FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Array
The Bible: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
[[de:Mormonismus und die Bibel]] | [[de:Mormonismus und die Bibel]] | ||
[[en:Mormonism and the Bible]] | [[en:Mormonism and the Bible]] | ||
[[es:El Mormonismo y la Santa Biblia]] | |||
[[fr:La Sainte Bible et le mormonisme]] | [[fr:La Sainte Bible et le mormonisme]] | ||
[[it:La Sacra Bibbia e il mormonismo]] | [[it:La Sacra Bibbia e il mormonismo]] | ||
[[pt:Mormonismo e da Bíblia Sagrada]] | [[pt:Mormonismo e da Bíblia Sagrada]] | ||
Revision as of 01:33, 26 May 2017
Mormonism and the Holy Bible
Jump to Subtopic:
- Mormons revere the Holy Bible
- How Mormons view the reliability of the Holy Bible
- How Mormons interpret the Holy Bible
- The "Joseph Smith Translation" of the Bible
- Mormonism, science and the Bible
- The Mormon view of the creation of the earth
The Holy Bible literally contains within its pages the converting, healing Spirit of Christ, which has turned men’s hearts for centuries, leading them to pray, to choose right paths, and to search to find their Savior....The Holy Bible is well named. It is holy because it teaches truth, holy because it warms us with its spirit, holy because it teaches us to know God and understand His dealings with men, and holy because it testifies throughout its pages of the Lord Jesus Christ.
—"Bible: The Word of God," Gospel Topics on LDS.org.
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
Do Latter-day Saints consider the Holy Bible to be the Word of God?
Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be holy scripture
How do Latter-day Saints regard the Holy Bible? Do they consider the Bible to be the Word of God?
Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be holy scripture. The 8th Article of Faith states:
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."
The proviso that the Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly seems to shake some persons' confidence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Bible-believing church. There is no reason that this should be, for it is hardly a matter of dispute that when men translate words from one language to another they can easily err, and have often done so. Simply comparing different English-language versions of the Bible should demonstrate conclusively that some people understand ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (the source languages of the Old and New Testaments) quite differently in some cases.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reveres the Bible and uses it extensively in its teaching and practice
But let no one doubt: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reveres the Bible and uses it extensively in its teaching and practice. The late Elder James E. Talmage, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, had this to say about the Bible in his classic book about the Articles of Faith:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Holy Bible as the foremost of her standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and doctrine. In the respect and sanctity with which the Latter-day Saints regard the Bible they are of like profession with Christian denominations in general, but differ from them in the additional acknowledgment of certain other scriptures as authentic and holy, which others are in harmony with the Bible, and serve to support and emphasize its facts and doctrines.
The historical and other data upon which is based the current Christian faith as to the genuineness of the Biblical record are accepted as unreservedly by the Latter-day Saints as by the members of any sect; and in literalness of interpretation this Church probably excels.
Nevertheless, the Church announces a reservation in the case of erroneous translation, which may occur as a result of human incapacity; and even in this measure of caution we are not alone, for Biblical scholars generally admit the presence of errors of the kind—both of translation and of transcription of the text. The Latter-day Saints believe the original records to be the word of God unto man, and, as far as these records have been translated correctly, the translations are regarded as equally authentic. The English Bible professes to be a translation made through the wisdom of man; in its preparation the most scholarly men have been enlisted, yet not a version has been published in which errors are not admitted. However, an impartial investigator has cause to wonder more at the paucity of errors than that mistakes are to be found at all.
There will be, there can be, no absolutely reliable translation of these or other scriptures unless it be effected through the gift of translation, as one of the endowments of the Holy Ghost. The translator must have the spirit of the prophet if he would render in another tongue the prophet's words; and human wisdom alone leads not to that possession. Let the Bible then be read reverently and with prayerful care, the reader ever seeking the light of the Spirit that he may discern between truth and the errors of men.[1]
Do Latter-day Saints believe that the Bible has less value because it contains errors?
