Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 19

1) Enough archaeology to convince non-Mormons?  Probably not.  Enough to support the faith of Mormons?  Yes, and far more than non-believers realize.

2) As a whole, many believe that all Native Americans descended from Middle Easterners, but such is not a binding view, and it is quickly going out of vogue.  See here.  But your question is inaccurate, so let me clarify.  Yes, we believe that some Middle Easterners came to the Americas.  Yes, the Book of Mormon teaches that their skin changed.  Was it because they became "delightsome"?  No.  We believe they became wicked, and so to distinguish between the righteous and wicked, the wicked gained a new look.  Yes, I am aware this is controversial and sounds racist, and I'm sure TV's Frink will jump all over me for that.  But the skin color itself was not a sign of righteousness or wickedness, but rather of distinction.  In much of the Book of Mormon, the fairer-skinned folks were the less righteous and the darker more.  There was a Lamanite (dark-skinned) prophet.  The most righteous and noble warriors in the book are Lamanites.  There are lots of neat stories where the Lamanites supersede the Nephites (fair-skinned) in righteousness and in communion with God.

3) Delightsome

4) Peanut butter?  H1N1?  How could what spread so quickly? ;)  I suspect you mean my faith, but I'm not sure if I'm correct.  If that is your question, my favorite answer would be, "Because it's true, and God has a hand in it."  Other reasons might be our extensive missionary program, its welfare programs (governments should take note), its education programs, its involvement of members in all aspects, its broad appeal, its fascinating history, its family values....

darth_ender said:

1) Enough archaeology to convince non-Mormons?  Probably not.  Enough to support the faith of Mormons?  Yes, and far more than non-believers realize.

Fascinating. I'm going to have to take a look at that later.

...

3) Delightsome

4) Peanut butter?  H1N1?  How could what spread so quickly? ;)  I suspect you mean my faith, but I'm not sure if I'm correct.  If that is your question, my favorite answer would be, "Because it's true, and God has a hand in it."  Other reasons might be our extensive missionary program, its welfare programs (governments should take note), its education programs, its involvement of members in all aspects, its broad appeal, its fascinating history, its family values....

 I believe he was joking around. ...I suppose you could be playing along.

It's hard to tell with Bingowings.

darth_ender said:

It's hard to tell with Bingowings.

 ^Quoted for belief.

In this article, the author states:

"Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power."

Do you agree with that statement? If so, what is your response to the many anachronisms contained within the Book of Mormon which can only be explained (assuming Mormonism is correct, of course) on the assumption that Joseph Smith (or in some cases, the original authors) used words more familiar to him (/them). For example: I am reading 2 Nephi which uses the word "Jew." As far as I am aware, this word came into use no earlier than the second century B.C. and is therefore an anachronism. If Joseph Smith replaced words and used phrasing not actually present in the original text, but slightly altered to closer match familiar phrasing in the KJV, can the Book of Mormon truly be called more correct than the Bible?

I may be misunderstanding the LDS beliefs regarding the correctness of the Book of Mormon over the Bible, but if not, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I don't think this would compromise your beliefs in any way, of course, but I'm just curious to know how you think the Book of Mormon compares in correctness to a translation like the New American Bible (NAB) which used the oldest texts available for translation, and retained the closest possible wording to the original manuscripts.

Sorry about the weird highlighting. I copied the quote and messed the whole thing up.

Will respond when I have more time.

Sounds good. To clarify and sum up what I'm getting at, would it be correct to say the Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible if the Book of Mormon isn't a perfect translation either? It was translated only once, but Joseph Smith wasn't entirely faithful to the text if it was a translation. The example I gave was the word "Jew" which couldn't have been in the original books of Nephi if they were as old as they are believed to be by the LDS.

