| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |
|
| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| In Which Version of the Bible Are There Irreconcible Differences With Mormon Doctrine? |
|
The Mormon Challenge Sunday, July 17 Dear Mr Hand I have no doubt about your sincerity in spreading the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as contained in the The Holy Bible. However, I note that none of the Biblical quotations used to critique The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints i.e., "the Mormons" is identified as being from the King James Version of The Holy Bible, which is the version of the Bible used by the Latter-Day Saints. As you are undoubtedly aware, many of the Protestant denominations, particularly the Evangelical ones, use "Modernised" versions of the Bible which don't just use Modern English, but also correct previous errors of translation in the KJV of the Bible as scholarship in the languages of Ancient Hebrew and NT Greek has improved. Also, archaeological discoveries, including such artifacts as the Dead Sea Scrolls, has improved our knowledge of the Holy Land and its peoples from the time of the Ancient Egyptians to the end of the Roman Empire. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints continues to use the KJV of the Bible, but includes footnotes to correct previous mistranslations. In early editions of the Bible, margin notes were commonplace to explain uncertain meanings, etc. for the lay reader. When Joseph Smith Jr wrote the Church's Eighth Article of Faith i.e., "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly . . . ", the KJV of the Bible was the most readily available amongst the Protestant denominations. It should also be noted that both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (which has been called in Australia since 1981 the "Anglican Church") have different versions of The Holy Bible when all of the canonical books are included because of differences in acceptance of various members of the Books of the Apocrypha. So when it is claimed that there are "irreconcilable differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon", which version of the Bible are we talking about: the Catholic, the Anglican, the Jehovah's Witnesses, modern Evangelical "Authorized Versions", or some other version? Furthermore, concerning the use of the KJV of the Bible by the Latter-Day Saints, it is taught in two parts over two years - The Old Testament and The new Testament - in Seminary (Grades 8-12), Institute of Religion (post-High Scool), Young Adult Sunday School (18-26 y.o.) and Adult Sunday School (Young Marrieds and 26 y.o. plus). We have a great respect for The Holy Bible, accepting it as a First Witness of the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ as God the Son and his Atonement as the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race. The Book of Mormon has been subtitled since 1982 "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" i.e., The Book of Mormon is supplementary and complementary to The Holy Bible. In Australia we have received news reports of both Catholic and Protestant ministers questioning such doctrines as: the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary; the Divinity of Jesus Christ as God the Son manifest in the flesh, saying instead that Jesus was just a charismatic Jewish preacher (not even a Prophet); the need for an Atonement from The Fall; the reality of the Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of Christ; and that Satan, the Devil, does not exist, but was a "boogey man" concocted by priests to scare people into obeying God's commandments. Thus, the question arises, if The Holy Bible alone contains ALL of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and all matters pertaining to the administration of His Church for the edification and sanctification of all those who take upon themselves the name of Christ, then why is there more than 1,000 Christian denominations, all of which claim that they have their foundation in the Holy Scriptures contained within The Bible? In Australia, three "churches" are growing: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The Pentecostal/Assemblies of God Church, and Islam. The Roman Catholics are holding steady from an invigorated youth, although it is getting harder and harder to "recruit" priests and nuns, and many older "lapsed" Catholics ignore the Pope's teachings concerning abortion, birth control, divorce and "liberation theology". The Anglican Church is likely to be defunct in Australia within 30 years, so is trying to popularise itself by adopting the ideologies behind the ordination of female priests and gay/lesbian priests, amongst other things. I note the following information provided by your good self, keeping in mind that there is none good except God, so I am talking about your efforts to spread the truthfulness of the Gospel as a you see it, as a committed Christian, and therefore servant of the Lord. ABOUT ON DOCTRINEConcerning myself, I do not wish to appear to be puffed up in pride, BUT I have studied EVERY religion that has ever been known to exist across the four corners of the Earth, from Ancient times to now, as well as many of the Christian denominations, including most of those listed on your website. I have also studied EVERY major philosopher and school of philosophy e.g., Plato, Aristotle, Confuscius, Mencius, Kant, Hegel, Sartre, Russell, Dewey, etc.; EVERY major pyschologist and school