Latter-day Saints revere the Bible as Holy scripture
The 8th Article of Faith states:
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
The proviso that the LDS believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly seems to shake some persons' confidence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Bible-believing church. There is no reason that this should be, for it is hardly a matter of dispute that when men translate words from one language to another they can easily err, and have often done so. Simply comparing different English-language versions of the Bible should demonstrate conclusively that some people understand ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (the source languages of the Old and New Testaments) quite differently in some cases.
Latter-day Saints spend 50% of their Sunday School curriculum studying the Old and New Testaments, and the other 50% studying the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. The Bible clearly receives the majority of attention.
Latter-day Saints wish to defend the Bible
While not believing that the Bible—or any book—is inerrant, the Latter-day Saints are far more concerned with defending the Bible's value than in denigrating it. Harold B. Lee observed, in 1972:
I believe that the problem of our missionaries in our day too might be not so much to prove that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are indeed the word of the Lord, but that the Bible, which is generally accepted as the word of God, is being doubted as having been derived from the words of inspired prophets of past generations.
In this day when the Bible is being downgraded by many who have mingled philosophies of the world with Bible scriptures to nullify their true meaning, how fortunate that our Eternal Heavenly Father, who is always concerned about the spiritual well-being of His children, has given to us a companion book of scriptures, known as the Book of Mormon, as a defense for the truths of the Bible that were written and spoken by the prophets as the Lord directed....
It is only as we forsake the traditions of men and recover faith in the Bible, the truth of which has been fully established by recent discovery and fulfillment of prophecy, that we shall once again receive that inspiration which is needed by rulers and people alike.[2]
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
Does the Bible itself claim to be inerrant?
The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant
As Blake Ostler observed of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":[3]
The doctrine of inerrancy is internally incoherent. In my opinion, numerous insuperable problems dictate the rejection of inerrancy in general and inerrancy as promulgated in the Chicago Statement in particular. First, the Chicago Statement is self-referentially incoherent. One cannot consistently assert that the Bible is the basis of his or her beliefs and then assert that one must nevertheless accept biblical inerrancy as asserted in the Chicago Statement...This statement contains a number of assertions, propositions if you will, that are not biblical. Inerrancy, at least as recently asserted by evangelicals, is not spelled out in the Bible. Nowhere do the words inerrant or infallible appear in the Bible. Such theoretical views are quite alien to the biblical writers. Further, inerrancy is not included in any of the major creeds. Such a notion is of rather recent vintage and rather peculiar to American evangelicalism. Throughout the history of Christian thought, the Bible has been a source rather than an object of beliefs. The assertion that the Bible is inerrant goes well beyond the scriptural statements that all scripture is inspired or "God-breathed." Thus inerrancy, as a faith commitment, is inconsistent with the assertion that one's beliefs are based on what the Bible says. The doctrine of inerrancy is an extrabiblical doctrine about the Bible based on nonscriptural considerations. It should be accepted only if it is reasonable and if it squares with what we know from scripture itself, and not as an article of faith... However, it is not and it does not.
The Chicago Statement can function only as a statement of belief and not as a reasonable observation of what we find in the Bible. The Chicago Statement itself acknowledges that we do not find inerrant statements in the Bible, for it is only "when all facts are known" that we will see that inerrancy is true. It is very convenient to propose a theory that cannot be assessed unless and until we are in fact omniscient. That is why the Chicago Statement is a useless proposition. It cannot be a statement of faith derived from the Bible because it is not in the Bible. It cannot be a statement about what the evidence shows because the evidence cannot be assessed until we are omniscient.[4]
Is any book of scripture perfect?
No book of scripture is "perfect"
Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the conservative Protestant belief in scriptural inerrancy. We do not believe that any book of scripture is perfect or infallible. Brigham Young explained:
When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities.... Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.[5]
So while the Book of Mormon has come down to us with fewer doctrinal errors and corruptions than the Bible, even it could be improved if we were ready to receive further light and knowledge.
Infelicities of language are also to be expected when produced by revelators with little education, said George A. Smith:
The Book of Mormon was denounced as ungrammatical. An argument was raised that if it had been translated by the gift and power of God it would have been strictly grammatical.... When the Lord reveals anything to men, he reveals it in a language that corresponds with their own. If you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding.[6]
Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?
Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today
It is claimed that Latter-day Saint leaders diminish the Bible as untrustworthy.