I see what you are saying.  I think perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the perfection of the translation.  For instance, I am assisting with the translation of the Dejarik rules.  Bewy translated things very literally at times.  I am trying to make it more accessible to an English reader.  If it's truly "faithful," does that preclude the use of words and phrases that would be understandable to a modern English reader?  I think not.  Even the NAB has to make such "compromises" for the sake of clarity.  Let me give another example.  In Spanish, the word for dream is "sueno' (with a ~ over the n).  If I'm sleepy, I say, "Tengo sueno," which literally means, "I have a dream."  If I were to translate a Spanish book faithfully, does that mean I have to translate this phrase so it sounds like Martin Luther King, Jr. speaking?  Or would it be better to translate it as, "I'm sleepy"?

I am sure there are other anachronisms you may come across, many far more confusing than the use of the term "Jew."  For instance, in 2 Nephi the title "Christ" is used for the first time, which is the Greek word for "anointed."  But they are speaking Hebrew or a similar dialect.  Confusing, right?  Well, if you want an answer to that, I can discuss it further, but I'm definitely pretty busy today.  In any case, for a history of the word Jew, look at this wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

The term "Jew" technically didn't even come around till English existed.  But if we look at the etymology of the word, there are several synonyms in different languages, and other words mean exactly the same thing: of the Tribe of Judah.

Wish I had more time.

darth_ender said:

I see what you are saying.  I think perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the perfection of the translation.  For instance, I am assisting with the translation of the Dejarik rules.  Bewy translated things very literally at times.  I am trying to make it more accessible to an English reader.  If it's truly "faithful," does that preclude the use of words and phrases that would be understandable to a modern English reader?  I think not.  Even the NAB has to make such "compromises" for the sake of clarity.  Let me give another example.  In Spanish, the word for dream is "sueno' (with a ~ over the n).  If I'm sleepy, I say, "Tengo sueno," which literally means, "I have a dream."  If I were to translate a Spanish book faithfully, does that mean I have to translate this phrase so it sounds like Martin Luther King, Jr. speaking?  Or would it be better to translate it as, "I'm sleepy"?

That's a good point. I have another question though. If the Nephites et al. named New World animals after Old World animals, rather than giving them new names (e.g. tapirs, deer, bison), would it not have made more sense for Joseph Smith to give them their proper English names in his translation, especially if his translational work was divinely inspired? Of course, that wouldn't be necessary, but why would he render some words into the more familiar English terms, but retain the more literal translations for other words?

EDIT: Assuming that that is your understanding of the seemingly anachronistic animals. If not, then I would like to ask instead, what do you think best explains the appearance of Old World animals in texts written in the New World?

I am sure there are other anachronisms you may come across, many far more confusing than the use of the term "Jew."  For instance, in 2 Nephi the title "Christ" is used for the first time, which is the Greek word for "anointed."  But they are speaking Hebrew or a similar dialect.  Confusing, right?  Well, if you want an answer to that, I can discuss it further, but I'm definitely pretty busy today.  In any case, for a history of the word Jew, look at this wiki article.

It was while after reading the chapter that first names him (2 Nephi 25) that I asked my question. I didn't have a problem with "Christ" since it is more or less synonymous with "Messiah" and has since been incorporated into the English language. As for the term "Jew," I was under the impression that the word now translated as "Jew" only came into use in the second century B.C., but that was only when it was first used to describe the Jewish religion and the faithful of Israel as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

The term "Jew" technically didn't even come around till English existed.  But if we look at the etymology of the word, there are several synonyms in different languages, and other words mean exactly the same thing: of the Tribe of Judah.

It makes sense in the text, in that case.

Wish I had more time.

 No, you answered my question. :)

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals

Thanks, but I've read it already. :) Maybe I'm asking a non-question, or maybe I just wasn't clear enough, but what I'm asking is if Joseph Smith used the more regularly used English words for things like "Jew" and "Christ" which wouldn't have been the literal translations of the text, why use the literal translation of the text to describe New World animals (e.g. bison) instead of using the normal English word? If he was translating under divine inspiration, it shouldn't have mattered whether or not the word literally meant "ox" or "bison" as one would think God, or the angel Moroni, or whoever was helping him out would prompt him to translate it as "bison" if it was used to refer to a bison, or "ox" if it was used to refer to an ox. Does that make sense? Why be non-literal with some words or phrases, but use confusing literal translations for others?