of psychology e.g., Freud, Jung, Adler, Klein, Horney, James, Watson, Skinner, H.J. Eysenck, R. B. Cattell, Piaget, etc.; EVERY major sociologist and school of sociology e.g., Marx, Weber, Ebbinghause, etc.; EVERY major Socio-Cultural Anthropologist; and EVERY major economist and school of economics e.g., Smith, Marx, Galbraith, Friedman. I have also studied semiotics, psycholinguists and the development of language, both historically and cognitively. I have studied Logic, Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking. I have studie I have studied and read the KJV of The Holy Bible, as well as Bible Commentaries and Dictionaries by "non-Mormon" scholars and theologians, and books about Biblical History and Archaeology, also by "non-Mormon: scholars, as well as the other three "Standard Works" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I have studied at the equivalent of the USA's Community College, as well as undertaking both under-graduate and post-graduate studies at university. I have gained my testimony of Jesus Christ by study, by fasting, by prayer, by obeying the commandments, by the spiritual witness of the Holy Spirit, by the trial of faith, and as a spiritual gift from God. Now, you might say that I am deluded or even "brainwashed" but you cannot say that I am ignorant and accept things with unquestioning "blind faith" without making the assumption that I am lying about my background. If I believe The Book of Mormon to be the word of God, then I must accept Second Nephi Ch. 9 v. 34: "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell." Therefore, if I lie to you, then I am a sinner according to the Bible and The Book of Mormon. On a more pragmatic yet perhaps cynical note, whatever prejudices that you personally may have against "Mormonism" as a religion, a lyfestyle and a social institution, will be reinforced if I am lying to you. So you have nothing to lose when I say that some of the so-called doctrines of the Church presented on your website, regardless of the eviden [sentence lost during transmission] Concerning "non-whites", Arab Muslims and European Christians were enslaving Africans and treating them as non-humans for nearly 1,000 years prior to Joseph Smith Jr establishing the Church in 1830. As enlightened a man as Thomas Jefferson was for his time, including having a relationship with the African American woman Sally Hemmings and producing six children from the union, on the whole he believed that Africans were a separate species of humans to the Europeans and should be set aside in a land of their own to practise their own culture and progress at their own rate. Although the Civil War was ostensibly a war about America's economic future i.e., the industrialising North vs the agricultural South, the war was fought between two factions: one which wanted to abolish slavery and one which wanted to continue slavery as a supposedly cheap form of labour. The Latter-Day Saints in Missouri were Abolitionists, which only increased the antipathy and wrath of the Missourians towards them. Much is made of the [sentence lost during transmission] . . .olics and "Niggers". Let's not forget that Abraham Lincoln was murdered in cold blood, one of the reasons being the Emancipation Proclamation, which, if I remember correctly, became the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. Let's not forget that African American soldiers and sailors were badly treated by whites, even including officers, during World War 2, when some of the African Americans were killed by "accidents" and "friendly fire". Let's not forget that white preachers and pastors wanted Elvis Presley banned for singing "nigger jungle music". Let's not forget that even after the US Civil Rights Act 1964 was passed, that USA High Schools remained segregated until "bussing" began about 1970. Let's not forget that Martin Luther King Jr was murdered in cold blood in 1968 for trying to get whites to give African Americans those rights given to them by Abraham Lincoln and the Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, concerning "non-whites", the Latter-Day Saints began to prosyletize amongst Native Americans in the USA and Canada almost as soon as The Book of Mormon was printed and missionary prosyletizing in America and Great Britain began. The Church policy was to befriend the "Indians" or "red-skins", as many whites derogatively called them, and lift them from their primitive condition by conversion to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "Mormons" weren't running guns to the "Indians", selling them "fire water" or running them off their land into reservations. The Church as an institution did not participate in the Indian Wars. Amongst the first converts outside of the USA were the Polynesians in Hawaii, New Zealand, Tonga, Samoa and Tahiti. Not allowing African Americans to be ordained to the Priesthood until 1978 is the sole "racist" act of the Church. The policy, for it was only a policy, not a doctrine, never applied to anyone else of colour: Chinese, Japanese, Asian Indians, Maoris and other Polynesians, or Australian Aborigines for example. Although the reasons presented for the policy, which in the broad scheme of eternity and God's "master plan" do not deny His infinite Mercy and Compassion towards all of His children, may seem unfair to other Christians, what can be said of the masters who raped their female slaves on Friday and Saturday night, then forced them to Church at the end of the lash