Do the Latter-day Saints detract from the Bible? Do they criticize it? No more so than the majority of Biblical scholars.
Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today. Only those who completely reject modern biblical textual criticism would find LDS leaders' views radical or evil. In fact, LDS beliefs on the matter accord well with many other Christian denominations. Those who vilify LDS belief on this point tend to be at the extreme end of the debate about scriptural inerrancy, and would also reject a modern creedal, orthodox scholar's views.
The Latter-day Saints believe that the Bible is true. It is inspired and inspiring, having been inspired by God and written by prophets, apostles, and disciples of Jesus Christ.
In 1979, the Church produced its own King James Bible, complete with a set of footnotes and cross references, as well as translational notes and study helps
Prior to this publication, the Church purchased most of its King James Bibles from Cambridge University Press. Does this sound like an organization that is using the Bible merely as a public relations gimmick? If so, millions of members were never told. The Church and its members have a deep love and appreciation for the Word of God as found in the Bible.
The bold assertion that the LDS do not value the Bible is amusing. There is no presentation of statistics, only anecdotal claims that first, LDS members do not read the Bible and are not familiar with it, and second, that they constantly hear from their leaders that the Bible is less than trustworthy.
In a survey published in July 2001, Barna Research Group, Ltd. (BRG) made the following observations:
The study also revealed that barely half of all Protestant adults (54%) read the Bible during a typical week. Barna pointed out that Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants-even though most Mormons do not believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.[7]
BRG is not affiliated with the LDS Church, nor was the LDS Church involved in the survey. Members of the LDS Church likewise would not categorize their faith in this fashion—they do, in fact, regard the Bible as authoritative and the Word of God. Yet the survey indicated that they certainly do read the Bible consistently. Also, over the course of two years out of every four years, every member of the Church is asked to read and study the entire text of the Bible as part of the Church's Sunday School curriculum. Asked by whom? By the leaders of the LDS Church.
Early LDS study of biblical languages
One of the often-neglected events in LDS history happened in 1836. Joseph Smith arranged for a Hebrew scholar to come and teach Hebrew to the members of the LDS Church in Kirtland Ohio. The members of the Church had already been studying the Hebrew language, having purchased some grammars, a Hebrew Bible, and a lexicon, and had previously attempted to hire a teacher. The Hebrew scholar who came was Joshua Seixas. He spent several weeks instructing many of the members of the Church in Hebrew.[8] Why the interest in the Hebrew we might ask? Clearly it was to be able to (in the words of Pope Pius XII) 'explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern.'
What this shows is that not only were the early LDS aware of the challenges associated with the Bible, but that they were just as interested in going back to the original language and to the original texts (if possible) as was the rest of Christendom who were aware of these discrepancies. Despite the critics' unfounded assertions to the contrary, there has never been a leader of the LDS Church who has ever suggested that the Bible was not suitable for study and for learning the Gospel due to any shortcomings it may have.
The Book of Mormon on the Bible
Critics often discuss two of Nephi's statements regarding the Bible as found in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's perspective is that of modern Latter-day Saints: The Bible contains truth from God. However, it is still the work of men, and is only as reliable as the men who wrote, translated and copied it.
It is interesting that the Book of Mormon itself has begun to be seen as a witness to the textual criticism of the Bible. Source critical theory of the Old Testament splits the story of David and Goliath into two separate accounts that were later merged into the common story that we have today.[9] Scholars believe these two traditions represent an earlier source and a later source. One of the primary evidences for this argument is the fact that some of the added material is missing from the Septuagint (LXX). In a paper presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, Benjamin McGuire presented evidence that Nephi, in borrowing from the story of David and Goliath, relied on a text that did not have the added or late material.[10] This would be in harmony with current scholarship of the Old Testament, which indicates that this material was added at the time of the captivity in Babylon, and certainly after Nephi had left Jerusalem with his Brass Plates.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1981[1899]), 236–237.
- ↑ Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 158-159.
- ↑ On the Chicago Statement, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. and exp. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 181–185.
