Role of the Bible in Mormonism


Recommended Posts

hello people,

I am studying Mormonism.  My background is Catholic and then charismatic for a little while.

I read something somewhere about Mormons believing the bible was "revered" but was corrupted by monks.  

This idea about the bible was part of a list of things that I think had something to do with wisdom?  I cant find this list of like ten things now.  It was a Mormon list not a internet thing.

What I want to get at is what role does the bible play in the practical life of a Mormon.  

What are the corrupted parts of the bible that should be avoided according to Mormonism?  

Did Joseph Smith say the bible was corrupt?  

If so where does He say that in His writings?

Thanks a bunch

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning, Mickydo. 

Joseph Smith was on-record as saying "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327).  I think in times past there has been an unfortunate tendency among lay Mormons to assume that the Catholic Church is responsible for the bulk of this "corruption"; though I think the church membership is slowly coming around to the notion that the Bible text as it existed by the third or fourth century A.D. is pretty near to what we have today.

Smith produced an "Inspired version" or "Joseph Smith Translation" of the Bible that claimed to correct a number of what he considered to be errors in the biblical text.  The modern LDS Church uses the Joseph Smith Translation as a sort of "study aid" to the King James Version, which remains the Church's formally-adopted English-language Bible translation.  The Bible is considered to be scripture--not inerrant, to be sure; but it is regarded on the same footing as the Book of Mormon "as far as it is translated correctly" (Eighth Article of Faith).  We read it, we ponder and pray over it, we use it as a basis for instruction in our homes and in our church meetings. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mickydo said:

I am studying Mormonism.  My background is Catholic and then charismatic for a little while.

Welcome welcome!

1 hour ago, mickydo said:

I read something somewhere about Mormons believing the bible was "revered" but was corrupted by monks.  

JAG answered this one well already.

1 hour ago, mickydo said:

What I want to get at is what role does the bible play in the practical life of a Mormon.  

ALL of scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, etc) are equal: the Word of God is the Word of God.  To say that one book is more valuable than the other is silly. 

In Sunday School, Mormons study scripture in a 4 year rotation: the OT one year, the NT one year, the Book of Mormon one year, and then D&C/church history the final year.  And then it all rotates through again.  Along the way there are lots of cross references to all sorts of scripture, showing the synergy of God's words.  Similarly in sermons all scripture is referenced.

In short: yes, the Bible is VERY important to scripture and the practical life of a Mormon.

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome, mickydo!

1 hour ago, mickydo said:

What I want to get at is what role does the bible play in the practical life of a Mormon.

As has been said (but here's a third witness), the Bible plays the same role as other scripture: we study it and teach from it, and cross-reference between it and other scriptures, and cite from it often in discussions of beliefs, etc.  Right now, our adult Sunday School class is teaching the Book of Mormon, but my personal study is in the Old Testament, so I read some from each during the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Joseph Smith was on-record as saying "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors"

One thing I will note is that this does not seem that different from much of what I see in broader Christianity. For example, when Protestants/Evangelicals talk about "Biblical inerrancy", they will usually include the caveat that this doctrine only applies to the original autographs and not to modern translations. It seems that most if not all Christians recognize the difficulty of working from multiple copies of a text where the original has long been lost. I guess what I see is that the notion of "the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly" is believed in large part by all of Christianity, and is not unique to Mormonism.

I will acknowledge that I don't think we have always been "rigorous" or precise in our application of this to Biblical texts. We seem to have a habit (especially among the average, non-scholar Mormon) of flippantly and carelessly dumping anything we cannot explain into the "as far as it is translated correctly" pile.

I am not aware of any parts of the Bible that are officially designated as "corrupted" by the Church. The Joseph Smith translation (noted by JaG) has a note that Joseph Smith felt that the Song of Solomon/Song of Songs was not "inspired" writings (which led some like Bruce R. McKonkie to call this book "scriptural trash"), but these opinions have not been "canonized" the Church, so they are those people's opinions. You can read through read through a variety of other LDS thinkers opinions and see where they feel that "plain and precious truths" have been lost, but I don't think that any of these opinions is "official Church Doctrine".