on Sunday? Concerning the treatment of the Jews since AD 73, the Roman Catholic Church is not alone in perpetrating atrocities against these "crucifiers of Christ". The Protestant Reformation did not improve either race or religious relations between Gentiles and Jews. Henry Ford, hailed as one of America's greatest industrialists, was an anti-Semitic bigot who provided funds to the Nazis on at least four occasions through the Ford Motor Company in Germany. Furthermore, many of Hitler's ideas presented in "Mein Kamf" were borrowed from Henry Ford. On the other hand, Latter-Day Saints have always viewed the Jews as a remnant of the House of Israel, God's "Covenant People", whose land of inheritance given to them under the Abrahamic Covenant, should be restored to them. The Apostle Orson Hyde dedicated the Holy Land for the return of the Jews in the 1840s. The Bible and The Book of Mormon prophesy that they would return to the Holy Land before the Second Advent of the Lord. History attests that the Latter-Day Saints are not bigots towards "non-whites", and theologically, have upheld the doctrine that ALL MANKIND is saved from the Fall of Adam through the Atonement of Christ. Can the same be said of all other Christian denominations? There are so many other doctrinal errors, but I won't take up any more of your time. Nonetheless, I would like to make this comment. If you really want to present the doctrines of a particular Christian denomination, you should ask that particular church for its official doctrines and policies. Then, if as a theological scholar you wish to critique those doctrines and policies, then you should inform your readers from what position you are doing so. I do not believe that you are entirely neutral. I doubt that you are an atheist or antitheist. Possibly you are an Evangelical or "born-again" Christian. Much of the material concerning the Latter-Day Saints I have read before, both on the internet and in Protestant bookshops. It would appear that the source of your material is largely gleaned from "anti-Mormon" literature, which is not a theological critique made in a spirit of Christian humility with a sincere desire to know from God the truth of all things, but rather is an accumulation of "pet-hates" by apost Latter-Day Saints believe that all people who believe in Christ and are obedient to His commandments as they have received them - including Catholic, Protestant, and those other denominations listed on your website - or who have "good hearts" and are willing to receive Christ when taught His gospel - including Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. - will will remain on Earth after the cleansing of the wicked, to be ruled and reigned over by Christ, their Savior, Redeemer and King. Such is the infinite nature of His Atonement and His Mercy, Justice, and capacity to forgive our sins when we earnestly repent and forsake our wrondoing. On Doctrine Reply Wednesday, August 24 The Bible version in question basically refers to the King James version, 1611, which is the Bible used by Joseph Smith and claimed to have been corrupted and also quoted and included in the writings of the LDS church. I happen to use the New American Standard version most of the time, along with the New King James version and the New International version. However, the difficulty is not in relation to those translations because I do not know of any Mormon doctrine that has been significantly impacted by a later legitimate revised translation of the KJV, especially as it would apply to the current major Mormon doctrines. There might be differences when a redaction is used, such as the Jehovah's Witness New World "translation," but that is a completely different issue. Whether the version of the Bible is the KJV, NKJ, NIV, NAS or any other version, as long as it has not been translated by individuals that the LDS church consider to be inspired (which is virtually every translation in existence), then the version is said to be corrupt, unreliable and must be corrected by legitimate inspired translators. The Eighth Article of Faith is a statement that contains a great difficulty facing the LDS church today. It is assumed that a correct translation can only be accomplished by a properly inspired translator, which the LDS church ultimately defines as a Mormon prophet. A proper translation is not considered to be the product of scholarship, but of inspiration or direct revelation, as was claimed to be the case with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The foundation for the assertion by Joseph Smith that he was restoring the true gospel, was based on his claim that the Bible (in his case the KJV) was a product of major corruptive influences, such as uninspired translators, and having many portions removed and others added by corrupt Catholic priests. So, whether the Book of Mormon represents a true replacement for the gospel that was claimed to have been removed from the Bible, stands or falls on whether Joseph Smith spoke truthfully regarding the Bible and his claims that it had errors placed in it by uninspired translators and was deliberately changed by corrupt Catholic priests. Current scholarship refutes Joseph Smith's claim of a corrupted Bible, especially in the assertion that it was changed from its original form by corrupt Catholic priests. It was hoped, by the LDS church, that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls would vindicate Joseph Smith as a translator. However, just the opposite