- ↑ Blake T. Ostler, "Bridging the Gulf (Review of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation)," FARMS Review of Books 11/2 (1999): 103–177. off-site (italics in original)
- ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311. [13 July 1862]
- ↑ George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses 12:335. [15 November 1863]
- ↑ The full survey, entitled "Protestants, Catholics and Mormons Reflect Diverse Levels of Religious Activity," can be found at the Barna Web site at www.barna.org.
- ↑ Perhaps as many as 120 members of the LDS Church studied under Seixas while he was in Kirtland.
- ↑ See, for example, Emmanuel Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Jeffrey H. Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 97-130.
- ↑ Benjamin McGuire, "Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi" (text), or video.
How Mormons interpret the Holy Bible
Jump to Subtopic:
Biblical scripture interpretation
Jump to details:
- Question: How can a Latter-day Saint approach responding to criticism of the Church on biblical grounds?
- Question: When the Bible talks about being "born again," what does this mean?
- Question: Was the Gospel of Christ a mystery that was unknown until the advent of Christ?
- Question: Does the Bible condemn genealogical research?
- Question: Why did Joseph described the United Order in revelation as "everlasting" and "immutable and unchangeable" until Jesus comes?
- Question: Why do Mormons use the Aaronic Priesthood, since Hebrews 7 states that the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood was "changed" to the unique priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" held by Jesus Christ?
- Question: Is there a "Priesthood of All Believers" which eliminates the need for unbroken lines of priesthood authority?
- Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?
- Question: Do the Latter-day Saint "Three Degrees of Glory" have a basis in the Bible?
- Question: Is it appropriate to celebrate holidays as a Christian?
- Question: Was Moses a real person?
- Question: Does the practice of baptism for the dead have ancient roots?
- Question: What are the common objections to a belief in God's corporeality?
- Question: Does the doctrine that God has a physical body contradict the Bible?
- Question: Why do the Latter-day Saints believe God has a body?
- Question: What Biblical scriptures discuss the doctrine of the deification of man?
- Question: How is Isaiah 43:10 used as a proof-text by critics of the Mormon doctrines of the plurality of gods and the deification of man?
- Question: Does the fact that the Bible states that nothing should be "added to" or "taken away" from the book mean that the Book of Mormon is false?
- Question: How is Genesis 3:5 used by critics to attempt to show that the Mormon doctrine of deification is a teaching of Satan?
- Question: Was the temple obsolete after Christ?
- Question: Does Acts 17:24-25 teach that the idea of temple worship is foreign to Christianity?
- Question: Is original sin a biblical doctrine?
- Question: Is Mormon insistence on baptism as an essential ordinance of salvation "unChristian" or "unbiblical"?
- Question: Is the Mormon doctrine of a "premortal existence" pagan, unchristian, or unbiblical, and therefore false?
- Question: What biblical evidence is there for a pre-mortal existence?
- Question: Did Jesus and the apostles believe in pre-mortal life?
- Question: How do Mormons see the relationship between works and grace?
- Question: Do Mormons believe that salvation is based upon works?
- Question: What can the writings of early Christians tell us about how to receive salvation in Jesus Christ?
- Question: Does the Bible teach that individual works are unnecessary?
- Question: Do Mormons ignore the doctrine of grace at the expense of "works"?
- Question: Is an evangelist really a patriarch?
- Question: Does the fact that the Bible states that nothing should be "added to" or "taken away" from the book mean that the Book of Mormon is false?
Life and Character |
|
Youth |
|
Revelations and the Church |
|
Prophetic Statements |
|
Society |
|
Plural marriage (polygamy) |
|
Death |
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
Did Joseph Smith teach animal sacrifice as part of the "restoration of all things"?
Modern Church leaders teach that the need for sacrifice by the shedding of blood was superseded by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ
It is claimed that Joseph Smith favored "Old Testament practices" including "teaching animal sacrifice." However, modern Church leaders teach that the need for sacrifice by the shedding of blood was superseded by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith taught that it would be necessary to restore some form of sacrifice as part of the restoration of all things. The Lord clarified that these sacrifices would be a "memorial" to the sacrifices practiced by the Sons of Levi. Joseph Fielding Smith taught that a symbolic restoration of sacrifice would occur.