I guess, in my mind, I think we are trying to do the same thing here that other Christians are doing. We try our best to understand the Biblical texts, reconcile what we see in the Biblical texts with our unique scripture canon (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price), and then try to follow the commandments and counsels that we see given in those texts. Whether we do better or worse than other Christians at this, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
8 hours ago, mickydo said:

hello people,

I am studying Mormonism.  My background is Catholic and then charismatic for a little while.

I read something somewhere about Mormons believing the bible was "revered" but was corrupted by monks.  

This idea about the bible was part of a list of things that I think had something to do with wisdom?  I cant find this list of like ten things now.  It was a Mormon list not a internet thing.

What I want to get at is what role does the bible play in the practical life of a Mormon.  

What are the corrupted parts of the bible that should be avoided according to Mormonism?  

Did Joseph Smith say the bible was corrupt?  

If so where does He say that in His writings?

Thanks a bunch

Mike

Welcome.  I, too, am a former Catholic.  I was a Eucharist Minister, Lector, and a 4th Degree Knight.

We believe the Bible is not totally accurate.  That should not be a surprise.  It was translated and passed down a plethora of times throughout the centuries.  

And the lack of a prophet has not helped.  Without a prophet, the Bible is up for interpretation, hence the thousands and thousands of denominations....all teaching something different using the same Bible.

As a former Catholic, feel free to ask me anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks All for your comments...  Articles of faith thats what I was remembering.. 

What book is this???  TPJS, p. 327

Over the years the church must have a good list of errors from the bible... where is that?

For me that would be useful.

Ideally a book dealing with biblical errors and the LDS  correction to those errors.

Does anyone know of such a book with a mormon perspective..?

Thank you

Mike

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mickydo said:

What book is this???  TPJS, p. 327

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

5 hours ago, mickydo said:

Over the years the church must have a good list of errors from the bible... where is that?

In the edition of the Bible published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, those portions of the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible which were deemed most important are included in footnotes and, for longer passages, in an appendix referred to by footnotes.  You can get this for free in the form of the Gospel Library app published by the Church (available for iOS/Apple, Android, and Windows mobile devices), also at https://www.lds.org/scriptures?lang=eng

The full text of the Joseph Smith Translation is copyrighted by the former reorganized Church (of basically above name), now known as the Community of Christ.

That said, I don't know that there's really a "list" so much as Church doctrine, and prophets and apostles, to help us to understand the true meanings of scripture - which is why the Lord has always provided prophets to lead his people (or, after apostasy, restore truth and then lead them) - without them, it's every man for himself and even casual observation reveals that every man has his own ideas as to what scripture means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zil said:

That said, I don't know that there's really a "list" so much as Church doctrine, and prophets and apostles, to help us to understand the true meanings of scripture - which is why the Lord has always provided prophets to lead his people (or, after apostasy, restore truth and then lead them) - without them, it's every man for himself and even casual observation reveals that every man has his own ideas as to what scripture means.

Agreed.  I feel that studying different interpretations would be of better use than trying to hunt down a non-exisitant list.  For example, LDS do NOT acknowledge the mainstream Christian creed and councils as being authoritative (cause they're not scripture).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mickydo said:

Thanks All for your comments...  Articles of faith thats what I was remembering.. 

What book is this???  TPJS, p. 327

Over the years the church must have a good list of errors from the bible... where is that?

For me that would be useful.

Ideally a book dealing with biblical errors and the LDS  correction to those errors.

Does anyone know of such a book with a mormon perspective..?

Thank you

Mike

I've seen several lists of "lost books" of the Bible--books that are mentioned within the pages of the Bible, but aren't actually included.  Here's an example.

That said, I agree with @Jane_Doe and @zil that on an institutional basis, Mormonism hasn't really preoccupied itself with compiling all of the instances in which its teachings vary from the text of the Bible as we currently have it.  The point, for us, isn't that the Bible is somehow wrong; it's that--thanks to God's goodness and mercy--we now know these extra things that we didn't necessarily know before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is from Robert L. Millet as quoted on Mormon Newsroom.  It's a bit of a long read.  But it is worth it.

