Tower To Truth

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (Answers 25, 26, and 27)

FAIR

Because of the repetitive nature of the next three questions, I have decided to lump them into one post.

Tower To Truth Question:

25. Why does the Book of Mormon contain extensive, word-for-word quotes from the Bible if the LDS Church is correct in teaching that the Bible has been corrupted?

FAIR Answer:

It would be more correct to say that the Book of Mormon teaches that plain and precious things have been removed from the Bible 1_Ne. 13:28. The vast majority of that which has remained in the Bible is both true and valuable.

Latter-day Saints take two years of every four in Sunday School studying the Bible. They cherish it. They merely refuse to believe that the Bible is all that God has said, or can say. God can speak whenever He wishes.

To learn more: Bible basics

For extensive evidence that the Bible both underwent change and deletions in the very early years, see here.

To learn more: Biblical completeness

————————————-

Tower To Truth Question:

26. Why do the Bible verses quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the italicized words from the King James Version that were added into the KJV text by the translators in the 16th and 17th centuries?

FAIR Answer:

The italics do indeed identify words added by the translators. They were “added” because they were necessary words for making sense of the translation: in Hebrew and Greek the words are sometimes implied, but necessary for English to make sense. (Italics can mislead us, however, in suggesting that there is such a thing as a word-for-word translation without interpretation, save for the italics.)

Thus, in some cases the italic words are necessary, and Joseph or another translator would have had to put them in. In other cases, Joseph removed the italic words. (It’s not clear that Joseph even owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation era, much less that he knew what the italics meant.)

This is really a question about why the Book of Mormon text is often very close (or, in some cases, identical to) the King James Version. If Joseph was trying to forge a book (as the critics claim) then why did he quote from the Bible, the one book his readers would be sure to know?

To learn more: Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon

————————————-

Tower To Truth Question:

27. If the Book of Mormon was engraved on gold plates thousands of years ago, why does it read in perfect 1611 King James Version English?

FAIR Answer:

Because Joseph translated it as King James English.

Why do modern translations of the Greek and Hebrew Bible sound like modern English, even though the texts are hundreds or thousands of years old? Because that’s how the translators translated them. It doesn’t say anything about what the language is like on the original. (French translators make totally different translations than English translators, but the manuscripts remain the same!)

Do Christians condemn the Bible as an inauthentic record because their translations sound like 21st century English? This question is a good example of how insincere these “questions” from an anti-Mormon ministry are.

=====================================

My Response:

OK, we’ll take the first one (Answer 25), since it is the simplest. It is simply another example of Mormon double-speak. They are basically saying, “We don’t believe the Bible has been corrupted. We just believe some things have been removed.”

Doesn’t the “fact” (quote-unquote) that things have “been removed” (quote-unquote), by default, render something “corrupt?” The word “corrupt” comes from the Latin (through Middle English) “to break.” In fact, according to Merriam-Webster, to “corrupt” means “to alter from the original or correct form or version” (See full entry here). So….if something was “removed,” doesn’t that, automatically, mean that it has been “altered from its original form?” But, this is, yet again, another example of a Mormon defining things differently than what they really mean. Oh, and, as usual, not a word about which of the “truths, plain and most precious” were removed. Yeah, good luck getting an answer on THAT.

Then there is the link that says, “For extensive evidence that the Bible both underwent change and deletions in the very early years.” Of course, that link takes you to another FAIR page where they quote Blake Ostler. Oh, yeah, real unbiased work, there. **rolls eyes** Oh, and as far as trying ot use Vagany against the reliability of Scripture, let’s look at the quote from FAIR:

“In AD 178 the secular writer Celsus stated in polemic against the Christians: some of the believers . . . have changed the original text of the Gospels three or four times or even more, with the intention of thus being able to destroy the arguments of their critics.’ (quoted in Origen, Contra Celsum, SC 132, 2, 27).

Now, one thing you need to know about Celsus: he was a heretic. He vehemently opposed the Christians and went out of his way to disparage them. Which means he is exactly the kind of person FAIR will quote in order to defend their beliefs–a known heretic! Way to go, guys! I suppose that next, in order to “prove” the Bible was wrong about the creation account, they will probably be quoting Charles Darwin.

Oh, and by the way, here is the full quote from Origen (emphasis mine):

After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.

I suppose that is enough evidence to shatter FAIR’s misuse of someone’s quote. And, yeah, there are going to be differences in the various Hebrew manuscripts. It would be interesting if FAIR would live up to their acronym and share with us some of these differences from Tov’s book. Oh wait……are those crickets I hear chirping in Utah? Yeah, I thought so.