has turned out to be the case. The Dead Sea Scroll copy of the book of Isaiah, which predates the establishment of the Catholic church by at least four hundred years, reveals that Joseph Smith's JST version of Isaiah and the text of Isaiah as found in the Book of Mormon are not supported by that ancient document, while the KJV is virtually identical to that of the Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll. Mormon scholars are forced into the position that they must agree that the Bible, as found in the KJV, is very little changed from the manuscripts from which it was translated, and the claim of major missing and added parts as a result of alterations by corrupt Catholic priests, is a false claim made by Joseph Smith. There is no evidence that the Mormon gospel, as taught in the LDS church today, was ever a part of the Bible or that it was a part of historical Jewish belief or taught by Jesus Christ Himself or the apostles.The Mormon gospel makes its first and only appearance in the historical record with the Book of Mormon, and the current version of the Mormon gospel is a product, not of the Book of Mormon, but of Mormon prophets from Joseph Smith onward. I am aware that the LDS church uses the KJV as its primary biblical version, even though it still must maintain that it is a corrupted version that contains added non-canonical portions and is missing the original gospel as claimed to be taught in Mormon theology. The Book of Mormon is neither supplementary or complimentary to the Bible, because the entire reason for the existence of the Book of Mormon was to present what was claimed to be the true gospel in opposition to the biblical gospel which was claimed to have been changed from the original Scriptures by the corrupt Catholic priests. The LDS church cannot consider the Bible (KJV or otherwise) to be a true and accurate testimony of Jesus Christ, because the gospel message found there is a corruption in relation to Mormon doctrine, and, as such, the Book of Mormon is not another testimony of Jesus Christ in relation to the Bible, but is considered to be the only accurate testimony, since the Bible is said to be corrupt. The Bible is not used to judge the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon is used to judge the Bible, and at any point of difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon is considered to be the final authority. However, in the face of the claims of Joseph Smith that the Bible is a corruption, the issue is why does the LDS church still use the KJV when it is considered to be a corrupt document, and why is it used when Joseph Smith produced his own revised version which he claimed was given to him by inspiration from God and translated from his English Phinney version, Authorized King James, 1828? That should be the final, authoritative version used in the LDS church, because it should represent the corrected and restored version of what the Bible was originally said to be. However, that translation-version ended up being a document that was smaller than the KJV (the Song of Solomon being removed as not being inspired), but the real problem was that the precious parts that were claimed to be missing (especially the Mormon gospel as taught in the LDS church today) were never restored and even the Apocrypha was not attached. So, the LDS church is left with a non-authoritative and corrupted KJV Bible and a JST version that does not represent a correction of what Joseph Smith claimed were the major errors of the Bible represented in the KJV. Not only that, but the JST version has never been completely canonized by the LDS church (only by the RLDS), so the church is left with a corrupt KJV and a JST that exists in limbo, being superseded by the corrupted KJV requiring the numerous footnotes and explanations to clarify its relationship to Mormon theology. The real issue regarding the different versions is actually in relation to the KJV and the JST. The LDS church prefers to use the KJV, because it is not canonized and can be "corrected" in relation to what leadership claims is a proper translation by inspired translators or items that it claims should be added back into the text, while the JST cannot be treated in the same manner, because it was translated by inspiration from God by a prophet and seer of the LDS church. It might be that the LDS church is led by living prophets whose pronouncements supercede those of any dead prophet, but at the resurrection, it is Joseph Smith who is in charge and not some subsequent prophet, so any changes to the translation that he authorized must be justified personally in the presence of Joseph Smith. I have no difficulty at all understanding why there might be 1,000 denominations or groups who claim a foundation in the Bible (there have actually been many more than that), since anyone can make any claim that they wish simply by opening their mouth or writing a statement. The number of denominations is not the issue, but whether what they state is true. The LDS church is a hierarchical organization, that exerts absolute control over its doctrines from the highest level to the lowest, so, there should be no major differences or changes to the gospel message that is claimed to have been restored through the Book of Mormon and are taught in the church today. If the Book of Mormon is "the most correct of any book on earth," and represents the restoration of the true gospel that was removed from the Bible, then why are the following current major LDS doctrines not found there? - There is no Priesthood in the Book of Mormon - There is no Eternal Progression in the Book of Mormon - There is no Temple Marriage in the Book of Mormon - There is no baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon - There is no polygamy allowed in the Book of Mormon - There is no genealogical work in the Book of Mormon - There is no escape from hell in the Book of Mormon - There are no Terrestrial, Telestial or Celestial kingdoms in the Book of Mormon These doctrines are not just minor players in current Mormon theology, but the major elements taught in the church today. According to historical LDS doctrine, the first five items are absolutely necessary for exaltation, but none of them are taught or even mentioned as elements of salvation in the Book of Mormon. Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine remained in the LDS church as a fundamental doctrine for 124 years before it was declared heresy in 1976 by president Spencer W. Kimball, and during that time at least four generations of Mormons were taught to worship the wrong god. Even though Brigham Young originated the doctrine, introduced it into the church, taught it until his death and it has been officially declared heresy, he has never been declared to be a heretic. The first ten presidents of the church after the death of Joseph Smith, either taught the doctrine, agreed with the doctrine or allowed it to exist within the church without taking action to suppress it. I am not sure why you included the reference to "your good self" and "none good except God." I have never stated that I was "good" in relation to God, however, Mormon doctrine states that a person can be good enough to become a God, so, perhaps the answer that Jesus Christ gave in Luke 18:19 should be reviewed a little more closely. The examples regarding various oppressive racial practices against persons of color are all very good, but ignore the problem in relation to anti-black prohibitions in the LDS church. The priesthood prohibition was not just a policy, but a condition assigned directly by God as a judgment for improper conduct, which was rooted in the pre-existence and confirmed in Mormon Doctrine by the passage of Scripture found in the Book of Abraham 1:26, stated to be a doctrine by presidents of the church and taught by virtually every president until Spencer W. Kimball: "I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life."According to LDS theology, the prohibitions placed on Blacks were a result of their failure to perform valiantly in the war against Satan in the pre-existence, so they, out of all other persons of the human race, were denied the blessings of the priesthood. However, it is a mistake to assume that persons of other color were not also seen as inferior in LDS theology, even though they were not denied the priesthood. "Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? . . . can we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of god in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds. . ."The LDS explanation for the origin of the races and consequent variations in skin color is rooted in the pre-existence. The darker the color indicates a poorer performance during that time. This explanation encompasses the full spectrum of human skin color, and asserts that black persons of African origin or ancestry are at the bottom of the list. The priesthood is denied to them and, as noted by Bruce R. McConkie, "The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them. . . . Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessing are concerned . . ."At the other end of the scale, white individuals, born in America within Mormon families were considered to be the most valiant in relation to their performance in the pre-existence, as "white and delightsome" was the standard applied by Joseph Smith. Even on the temporal earth, a people can become darker or lighter, based on performance. This is especially revealed in relation to the explanation for the dark skin color of the Lamanites, as noted in the Book of Mormon. "And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations."The first revelation that Joseph Smith received regarding the practice of polygamy (ca. 1831), was not in relation to multiple marriages among Mormon believers, but was a direct command from God that Mormon men should intermarry with Indian women for a very specific reason: "Verily, I say unto you, that the wisdom of man, in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood, but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."The belief that a person could become lighter in skin color or that a person could posses characteristics of other races, was based on the mistaken medical ideas of the time, that racial identification was carried by the blood. So, according to the standards applied, only one drop of blood is sufficient to contaminate the line: "We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument."The prohibition against individuals of black ancestry was not an absolute in practice, since there were a number of persons who received the priesthood and their endowments, even though the general authorities knew that they had Black ancestors. However, when it was convenient or desirable to do so and the person was light-skinned enough to pass unnoticed, the Scriptural prohibitions were ignored at will, and the spiritual blessings were granted even in violation of what was considered to be the command of