Official Church publications on the subject
Statements made by Joseph Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith regarding animal sacrifice are included in the Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual, Section 13 - The Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood. See section: D&C 13:1. What Is Meant by the Sons of Levi Offering an Offering of Righteousness unto the Lord? (online at lds.institute.org) These statements are discussed in the following sections.
The sacrifice of Jesus Christ ended the need for performing sacrifice by the shedding of blood
Monte J. Brough said,
Latter-day Saints believe that the law of sacrifice is an important element of their lives. Because the great sacrifice of the Son of God ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood, today we live the law of sacrifice in other ways.
(Monte J. Brough, "Living the Law of Sacrifice," Ensign, Apr 2000, 44)
M. Russell Ballard,
Usually, the first thing people think of when they hear "law of Moses" is animal sacrifice. The somewhat gruesome nature of blood sacrifice has led some to ask, "How could such an activity have anything to do with the gospel of love?" We can better understand the answer to that question when we understand the two major purposes for the law of sacrifice. These purposes applied to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and the New Testament Apostles, and they apply to us today as we accept and live the law of sacrifice. Its two major purposes are to test and prove us and to assist us in coming unto Christ.
(M. Russell Ballard, "The Law of Sacrifice," Ensign, Oct 1998, 7)
In 1840 Joseph Smith taught that the Old Testament (Malachi 3:3) foretells the restoration of elements associated with ancient Israelite temple service
In 1840 Joseph Smith taught that the Old Testament (Malachi 3:3) foretells the restoration of elements associated with ancient Israelite temple service, including some form of sacrifice.
[Jehovah] continued to [Noah] the keys, the covenants, the power and the glory, with which he blessed Adam at the beginning; and the offering of sacrifice, which also shall be continued at the last time; for all the ordinances and duties that ever have been required by [p.211] the Priesthood, under the directions and commandments of the Almighty in any of the dispensations, shall all be had in the last dispensation, therefore all things had under the authority of the Priesthood at any former period, shall be had again, bringing to pass the restoration spoken of by the mouth of all the Holy Prophets; then shall the sons of Levi offer an acceptable offering to the Lord. 'And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord.' (See Malachi 3:3).
It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e., the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus] was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future: but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the priesthood, or with the Prophets . . . .
These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the [p.212] powers of the Melchisedic Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the holy Prophets be brought to pass? It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the Prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses' day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued. (History of the Church 4:211).
Joseph Smith's comments on animal sacrifice comments were made on 5 October 1840. The Lord further clarified the nature of these sacrifices in the Nauvoo Temple revelation (D&C 124) dated 19 January 1841:
Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name. (D&C 124꞉39) (emphasis added)
Joseph Fielding Smith stated that animal sacrifice would happen again to fulfill a symbolic role
Joseph Fielding Smith stated that animal sacrifice would happen again to fulfill a symbolic role as part of the restoration of all things in this dispensation:
Now in the nature of things, the law of sacrifice will have to be restored, or all things which were decreed by the Lord would not be restored. It will be necessary, therefore, for the sons of Levi, who offered the blood sacrifices anciently in Israel, to offer such a sacrifice again to round out and complete this ordinance in this dispensation. Sacrifice by the shedding of blood was instituted in the days of Adam and of necessity will have to be restored.
The sacrifice of animals will be done to complete the restoration when the temple spoken of is built; at the beginning of the millennium, or in the restoration, blood sacrifices will be performed long enough to complete the fulness of the restoration in this dispensation. Afterwards sacrifice will be of some other character. (Doctrines of Salvation 3:94)
Critical sources |
|
Is there a contradiction between the Old Testament concept of "cursing" enemies and Latter-day Saint scriptures stating that we should "bless" our enemies?
Some Christians argue that restoration scriptures or remarks by Church leaders are inconsistent with the Christian command to "bless, not curse"
Some Christians claim that Joseph Smith focused on Old Testament ideas and concepts, such as the "cursing of enemies." They appeal to New Testament prohibitions of cursing enemies (e.g., Romans 12:14, and then argue that restoration scriptures or remarks by Church leaders are inconsistent with the Christian command to "bless, not curse." However, if one wishes to condemn anyone who calls God's judgment down on the wicked, they will also condemn every prophet in the Old and New Testament, and a large proportion of the Christian preachers, missionaries, and ministers throughout history.
