scholars, or if there are schools of thought and so on.

Thanks for giving me a bit of a clue, as it were.

This is what the Church has to say on the issue.  Some scholars helped provide some of the materials for a number of these essays, but the compiling, composition, and final product were done by church employees under supervision of a couple of general authorities (top three in the first presidency, the quorum of apostles, and next level down “seventies” are our general authorities).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

[Durangout]

This lovely man points out some unique things about The Church from a non-member’s perspective.  Worth the watch.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Durangout

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 7/31/2022 at 8:18 PM, Calm said:

While I think there are other aspects (we should tell you about “likening scripture”) that may contribute to a unique view, this condition of “translated correctly” is pretty much only saying our current books of scriptures are not seen as inerrant as they have passed through the error prone hands of men.  Unless Catholics believe there is no error in translation of scripture, that any translation is as accurate in communicating the original thought as another or as good as the original texts, I don’t see that particular condition of cautioning about potential translation error as that novel. 

The same condition would apply to any translation of the Book of Mormon. We have some of the original dictated and publisher manuscripts, so we also know there were errors in dictation, transcribing, and publishing…many of the errors have been corrected, but not all. The original English version of the Book of Mormon also includes a comment from one of the prophets who wrote the scripture that if there are errors, they are the errors of men, not of God; so even the prophets engraving the plates recognized the possibility, really the inevitability of errors in any communication going through men even if the original source is God. 

Boils down to while we believe the word of God as issued from God is inerrant, the Church and the vast majority of Saints do not believe in inerrancy of scriptures. The Spirit is error free, Man—who listens to the Spirit and then tries to communicate their less than perfect understanding of the Spirit’s instruction—is not error free.  God respects our agency, so he does not treat man as God’s puppet and somehow possesses them while they communicate, not even scripture so as to produce error free text. In some ways perfect, inerrant scripture would be nice, but practically speaking it would just push the problem of error to the next step of reception by the reader. 

There are a few Saints I have come across who may believe scripture is inerrant for some reason; there are many, many more who treat it as inerrant even if they tell you they don’t believe it is. Of course, this actually means they are treating their own interpretation as inerrant or their interpretation of an authority’s interpretation.

 

I've had quite a week, and have read and re-read what you wrote. Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me.

One thought I keep circling back to is, given the approach to Scripture that you describe, why isn't the "translated correctly" principle applied to all Latter-day Saint Scripture? I believe that the answer might be that the translation process through Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets is purer, but then that would make a kind of hierarchy of Scripture. I also stick on that English-speaking Latter-day Saints use the KJV, so maybe it's considered a more correct translation. I think I'm clear on Latter-day Saints not being confident that Joseph Smith's translation was ever final or completed, but are willing to include parts of it, and to footnote it, etc.

I'm not implying a criticism when I ponder a hierarchy; just wondering if there is one. You seem to be saying that the Book of Mormon has errors, but I'm still getting lost in the Book of Mormon being "the most correct book" while the Bible might not be translated correctly. I'm having other thoughts about how Latter-day Saints differentiate Scripture from other writings--even good writings like those of C.S. Lewis or Joseph Smith's teachings that aren't in LDS Scripture.

For Catholics, the Vulgate is the official Latin Bible, and conferences of Bishops give imprimatur to Bibles in vernacular languages. In the U.S., the RSV is probably the most popular study Bible, and the New American Bible is authorized for Mass (it sounds beautiful when spoken; it's a dynamic translation). There are some very traditional Catholics who hold to the Douay-Rheims, some scholars who prefer the NRSV, and so on, but all of these translations and others are approved by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops. 

Another thought I keep having is that Latter-day Saints seem to mention the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a highly individualized way. If I'm understanding correctly, this approach could embrace a form of subjectivism or relativism, at least on a certain level. I don't imagine that Latter-day Saint leadership would ever want to give that sort of thing free reign, for while religious folks sometimes find their way to subjectivism/relativism, subjectivism/relativism doesn't need religious leaders and structures. I don't see Latter-day Saint missionaries approaching inquirers with "We're here to share relativism with you." I'm having an additional thought that maybe LDS leaders' insistence on obedience to their teachings is a way of counterbalancing a tradition of highly individualized interpretation.