What are your thoughts on Peter being the first Pope? The relics at St. Peter's basillica were identified to be his in 1968. 

Technically that has no bearing on whether or not he was actually the first Pope or not. Catholics believe he was the first leader of the Church, but he lead it before the title "Pope" or even "Bishop of Rome" existed. Just to make myself clear, I am not Mormon, but Catholic. I gather that you are as well?

Yes, that's correct.

If you're a practicing, and normal Catholic, that's cool! Besides you I only know of one other Catholic on this site and he seems to need psychiatric help...(see the last few pages of the abortion debate thread if you don't get who I'm talking about). No offense to him, of course, he just seems to have an abnormally pessimistic view on life.

RicOlie_2 said:

Thanks, but I've read it already. :) Maybe I'm asking a non-question, or maybe I just wasn't clear enough, but what I'm asking is if Joseph Smith used the more regularly used English words for things like "Jew" and "Christ" which wouldn't have been the literal translations of the text, why use the literal translation of the text to describe New World animals (e.g. bison) instead of using the normal English word? If he was translating under divine inspiration, it shouldn't have mattered whether or not the word literally meant "ox" or "bison" as one would think God, or the angel Moroni, or whoever was helping him out would prompt him to translate it as "bison" if it was used to refer to a bison, or "ox" if it was used to refer to an ox. Does that make sense? Why be non-literal with some words or phrases, but use confusing literal translations for others?

 That is a good question.  First, the geography of the Book of Mormon is unknown.  As such, we cannot discern which animals are being discussed.  Are they tapirs?  Are they bison?  We don't really know.  It's all just speculation.  What's more, the correctness of the Book of Mormon is not and should not be interpreted to mean every single word is exactly what we we would understand.  When it discusses cattle, we don't know what is being discussed, and that doesn't matter.  Remember that Joseph Smith was an uneducated farmboy.  In reality many wonder how he could have even concocted such a book with so little education.  His knowledge of the fauna of the Americas was limited.  God wouldn't necessarily supply him with all new words he didn't know.  God was working with the limited mind of one of his creations.  Joseph dictated the word that his mind could comprehend when he came across whatever animals, plants, or whatever we are discussing.

That said, how can this be the most correct book?  In doctrine, in teaching the correctness of the gospel.  We claim that the Book of Mormon teaches even more clearly than the Bible that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of mankind, and its exposition on his Atonement is clearer and superior to any other book.  That is what we teach.

That makes perfect sense, thanks. :)

Why did jospeh smith practice polygamy if marriage is only for one man and one woman? (By the way, I do know this is outlawed in Mormonism now)

Marriage has been practiced between one man and more than one woman many times throughout history, including in the Bible by biblical patriarchs.  There were times when God accepted it.  We believe that most of the time he rejects it, and we even have scripture that states as much.  See Jacob 2:24-30.

For further reading, see:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Book_of_Mormon_condemns_the_practice

God should make up its mind. :p

The above-mentioned verses:

24 Behold, David and ^aSolomon truly had many ^bwives and concubines, which thing was ^cabominable before me, saith the Lord.

 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a ^arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any ^aman among you have save it be^bone ^cwife; and concubines he shall have none;

 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the ^achastity of women. And^bwhoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or ^acursed be the land for their sakes.

 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up ^aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

In other words, if God needs more babies raised in the true faith, then he will explicitly allow polygamy.  Otherwise it is implicitly, and now even explicitly, off limits.