Such a stance is hypocritical—they condemn Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, Joseph Smith, and others not because they pray that God's judgment will come upon the wicked and vindicate the righteous, and not because they (the critics) believe such actions to be always and everywhere wrong. They condemn LDS prophets because have decided already that these men are neither righteous nor prophets.
Jesus cursed a fig tree that had leaves but no fruit
The New Testament command not to curse has some marked exceptions. For example, Jesus cursed a fig tree that had leaves (implying that its fruit would be present, since figs appear before the leaves) but no fruit.
- Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! (Matthew 21:18-20)
Jesus was pronouncing a curse, then, on hypocrites—those who "claim" to have worthy characteristics, but this is only a facade.
Peter described a sinful group whom he declared to be "cursed"
14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children. (2 Peter 2:14)
Paul too was emphatic that false teachers were "accursed"
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)
Paul's use of the word "anathema" means "a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction"
Paul likewise told the Corinthians:
22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema (1 Corinthians 16:22).
Anathema means "a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction," "any imprecation of divine punishment," or "a curse; execration."[1] (The Greek word is "anathema" (Ανάθεμα)—"bind under a great curse.")[2]
The Doctrine and Covenants contains a cursing—but, significantly, the command comes from God
The critics are, to be sure, not willing to grant that the Doctrine and Covenants is divine scripture. They must, however, concede that Joseph and other members believed they were obeying God's command to curse; they did not take that right upon themselves:
And inasmuch as mine enemies come against you to drive you from my goodly land, which I have consecrated to be the land of Zion, even from your own lands after these testimonies, which ye have brought before me against them, ye shall curse them; And whomsoever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies (D&C 103꞉24-25).
Significantly, this instruction was given after mobs drove the Saints from their homes and lands in Missouri with scenes of arson, rape, and murder. Ostensibly committed to justice, religious freedom, and the rule of law, their enemies demonstrated that they had only the hypocrisy of fig leaves—but no fruit.
Were curses pronounced upon the enemies of the Church in the Kirtland Temple?
George A. Smith says nothing about cursing in the temple, but does indicate that some prophesied the death of persecutors and apostates
Critics charge that the Saints cursed their enemies in the Kirtland Temple, citing George A. Smith:
Some of the brethren thought it was best to apostatize, because the spirit of cursing was with men who had been driven from Missouri by mob violence. Yet every word that they prophesied has been fulfilled. They prophesied that the bones of many of those murderers should bleach on the prairie, and that birds should pick out their eyes, and beasts devour their flesh. Men who have traversed the plains of Mexico, California, Nebraska, and Kansas, have often seen the fulfilment of that prophecy in the most marvellous manner. We have seen their names upon trees, on the heads of old trunks, and bits of boards; the names of men that I knew, and I knew just as well, in the Kirtland Temple, what would be their fate, as I know now. But that tried us, some of us were awfully tried about it. The Lord dared not then reveal anything more; He had given us all we could swallow; and persecution raged around us to such an extent that we were obliged to forsake our beautiful Temple, and flee into the State of Missouri.[3]
George A. says nothing about cursing in the temple. He indicates that some prophesied the death of persecutors and apostates (often the same people) and that God fulfilled this prophecy in a miraculous way. The critics misrepresent this source.