Catholics believe in the Holy Spirit guiding a person, but we also have a sense that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, including official teachings from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (we call the Church's authority in this the Magisterium). This doesn't mean some singular guidance of the Pope that would prevent the Pope from sinning, but it does mean that the Holy Spirit works through the Church in its entirety and preserves her from being devoured by the gates of Hell (Matt. 16). 

Anyway, I think I've swerved into thoughts that invite an absurdly long response. I'm perfectly fine with you sending me to some sources as you've done before. I feel fortunate that you're familiar with so many of the issues I'm pondering.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

why isn't the "translated correctly" principle applied to all Latter-day Saint Scripture?

If by this you mean officially, it is, sort of, in that we don’t teach inerrancy.  But I would agree there is in a sense a hierarchy, the Book of Mormon is referred to as the “keystone” of our faith, though from what I have seen, there is little practical difference in how we treat scripture…except perhaps we neglect more parts of the Bible than other scriptures as not really relevant to ourselves, though there are verses we likely quote as often as any Book of Mormon verses.  (Song of Solomon is the only book officially considered uninspired:  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-song-of-solomon?lang=eng .) “Most correct” does not mean perfect and the whole quote is essential for understanding context/intent, imo.

Quote

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

You are right, imo, that we focus on obedience in practices rather than personal interpretations and beliefs and even here in this quote you can see it as Joseph uses “precepts”, which mean rules governing behaviour, especially moral conduct (I use the 1828 Webster’s to try and keep closer to the intent of Joseph which more modern language may confuse):
 

Quote

1. In a general sense, any commandment or order intended as an authoritative rule of action; but applied particularly to commands respecting moral conduct. The ten commandments are so many precepts for the regulation of our moral conduct

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Precept

The Book of Mormon is therefore considered as the best book in Joseph’s time (and likely ours) for learning correct/righteous living.  I would say what this means to members varies and has evolved over time.

Here is an article from 40 years ago, pretty typical POV and held by many, maybe most even now…the translation is a true translation based on revelation, meaning to many there were no errors in the translation (meaning the original writing could have had errors as the prophets were open that they were imperfect).

Quote

There is irrefutable evidence to show both the correctness of the translation and the Lord’s hand in it. The Three Witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, bore record that the voice of God declared unto them that the book had been translated by his power. Their testimony still appears at the front of each copy of the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, in a June 1829 revelation given to the three men through the Prophet, the Lord confirmed that Joseph had translated all that he had been commanded to do and that it was a true translation. (See D&C 17:6.)

However, “the most correct book” implies that it may not be absolutely correct, and in light of the Lord’s declaration, this may seem contradictory. But herein lies another significant principle: if there be any errors, they should not be attributed to the translation…

It seems logical, then, that the correctness of the Book of Mormon was not limited so much by the translation process as by the inadequacy of present languages.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/06/the-most-correct-book?lang=eng

This article teaches one view of the book of a perfect translation, still we also know the translation is not exactly accurate or at least we cannot know if accurate because what we have is the product of “present languages” and therefore there will be errors.  We have much of the dictation and publishing manuscripts (some were damaged beyond restoration) and they show mistakes and even that Joseph himself was altering words later to convey a slightly different nuance, imo.  This was understood by the author of the article as it was well known at the time that Joseph changed words***, so his “translation is true” needs to be interpreted in that context.  Here I personally get pragmatic and interpret “true” as meaning “it works in the way that God wants for the purpose of God to be fulfilled” or iow, it is the best book out there for changing hearts and minds to better align with God’s, to be one with him.

Generally it is taught that “most correct” applies to the doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon.

Quote

Above all other considerations, it is the doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon that makes it the most correct of books. The Book of Mormon establishes better than any other book the plain and precious truths of the gospel, many of which have been lost from the Bible. As we read in 1 Nephi 13:40 [1 Ne. 13:40], “These last records … shall establish the truth of the [Bible] … and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from [it].”

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1988/08/i-have-a-question/why-is-the-book-of-mormon-the-most-correct-of-any-book-on-earth?lang=eng

In case you are wondering how that can be with the New Testament actually teaching the life of Christ, the Book of Mormon in our view is most importantly “another witness of Christ, especially 3 Nephi where Christ appears after his death to teach and bless as he did in Israel. (Starts here after the destruction that was a sign of his crucifixion: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/9?lang=eng ).  Christ is spoken of through the text:  

Quote

Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose — to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental.