If Christianity became corrupt soon after the death of all the apostles, then why do Mormons accept the New Testament as Scripture since it wasn't affirmed as such until the fourth century or so? Also, do Mormons use the Protestant Bible rather than the Catholic one (the difference I am referring to being not the translation, but the books included in the Old Testament)? If so, then why accept Martin Luther's changes to the Bible which were made long after you believe Christianity became corrupt? Those books were affirmed as Scripture and included in the Bible at the same time as the books in the New Testament, so why reject the seven OT books but not the NT ones?

RicOlie_2 said:

If Christianity became corrupt soon after the death of all the apostles, then why do Mormons accept the New Testament as Scripture since it wasn't affirmed as such until the fourth century or so?

The extent of the corruption was not so severe, and the inspiration of good men continued as the New Testament canon was formulated, in spite of the deaths of the apostles.

Also, do Mormons use the Protestant Bible rather than the Catholic one (the difference I am referring to being not the translation, but the books included in the Old Testament)?

Yes, we accept the Protestant version of the Bible, that is, minus what is generally termed among Protestants as The Apocrypha.

If so, then why accept Martin Luther's changes to the Bible which were made long after you believe Christianity became corrupt? Those books were affirmed as Scripture and included in the Bible at the same time as the books in the New Testament, so why reject the seven OT books but not the NT ones?

 Remember first what your church calls such books: deuterocanonical, meaning secondary canon.  Implicitly they are not valued as highly in Catholic canon either.  These books were never included in Jewish canon.  They were part of the Greek Septuagint, coming from Jewish texts but already of dubious authenticity, and ultimately rejected by Jewish authorities, though Christian authorities did ultimately accept them.  That said, we do not reject them wholly, but believe them to be somewhat unreliable, some more than others:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/apocrypha

I happen to have a parallel translation of I believe eight different translations of the Apocrypha, 4 Protestant, 4 Catholic, and it includes a few other books not found canonical by either, but esteemed as canon by Oriental Orthodox branches.  I've actually enjoyed collecting such books, and I hope to obtain a few books that contain large collections of pseudepigriphial Old and New Testament writings.  There is something to learn from many of them, even if some are very inaccurate.

darth_ender said:

 

If so, then why accept Martin Luther's changes to the Bible which were made long after you believe Christianity became corrupt? Those books were affirmed as Scripture and included in the Bible at the same time as the books in the New Testament, so why reject the seven OT books but not the NT ones?

 Remember first what your church calls such books: deuterocanonical, meaning secondary canon.  Implicitly they are not valued as highly in Catholic canon either.  These books were never included in Jewish canon.  They were part of the Greek Septuagint, coming from Jewish texts but already of dubious authenticity, and ultimately rejected by Jewish authorities, though Christian authorities did ultimately accept them.  That said, we do not reject them wholly, but believe them to be somewhat unreliable, some more than others:

I believe they were termed deuterocanonical because their canonicity was questioned by some, like St. Jerome for instance, not because they are not as important. However, New Testament books like Jude and Revelation were also under dispute while other books that were ultimately rejected, like The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were considered canonical by some earlier on. The Church teaches that the deuterocanonical books are just as inspired as any other book in the Bible and they have no lesser value. 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/apocrypha

I happen to have a parallel translation of I believe eight different translations of the Apocrypha, 4 Protestant, 4 Catholic, and it includes a few other books not found canonical by either, but esteemed as canon by Oriental Orthodox branches.  I've actually enjoyed collecting such books, and I hope to obtain a few books that contain large collections of pseudepigriphial Old and New Testament writings.  There is something to learn from many of them, even if some are very inaccurate.

 If you want a site that has a comprehensive list of non-canonical early Christian and Jewish writings, I suggest you take a look at these two sites:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

http://earlyjewishwritings.com/

There is quite a list there and multiple translations and commentaries are included.

You might be right about the meaning, being questioned by some.

Those are fantastic links, BTW!  I would love to read many of the linked texts, including Church Fathers material.