Prayers were offered in the Kirtland Temple for their persecutors
The critics also neglect to mention the prayer offered in the Kirtland Temple for their persecutors, praying that his judgment come upon them (D&C 109꞉27-34) but asking that repentance come to them if possible:
47 We ask thee, Holy Father, to remember those who have been driven by the inhabitants of Jackson county, Missouri, from the lands of their inheritance, and break off, O Lord, this yoke of affliction that has been put upon them. Thou knowest, O Lord, that they have been greatly oppressed and afflicted by wicked men; and our hearts flow out with sorrow because of their grievous burdens. O Lord, how long wilt thou suffer this people to bear this affliction, and the cries of their innocent ones to ascend up in thine ears, and their blood come up in testimony before thee, and not make a display of thy testimony in their behalf? Have mercy, O Lord, upon the wicked mob, who have driven thy people, that they may cease to spoil, that they may repent of their sins if repentance is to be found; But if they will not, make bare thine arm, O Lord, and redeem that which thou didst appoint a Zion unto thy people. And if it cannot be otherwise, that the cause of thy people may not fail before thee may thine anger be kindled, and thine indignation fall upon them, that they may be wasted away, both root and branch, from under heaven; But inasmuch as they will repent, thou art gracious and merciful, and wilt turn away thy wrath when thou lookest upon the face of thine Anointed. (D&C 109꞉47-53, (italics added))
Critical sources |
|
Did George A. Smith pray that the Lord would kill the mobbers that were attacking the Saints?
George A. does not say "kill the mobbers," or ask that their neighbors die, but rather the members prayed that the mob would be done away
Critics also report with disapproval George A. Smith's prayer that God would kill the mobbers:
We were a pious people in those days; but, notwithstanding our piety, our neighbours soon talked of mobbing us. They had already tarred and feathered the Prophet Joseph and Sidney Rigdon, and they threatened us with mobbing and expulsion. As I remarked, we were then very pious, and we prayed the Lord to kill the mob.
It was but a little time before the Saints were driven out of Jackson county, Missouri, the printing press destroyed, men tarred and feathered, women ravished, and men, women, and children scattered to the four winds of heaven, all in consequence of our religion.[4]
In the face of rape, murder, and expulsion, all the Saints did was pray to God to "kill the mob." George A. does not say "kill the mobbers," or ask that their neighbors die. They only wish for the persecution to stop; "our neighbours soon talked of mobbing us," and the members prayed that the mob would be done away.
If the critics insist on reading this as a plea for God to kill the mobbers, the Saints must at least be credited with leaving judgment and the meting out of justice to the Lord—they do not seek to do the killing themselves.
Did Heber C. Kimball curse the president of the United States?
Heber C. Kimball cursed the U.S. president when the U.S. army invaded Utah based on false rumors about the Saints' actions
Critics describe Heber C. Kimball cursing the U.S. president. They do not reveal that all the statements which they collect were made during the war, when the U.S. army invaded Utah based on false rumors about the Saints' actions:
There is a poor curse who has written the bigger part of those lies which have been printed in the States; and I curse him, in the name of Israel's God, and by the Priesthood and authority of Jesus Christ; and the disease that is in him shall sap and dry up the fountain of life and eat him up. Some of you may think that he has not the disease I allude to; but he is full of pox from the crown of his head to the point of its beginning. That is the curse of that man; it shall be so, and all Israel shall say, Amen. [The vast congregation of Saints said, "Amen."] He is laying plans to destroy us, and is striving with his might to stir up the Government of the United States and the President to send troops here to bring us into collision and destroy this pure people—man, woman, and child. May God Almighty curse such men, [Voices all through the congregation: "Amen!"] and women, and every damned thing there is upon the earth that opposes this people. I tell you I feel to curse them to-day. [Voice: "And they shall be cursed."]. Yes, they will be; and the Devil shall have full possession of every man and woman that raises the tongue to sympathise with those poor curses.[5]
Will the President that sits in the chair of state be tipped from his seat? Yes, he will die an untimely death, and God Almighty will curse him; and he will also curse his successor, if he takes the same stand; and he will curse all those that are his coadjutors, and all who sustain him. What for? For coming here to destroy the kingdom of God, and the Prophets, and Apostles, and inspired men and women; and God Almighty will curse them, and I curse them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, according to my calling; and if there is any virtue in my calling, they shall be cursed, every man that lifts his heel against us from this day forth.[6]
And may God Almighty curse our enemies. [Voices: "Amen."] I feel to curse my enemies: and when God won't bless them, I do not think he will ask me to bless them. If I did, it would be to put the poor curses to death who have brought death and destruction on me and my brethren—upon my wives and my children that I buried on the road between the States and this place.