When you read the Book of Mormon, concentrate on the principal figure in the book — from its first chapter to the last — the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God.³ And look for a second undergirding theme: God will keep His covenants with the remnants of the house of Israel.⁴

The Book of Mormon is a crucial component of that covenant.⁵ It is holy scripture that encompasses sacred writings from the small and large plates of Nephi, the plates of Mormon, the plates of Ether, and the plates of brass, which contained "the five books of Moses, . . . a record of the Jews, . . . and . . . prophecies of the holy prophets."⁶

When Mormon abridged these records, he noted that he could not write a "hundredth part" of their proceedings.⁷ Thus, historical aspects of the book assume secondary significance.

The Holy Bible has 66 individual books; the Book of Mormon contains 15. Its first book of Nephi — written some six centuries before the birth of Jesus — records that the prophet Lehi⁸ received a vision of the tree of life.⁹ His son Nephi prayed to know its meaning. In answer, he was given a remarkable vision. He beheld a virgin bearing a Child in her arms. He envisioned the Redeemer of the world, His earthly ministry, and His Crucifixion. He saw 12 others who would follow the Holy One. And he foresaw the ongoing opposition to the work of God and of His Apostles.¹⁰

Other great prophets of the Book of Mormon — in their own way and time — testified of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Among them were the brother of Jared,¹¹ Zenock, Neum, and Zenos.¹² Testimonies of Jesus Christ that predated His birth in Bethlehem were also recorded from King Benjamin, Abinadi, Alma the Elder, Alma the Younger, Amulek, the sons of Mosiah, Captain Moroni, the brothers Nephi and Lehi, and Samuel the Lamanite.¹³ In a seemingly endless sequence of prophetic proclamations — testimonies of "all the holy prophets"¹⁴ for "a great many thousand years before his coming"¹⁵ — the Book of Mormon makes the solemn declaration that Jesus is the Christ, our Savior and Redeemer.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1999/10/3/23247819/elder-russell-m-nelson-a-testimony-of-the-book-of-mormon

***This article was written a year before the above:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

Quote

With the help of Oliver Cowdery, the Prophet prepared the second (1837) edition. At this point, they made over one thousand corrections—most of them grammatical and added some minor clarifications. By this time, the Prophet, who had limited formal schooling, was learning the rudiments of Hebrew, and English grammar. (See History of the Church, 2:390, 474; 3:26.)

Both the 1840 and 1842 editions were carefully revised by Joseph Smith. By now, however, Oliver Cowdery had left the Church, taking the printer’s manuscript with him.

As late as 15 January 1842 Joseph Smith was still making corrections himself. He recorded: “I commenced reading the Book of Mormon, at page 54, … (the previous pages having been corrected), for the purpose of correcting the stereotype plates of some errors which escaped notice in the first edition.” (History of the Church, 4:494.)…

A few other changes involving meaning appear to be more significant. In 2 Nephi 30:6 [2 Ne. 30:6], white appeared in the 1830 and 1837 editions. Joseph changed this word to pure in the 1840 edition. But later American editions did not show this change because they had followed the first European and 1837 editions. This correction by the Prophet has finally been restored in the 1981 edition.

In Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1, the first edition had “Benjamin” where the name of Mosiah now appears. In fact, King Benjamin would not likely have still been living in the historical period described by these verses. In the 1837 edition, the Prophet Joseph made this correction.

We can only speculate about the cause of this error. Book of Mormon scholar Sidney B. Sperry has posed this interesting question: “Was it an inadvertent slip of the tongue on the part of Joseph Smith as he dictated his translation to Oliver Cowdery, or did he translate correctly an original error on the part of Mormon, the abridger of the Book of Mormon? (The Problems of the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964, p. 203.)

This is probably too obscure for Saint Bonaventure to care about, but for others more familiar with the storyline…

The Benjamin and Mosiah change issue is an interesting one to me as it may actually be correct as Benjamin even though it is assumed he was dead at the time because the men speaking of him may not have known he was dead since they had left his kingdom to do missionary work and may not have heard of his death and assumed.  Another possibility is though Benjamin was no longer king, he might have been alive and was the one caring for the records, so would be the one most likely to do the interpretation of the Jaredite records that had been found.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/"Benjamin"_changed_to_"Mosiah"