God. Performance in relation to others is never the criteria in relation to Scripture. Mormon actions regarding racism are no more egregious than those of traditional Christians who also attempted to use the mark of judgment on Cain as an explanation for the origin of black skin color. However, those were attempts to justify explanations originating from outside the Bible, and then the search was begun in the Bible to find a foundation for the claims, which does not provide those claims with credibility or authority. The Bible says nothing about the curse on Cain being a black skin, so, the attempt to find a foundation there is a failure. The LDS church used those same explanations, along with others, which were internalized within the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, giving them a solid foundation as Scripture, by which they became legitimized, authoritative and part of official Mormon doctrine. The problem, in relation to the denial of the priesthoods to Blacks, is not found with the Book of Mormon. It is true that the Book of Mormon indicates that persons of color are cursed, but it does not deny the priesthood to persons of color. If the Book of Mormon was used as the authority in relation to the LDS treatment of Black persons, then they would always have had the right to the priesthood. The problem rests with the one verse in Abraham 1:26, which is the sole prohibition, but it is a very large prohibition resulting in a big problem. Faced with the increasing pressures from the civil rights movement and the criticism of its hard-line position in regards to Blacks, the church realized that things had to change, but it would require a revelation from God to change what was asserted that God had already established. So, claiming that the General Authorities had earnestly prayed for years asking that the prohibition be lifted, a revelation was claimed to have been received in June of 1978, which did just the very thing. The priesthood was then open to all Blacks who met the qualifications of the church. During the same period of time, another issue was introduced to the church regarding the Book of Abraham and the papyri that had been discovered in 1967, from which Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the book. The two issues, Blacks receiving the priesthood and the translation of the Book of Abraham, came together on the day of the revelation, June 9, 1978, and Abraham 1:26 faced the new revelation from a much different perspective than had ever been anticipated. If God gave a revelation ending the prohibition against Blacks holding the priesthood, then He lied in relation to what had been claimed that He established in Abraham 1:26, so, June 9, 1978 is a turning point for God in relation to His integrity. After the discovery of the papyri from which Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham, it quickly became apparent to Mormon scholars and the presidency that the papyri did not translate as the Book of Abraham, but as an Egyptian funerary text called the Book of Breathings. Joseph Smith had produced a fake translation, and in the process wrote a prohibition against Blacks receiving the priesthood that God never established. Abraham 1:26 was revealed to be a fake prohibition and Black persons were never prohibited by God from receiving the priesthood. Yet, Abraham 1:26 was said to be the basis of the revelation from God received on June 9, 1978, by which the prohibition against Blacks was lifted, however, God never established the prohibition in the first place, so, how could He claim He was lifting or eliminating a prohibition that never existed? Long before the revelation of June 9, 1978, LDS leadership knew that the Book of Abrahm was a fraud and that God had never established a prohibition against Blacks receiving the priesthood. God became a pawn in a game of religious politics and was assigned blame for something that He did not do, in order to maintain the credibility of the presidency, so that Joseph Smith would not be revealed as a racist, liar and forger of bogus translations of documents that did not exist. God was assigned a place with liars, and the General Authorities never gave it a second thought. Of course I am not neutral regarding the issues presented on the website and I never claimed to be. Even a cursory examination of the various articles and the Beliefs page would show that to be the case. Joseph Smith was not neutral by any stretch of the imagination, since he declared that everyone except those who believed the Mormon gospel were apostate, and your message and testimony indicate that you are not neutral as well. It is a mistake to assume that persons are "anti-Mormon" on a personal level or hateful because they present issues in relation to Mormon doctrine. It is not pleasant to review a critique of personal religious beliefs, but it is also a mistake to dismiss those issues by assuming that they have no theological basis or that the person presenting those issues has no desire to learn from God or have no love in their heart. It is a convenience to dismiss the messenger as having some ulterior motive, in an attempt to defuse the message given, however, the issues will always remain. Either the issues have merit or they do not, and I think the documentation presented indicates that the issues are very real. |
|
 COPYRIGHT © 2001 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved
|
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE Bible | STORE |