Quote

One of the main reasons Latter-day Saints are often relegated to the category of cult of non-Christian is because we believe in scripture beyond the Bible. To be sure, we love the Bible. We cherish its sacred teachings and delight in reading and teaching it. We seek to conform our lives to its marvelous precepts. But we do not believe that the Bible contains all that God has spoken or will yet speak in the future.

Occasionally we hear certain Latter-day Saint teachings — like some of those concerning the Savior that I have detailed earlier — described as “unbiblical” or of a particular doctrine being “contradictory” to the Bible. Let’s be clear on this matter. The Bible is one of the books within our standard works, our scriptural canon, and thus our doctrines and practices are in harmony with the Bible. There are times, of course, when latter-day revelation provides clarification of additional information to the Bible. But addition to the canon is hardly the same as rejection of the canon. Supplementation is not the same as contradiction. All of the prophets, including the Savior Himself, brought new light and knowledge to the world; in many cases, new scripture came as a result of their ministry. That new scripture did not invalidate what went before nor did it close the door on subsequent revelation.

Most New Testament scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke drew upon Mark in the preparation of their Gospels. One tradition is that John the Beloved, aware of the teaching of the synoptics, prepared his Gospel in an effort to “fill in the gaps” and thus deal more with the great spiritual verities that his evangelistic colleagues chose not to include. How many people in the Christian tradition today would suggest that what Matthew or Luke did in adding to what Mark had written was illegal or inappropriate or irreverent? Do we suppose that anyone in the first century would have so felt?

Would anyone accuse Matthew or Luke or John of writing about or even worshipping a “different Jesus” because they were bold enough to add to what had been recorded already? Surely not. Why? Because Matthew and Luke and John were inspired for God, perhaps even divinely commissioned by the church to pen their testimonies.

If Luke (in the Gospel, as well as in Acts) or John chose to write of subsequent appearance of the Lord Jesus after His ascension into heaven, appearances not found in Mark or Matthew, are we prone to criticize, to cry foul? No, because these accounts are contained in the Christian canon, that collection of books that serves as the rule of faith and practice in the Christian world.

The authority of scripture is tied to its source. From our perspective, the living, breathing, ever-relevant nature of the word of God is linked not to written words, not even to the writing of Moses or Isaiah or Malachi, not to the four Gospels or the epistles of Paul, but rather to the spirit of prophecy and revelation that illuminated and empowered those who recorded them in the first place. The Bible does in fact contain much that can and should guide our walk and talk; it contains the word and will of the Lord to men and women in earlier ages, and its timeless truths have tremendous normative value for our day. But we do not derive authority to speak or act in the name of Deity on the basis of what God gave to His people in an earlier day.

Just how bold is the Latter-day Saint claim? In a letter to his uncle Silas, Joseph Smith wrote the following:

Why should it be thought a thing incredible that the Lord should be pleased to speak again in these last days for their salvation? Perhaps you may be surprised at this assertion that I should say ‘for the salvation of his creatures in these last days’ since we have already in our possession a vast volume of his word [the Bible] which he has previously given. But you will admit that the word spoken to Noah was not sufficient or Abraham. … Isaac, the promised seed, was not required to rest his hope upon the promises made to his father Abraham, but was privileged with the assurance of [God’s] approbation in the sight of heaven by the direct voice of the Lord to him. … I have no doubt but that the holy prophets and apostles and saints in the ancient days were saved in the kingdom of God. … I may believe that Enoch walked with God. I may believe that Abraham communed with God and conversed with angels. … And have I not an equal privilege with the ancient saints? And will not the Lord hear my prayers, and listen to my cries as soon [as] he ever did to theirs, if I come to him in the manner they did? Or is he a respecter of persons?[vi]

Latter-day Saints feel a deep allegiance to the Bible. It seems odd to us, however, to be accused of being irreverent or disloyal to the Bible when we suggest to the religious world that the God of heaven has chosen to speak again. Our challenge is hauntingly reminiscent of that faced by Peter, James, John or Paul when they declared to the religious establishment of their day that God had sent new truths and new revelations into the world, truths that supplemented and even clarified the Hebrew scripture. And what was the response of the Jews of the day? “Who do you think you are?” they essentially asked. “We have the Law and the Prophets. They are sufficient.” Any effort to add to or to take away from that collection of sacred writings was suspect and subject to scorn and ridicule. And so it is today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The point, for us, isn't that the Bible is somehow wrong; it's that--thanks to God's goodness and mercy--we now know these extra things that we didn't necessarily know before. 