The “son of God” is to me the most important change.  It is addressed here along with a couple of other notable issues (FAIR is recommended in some church publications for additional study, though we are not vetted by the Church, so we are neither official nor authoritative….but imo, we are great at gathering scholarship for additional context and possible resolutions of issues, though we are not perfect and there are mistakes and hopefully these will be corrected over time by readers—thank you again, Seeking—notifying us or when we update our info from time to time):

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes

A more thorough discussion of what “most correct” implies:

https://rsc.byu.edu/living-book-mormon-abiding-its-precepts/most-correct-book-joseph-smiths-appraisal

Quote

From my perspective (and I quickly acknowledge my bias), the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth because of the undiluted and penetrating message it presents—the way it establishes in no uncertain terms “that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them” (D&C 20:17); the way it highlights the nature of fallen humanity; the way it focuses repeatedly upon man’s utter inability to forgive or cleanse or resurrect or save himself; the way it places Jesus Christ on center stage and testifies of the infinite and eternal scope of His atoning sacrifice. In the Book of Mormon, Christ is the Lord God Omnipotent, who saves “not only those who believed after he came in the meridian of time, in the flesh, but all those from the beginning, even as many as were before he came, who believed in the words of the holy prophets, . . . as well as those who should come after” (D&C 20:26–27). For me the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth because it teaches us who God is, what the Godhead is, how they are infinitely more one than they are separate, and how the love and unity between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is of such magnitude that the Nephite record speaks of them several times simply as “one God, without end” (2 Nephi 31:21; see also D&C 20:28; Alma 11:44; 3 Nephi 9:15; 11:27, 36; 28:10; Mormon 7:7). I believe the Book of Mormon is the most correct book because it presents with consistent clarity the delicate balance between the mercy and grace of our Lord and God and the works of righteousness that must always characterize and identify true disciples of the Master (see 2 Nephi 2:2–8; 25:23; 31:19; Alma 22:14; Helaman 14:13; Moroni 6:4).

I believe the Book of Mormon to be the most correct scriptural book because it assists us in spanning the Testaments and consequently spanning the chasm that many feel exists between the God of the Old and the God of the New Testament. “I make my own heartfelt declaration of God, our Eternal Father, this morning,” Elder Jeffrey R. Holland stated, “because some in the contemporary world suffer from a distressing misconception of Him. Among these there is a tendency to feel distant from the Father, even estranged from Him, if they believe in Him at all. And if they do believe, many moderns say they might feel comfortable in the arms of Jesus, but they are uneasy contemplating the stern encounter of God.”

 

Edited August 6, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

I need to go eat, hope to come back later and reread your post, SB, to see what I neglected.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Calm

[InCognitus]

On 8/5/2022 at 8:50 AM, Durangout said:

This lovely man points out some unique things about The Church from a non-member’s perspective.  Worth the watch.

I really enjoyed this video.  Thanks for posting it.  And it seems topic appropriate to this thread. 

Now I'll be looking to see if he goes back to The Church another time in his 52 weeks.

[pogi]

On 8/5/2022 at 8:50 AM, Durangout said:

This lovely man points out some unique things about The Church from a non-member’s perspective.  Worth the watch.

That was an interesting perspective from a non-member.  He seemed to be very sign-oriented/superstitious with the cardinals and hot air balloon.  It reminded me of my mission in the Philippines.  It was part of their culture to look for and sometimes even require a sign before believing.   I wonder if that is common for other Christians.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That was an interesting perspective from a non-member.  He seemed to be very sign-oriented/superstitious with the cardinals and hot air balloon.  It reminded me of my mission in the Philippines.  It was part of their culture to look for and sometimes even require a sign before believing.   I wonder if that is common for other Christians.  

I hadn’t seen it in my limited exposure, but steel magnolia who was on the board a few weeks ago referred to seeing ceramic chickens in a diner as a sign, iirc. That surprised me. Maybe not as unusual as I thought. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74590-dealing-with-hostile-people/?do=findComment&comment=1210099147

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by Calm

[theplains]

On 7/24/2022 at 9:45 PM, InCognitus said:

Of course Jesus was God in the pre-existence.  Did someone say he wasn't?

When I look at these sources, Jesus became a God in the premortal existence and was
appointed to the Godhead. From these sources, Jesus is not God from everlasting to
everlasting.

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he (Jesus) attained that pinnacle of intelligence 
which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" 
(Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 2004, page 10, chapter 4). 
4, online).