And the President of the United States, inasmuch as he has turned against us and will take a course to persist in pleasing the ungodly curses that are howling around him for the destruction of this people, he shall be cursed, in the name of Israel's God, and he shall not rule over this nation, because they are my brethren; but they have cast me out and cast you out; and I curse him and all his coadjutors in his cursed deeds, in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of the Holy Priesthood; and all Israel shall say amen.[7]
...I feel, in the name and by the authority of Jesus Christ and my calling, to curse that man that lifts his heel against my God and his cause and kingdom; and the curse of God shall be upon him: the angels of God shall chase him, and he shall have no peace. The President of the United States and his coadjutors that have caused this thing shall never rest again, for they shall go to hell.[8]
Heber declares that his cursing is done out of his apostolic role—just as Peter, Paul, and even Jesus could declare curses against the ungodly, the adulterer, the hypocrite, or the anti-Christian, so Heber felt justified in calling for God's judgment upon liars, those who stirred up military action on false pretenses, murderers, and those who used political or military means to crush the Church.
Notes
- ↑ Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on the Random House Dictionary (Random House, Inc. 2009), s.v. "anathema."
- ↑ Strong's number G331.
- ↑ George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses 2:216.
- ↑ George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses 5:107.
- ↑ Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:32.
- ↑ Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:133.
- ↑ Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:95.
- ↑ Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 6:38.
What is the Joseph Smith Translation (JST)?
Joseph Smith created an inspired "translation" of parts of the King James version of the Bible, mostly from 1830-1833, then continued until his death in 1844. It was complied into a book in 1867 by The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ). In 1979 it was included in as footnotes in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1979 King James Version of the Bible.
The JST as compiled/published in 1867 is not considered scripture, but some of it has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Matthew. We believe some of it was restoring the original intent of some Biblical verses. Some of it was restoring missing scripture or missing events. Some was for clarifying or harmonizing similar verses. Some of the same verses have different interpretations for some temporary purpose. Some call it inspired commentary. See the JST on the church website.
[1]
Is the JST a restoration of lost Bible text?
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.
As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."
Two main points should be kept in mind with regards to the Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible:
- The JST is not intended primarily or solely as restoration of text. Many mainline LDS scholars who have focused on the JST (such as Robert J. Matthews and Kent Jackson) are unanimous in this regard. The assumption that it is intended primarily or solely as a restoration of text is what leads to expectations that the JST and Book of Mormon should match up in every case. At times the JST does not even match up with itself, such as when Joseph Smith translated the same passage multiple times in different ways. This does not undermine notions of revelation, but certainly challenges common assumptions about the nature and function of Joseph's understanding of "translation".
- One of the main tendencies of the JST is harmonization. Readers are well aware of differences in Jesus' sayings between different Gospels. For example, Jesus' statements about whether divorce is permitted and under what conditions differ significantly. Matthew offers an exception clause that Mark and Luke do not, and this has severely complicated the historical interpretation of Jesus' view of divorce.
- The JST often makes changes that harmonize one gospel with another. While one gospel says "judge not" (though this may not be as absolute as some make it out to be), John 7:24 has Jesus commanding to "judge righteous judgment." The JST change harmonizes the two gospels by making Matthew agree with John. If there is a real difference between being commanded to "Judge righteously" and being commanded to "Judge not", then it is a problem inherently present in the differing accounts of the Gospels, which the JST resolves.
More about the JST
Why are there discrepancies between translations in the Book of Mormon, KJV, and the JST?
Why is the JST Genesis creation account not more like the Book of Abraham?
Why does the church use the KJV instead of the JST as its official Bible?
Was the JST influenced by outside sources?
Did Adam Clarke's Bible commentary influence the JST?
Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses use "God" while the Book of Abraham use "Gods"?
Why does the Book of Moses contain New Testament language?
What is the relationship between the JST and biblical manuscripts?
Was Joseph Smith a "self certifying prophet" with JST Genesis 50:33?
Is the church embarrassed by the JST?
Key sources |
|
FAIR links |
|
Online |
|
Video |
Video published by BYU Religious Education.
|
Print |
|
Navigators |
Life and Character |
|
Youth |
|
Revelations and the Church |
|
Prophetic Statements |
|
Society |
|
Plural marriage (polygamy) |
|
Death |
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
Notes
- ↑ Video published by BYU Religious Education