Yes, like the Divine preference for white shirts, green Jello and some sort of disturbing cross between burlap and corduroy as a wall covering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Yes, like the Divine preference for white shirts, green Jello and some sort of disturbing cross between burlap and corduroy as a wall covering.

A wall covering that wears extraordinarily well and saves the Church thousands (millions?) of dollars per year in maintenance.

Your tithing dollars at work.  :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A wall covering that wears extraordinarily well and saves the Church thousands (millions?) of dollars per year in maintenance.

Your tithing dollars at work.  :cool:

So that's the purpose of the weird wall paper!!  And here I was thinking it was simply to give a person carpet burn....

@mickydo I apologize for our off topic rambling.

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

So that's the purpose of the weird wall paper!!  And here I was thinking it was simply to give a person carpet....

That's what I heard from a former ward member of mine who works in construction and frequently builds LDS meetinghouses.  The stuff can take a hearty "thump" from stacked chairs, moving tables, etc. with no ill effects; is soft enough to provide an additional buffer against echoing; and is pretty well immune to dirty-handed toddlers. 

I could've sworn that there was also some kind of discussion about the stuff on LDS.net recently, wherein it was posited that because the texture is so uncomfortable, people avoid leaning up against walls while loitering in one place--thus, subtly facilitating traffic flow.  Not sure I buy that, but it was an interesting theory . . .

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That's what I heard from a former ward member of mine who works in construction and frequently builds LDS meetinghouses.  The stuff can take a hearty "thump" from stacked chairs, moving tables, etc. with no ill effects; is soft enough to provide an additional buffer against echoing; and is pretty well immune to dirty-handed toddlers. 

I could've sworn that there was also some kind of discussion about the stuff on LDS.net recently, wherein it was posited that because the texture is so uncomfortable, people avoid leaning up against walls while loitering in one place--thus, subtly facilitating traffic flow.  Not sure I buy that, but it was an interesting theory . . .

Curious about this, I went and googled "LDS church wallpaper"... didn't find any thing about the carpet wallpaper, but lots of pretty desktop photos :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The church even teaches how to install it properly

Outside, with a couple quarts of diesel and a match?

Glancing along that stuff with a bare arm during a basketball or volleyball game is worse than hitting asphalt.  Some kid is going to hit it face first one day and the bad PR is going to cost more than it could ever save.

Edited by NightSG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

Thanks for your replies... Carborendum.. I read the whole post....  thank you..

New revelation from God is dangerous.. we are to test it against the word of God.

Jesus said many times in the gospels.. "Have you not heard what God spoke to you saying"  and then would cite genesis, exodus, psalms, Isaiah and then some.. Our Lord says the Jewish old testament was "God speaking", holding them accountable to know it.

Because biblically we are promised false teaching.. we must be alert to it.  Jesus said "beware of false teachers... basically promising they will arise.  Paul's farewell to Ephesian's after spending couple of years there "I commend you to the word of his grace"... referring to the old and what few new testament scriptures were available.  Paul also says this "for I know after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you not sparing the flock".. therefore be alert."

Joseph Smith claims to have new revelation.. OK no problem.  Like Jesus and Paul both warn ...I need to test this.  I'm assuming Mormons have a defense of the faith.  New doctrine that alters who Jesus is or the Gospel of Christ need to be defended.  I want to know Mormanism from Mormons, not some crazy internet page with flashing HTML.  Just in the Article of Faith there are some major doctrinal differences and a comment that the bible has been incorrectly translated in some parts.  Im asking which parts where and how does LDS make the case in the affirmative that there is an incorrect translation... Someone mentioned you use the King James version of the bible...  so I guess the bible isnt that badly translated... then ...idk ... im askin...

Is'nt there something in your evangelical literature dealing with errors in the bible?  How do you teach missionaries how to respond to doctrine from faulty translations? Im just thinking this must come up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share