"Christ, who is the firstborn in the Spirit of the children of God, was elevated to Godhood, 
and in the vision Abraham saw he describes him as being like unto God" (LDS President 
Joseph Fielding Smith, The Progress of Man, chapter 6, page 74).

"Jesus was appointed to Godhood. In the Meridian of Time Christ came into the world, in 
fulfillment of the promise and appointment (LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, The 
Progress of Man, chapter 43, pages 511-512). 

God the Father is the ultimate repository of all intelligence, "or, in other words, light 
and truth" (D&C 93:36); Jesus Christ, the Firstborn, who became a god in the premortal 
existence, the Father's steward over his creations, is the one source of light for us as 
individuals; and the Holy Ghost is the "gatekeeper," as it were, the dispenser of light 
to us according to worthiness and ability to receive it (Ensign, December 1975, "How to 
Receive Spiritual Gifts").

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

When I look at these sources, Jesus became a God in the premortal existence and was
appointed to the Godhead. From these sources, Jesus is not God from everlasting to
everlasting.

As I explained previously in this thread (here and here), the biblical phrase "everlasting to everlasting" doesn't mean what you think it means.  And the same biblical phrase carries forward to the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.  The phrase does not mean always and forever (as you are trying to imply), but rather it means from a long time (age) in the past and to a long time (age) in the future.   The Youngs Literal Translation of Psalms 90:1-4 proves this: 

"[1]...Thou hast been, To us -- in generation and generation,  [2] Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou [art] God.  [3] Thou turnest man unto a bruised thing, And sayest, Turn back, ye sons of men.  [4] For a thousand years in Thine eyes [are] as yesterday, For it passeth on, yea, a watch by night."

So to say that Jesus is God from everlasting to everlasting is absolutely correct even though he was appointed to the Godhead at some point a very long time ago.

Edited August 10, 2022 by InCognitus

[pogi]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

When I look at these sources, Jesus became a God in the premortal existence and was
appointed to the Godhead. From these sources, Jesus is not God from everlasting to
everlasting.

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he (Jesus) attained that pinnacle of intelligence 
which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" 
(Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 2004, page 10, chapter 4). 
4, online).

"Christ, who is the firstborn in the Spirit of the children of God, was elevated to Godhood, 
and in the vision Abraham saw he describes him as being like unto God" (LDS President 
Joseph Fielding Smith, The Progress of Man, chapter 6, page 74).

"Jesus was appointed to Godhood. In the Meridian of Time Christ came into the world, in 
fulfillment of the promise and appointment (LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, The 
Progress of Man, chapter 43, pages 511-512). 

God the Father is the ultimate repository of all intelligence, "or, in other words, light 
and truth" (D&C 93:36); Jesus Christ, the Firstborn, who became a god in the premortal 
existence, the Father's steward over his creations, is the one source of light for us as 
individuals; and the Holy Ghost is the "gatekeeper," as it were, the dispenser of light 
to us according to worthiness and ability to receive it (Ensign, December 1975, "How to 
Receive Spiritual Gifts").

I think that is a fair point.  It seems difficult to say that Christ is God "from everlasting" if his godhood had a beginning.  

If I had to offer an interpretation, I would suggest that one must understand that we Latter-day Saints understand that God is a multiplicity, and cannot/does not exist as an individual entity. We speak of a council of Gods.  They are unitedly one God.  This multiplicity is from everlasting to everlasting.  When one becomes a part of and one with this multiplicity, they become that same God that is from everlasting and to everlasting.  

Quote

the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God, infinite, eternal, without end, D&C 20:28.

Quote

God’s course is one eternal round, D&C 3:2 (35:1).

Quote

council of the Eternal God of all other gods, D&C 121:32.

Quote

Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Quote

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. D&C 132:20

Here is a good paper on this concept of God as a multiplicity and council, and explores its Biblical roots/history too:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2010/joseph-smith-and-the-biblical-council-of-gods

Joseph Smith said:

Quote

“When we begin to learn this way, that God exists in this council structure with other divine beings, that he calls gods. We begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship”

 

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

As I explained previously in this thread (here and here), the biblical phrase "everlasting to everlasting" doesn't mean what you think it means.  And the same biblical phrase carries forward to the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.  The phrase does not mean always and forever (as you are trying to imply), but rather it means from a long time (age) in the past and to a long time (age) in the future.   The Youngs Literal Translation of Psalms 90:1-4 proves this: 

"[1]...Thou hast been, To us -- in generation and generation,  [2] Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou [art] God.  [3] Thou turnest man unto a bruised thing, And sayest, Turn back, ye sons of men.  [4] For a thousand years in Thine eyes [are] as yesterday, For it passeth on, yea, a watch by night."

So to say that Jesus is God from everlasting to everlasting is absolutely correct even though he was appointed to the Godhead at some point a very long time ago.

Yes that translation "age to age" is appropriate and translates the Latin Vulgate words "per omnia saecula saeculorum" which could be translated "through all ages of the ages", but is often just translated as "forever". It could also mean "through all the worlds of worlds" implying that God's kingdom might encompass other "worlds".

The English word "secular" comes from "saecula"

Pull up a Latin dictionary and find definitions for the word "saecula"- it has many meanings!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unto_the_ages_of_ages

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum

https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9038/on-the-literal-meaning-of-in-saecula-saeculorum

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

On 8/6/2022 at 11:15 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I've had quite a week, and have read and re-read what you wrote. Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me.

One thought I keep circling back to is, given the approach to Scripture that you describe, why isn't the "translated correctly" principle applied to all Latter-day Saint Scripture? I believe that the answer might be that the translation process through Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets is purer, but then that would make a kind of hierarchy of Scripture. I also stick on that English-speaking Latter-day Saints use the KJV, so maybe it's considered a more correct translation.

Calm responded better to most of this than I can.  I know I talked about this in the last few week so if it was this thread and I am repeating I'm sorry.

I had a Sunday School teacher 10-15 years ago who work in the scripture department. At some point they with some general authorities talked about using another translation of the bible as there were now better translations.  I couldn't remember why they didn't change, but my husband remembered it had something to do with copyright. Now you could just say we could just buy other versions, but our footnotes also contain references from the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants etc. which means our members might get a better translation, but would lose the tools that tied it to the other books.  

Besides that, there is no version that is perfect.

On 8/6/2022 at 11:15 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I think I'm clear on Latter-day Saints not being confident that Joseph Smith's translation was ever final or completed, but are willing to include parts of it, and to footnote it, etc.

I'm not implying a criticism when I ponder a hierarchy; just wondering if there is one. You seem to be saying that the Book of Mormon has errors, but I'm still getting lost in the Book of Mormon being "the most correct book" while the Bible might not be translated correctly. I'm having other thoughts about how Latter-day Saints differentiate Scripture from other writings--even good writings like those of C.S. Lewis or Joseph Smith's teachings that aren't in LDS Scripture.

The more I study the Old Testament this year the more I have the same questions.

On 8/6/2022 at 11:15 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

For Catholics, the Vulgate is the official Latin Bible, and conferences of Bishops give imprimatur to Bibles in vernacular languages. In the U.S., the RSV is probably the most popular study Bible, and the New American Bible is authorized for Mass (it sounds beautiful when spoken; it's a dynamic translation). There are some very traditional Catholics who hold to the Douay-Rheims, some scholars who prefer the NRSV, and so on, but all of these translations and others are approved by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops. 

Another thought I keep having is that Latter-day Saints seem to mention the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a highly individualized way. If I'm understanding correctly, this approach could embrace a form of subjectivism or relativism, at least on a certain level. I don't imagine that Latter-day Saint leadership would ever want to give that sort of thing free reign, for while religious folks sometimes find their way to subjectivism/relativism, subjectivism/relativism doesn't need religious leaders and structures. I don't see Latter-day Saint missionaries approaching inquirers with "We're here to share relativism with you." I'm having an additional thought that maybe LDS leaders' insistence on obedience to their teachings is a way of counterbalancing a tradition of highly individualized interpretation.

Catholics believe in the Holy Spirit guiding a person, but we also have a sense that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, including official teachings from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (we call the Church's authority in this the Magisterium). This doesn't mean some singular guidance of the Pope that would prevent the Pope from sinning, but it does mean that the Holy Spirit works through the Church in its entirety and preserves her from being devoured by the gates of Hell (Matt. 16). 

Anyway, I think I've swerved into thoughts that invite an absurdly long response. I'm perfectly fine with you sending me to some sources as you've done before. I feel fortunate that you're familiar with so many of the issues I'm pondering.