—————–

So, for the second (Answer 26), let’s boil it down. Let’s look at the main thrust of their response:

The italics do indeed identify words added by the translators. They were “added” because they were necessary words for making sense of the translation: in Hebrew and Greek the words are sometimes implied, but necessary for English to make sense.

RED FLAG ALERT!
RED FLAG ALERT!

The Book of Mormon was not written in Hebrew, or Greek! IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN IN REFORMED EGYPTIAN! (A language which, by the way, has NEVER existed at ANY TIME IN HISTORY). So the argument that the italics were added to the Hebrew for insertion into the BOM is silly, because Isaiah was written in Hebrew while the BOM was written in a totally different language! BUSTED!! That would be like saying “The parts of the Bagavad Gita that were plagiarized from Das Kapital kept the italics to get the sense of what the Japanese meant.” We’re talking about completely different languages, so their answer on this point is moot.

——————————–

Finally, Answer #27. I would have to say this isn’t much of an issue. Of course the gold-digger was going to translate it into the language of his day, so I really don’t think that’s any ground we need to cover.

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answers 17 & 18)

Tower To Truth Question #17:

17. If the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the everlasting gospel,” why does the LDS Church need additional works?

——————————-

FAIR Answer #17:

The Book of Mormon’s definition of “fulness of the gospel” is not “all truths taught in the Church.” The fulness of the gospel is simply defined as the core doctrines of Christ’s atonement and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Critics do not trouble to understand what the Book of Mormon says before attacking it.

To learn more: Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel

============================

Tower To Truth Question #18:

18. If the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the everlasting gospel,” why doesn’t it say anything about so many important teachings such as eternal progression, celestial marriage, the Word of Wisdom, the plurality of Gods, the pre-existence of man, our mother in heaven, baptism for the dead, etc?

——————————————

FAIR Answer:

The Book of Mormon’s definition of “fulness of the gospel” is not “all truths taught in the Church.” The fulness of the gospel is simply defined as the core doctrines of Christ’s atonement and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Critics do not trouble to understand what the Book of Mormon says before attacking it. Making the same attack twice (see #17) makes it no more convincing the second time.

To learn more: Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel

———————————-
———————————-

My Response(s):

So, “fulness” doesn’t mean “fulness.” In Mormonese, “fulness” means “The only parts of our beliefs we will share with the world, lest they realize too quickly that we are indeed a false religion.” Now, FAIR claims that The Book of Mormon’s definition of “fulness of the gospel” is not “all truths taught in the Church.” I must have skipped over that part of the BOM where it actually defines the phrase “fulness of the everlasting gospel.” Oh, I know why. Because it doesn’t. So when they come a-knockin’ on your door, and they claim that their BOM contains the “fulness of the everlasting gospel,”–well, it doesn’t. It only contains the things they want you to hear before they start laying all that other gobbledy-gook on you. You know, the whole “milk before meat” shpiel.

If there’s one thing FAIR is good with, it is word games. And boy, do they play one here. What is it they say in their above answer? The fulness of the gospel is simply defined as the core doctrines of Christ’s atonement and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. So, what do they define the MORMON gosepl as being? At the link entitled “Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel” they say that,

In this passage [3rd Nephi 27:13-19] , Jesus defines “the gospel” as:

  • Christ came into the world to do the Father’s will.
  • The Father sent Christ to be crucified.
  • Because of Christ’s atonement, all men will be judged by him according to their works (as opposed to not receiving a judgment at all and being cast out of God’s presence by default; 2_Ne. 9:8-9).
  • Those who repent and are baptized shall be filled (with the Holy Ghost, see 3_Ne. 12:6), and
  • if they continue in faith by enduring to the end they will be justified (declared “not guilty”) by Christ before the Father, but
    if they don’t endure they will be subject to the justice of God and cast out of his presence.
  • The Father’s words will all be fulfilled.
  • Because no unclean thing can enter the Father’s heavenly kingdom, only those who rely in faith on the atonement of Christ, repent, and are faithful to the end can be saved.

Funny. My Bible tells about all those things too. Does it not contain the “fulness of the everlasting gospel?” Well, according to Salt Lake City–not anymore.

Now, if you dig far enough into Mormon doctrine, you will find that this is not the end of the LDS “gospel.” In fact, this is only the beginning. You must accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. You must do this and do that and believe something else. What, in fact, are the “first principles and ordinances” of the MORMON gospel? well, the 4th “Article of Faith” found in the Pearl of Great Price says,

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Oops. Problem. These are simply the FIRST Principles and Ordinances. Why are they the “FIRST” Ordinances and Principles? Well, because if there is a first, there has to be a second, no? In fact, thanks to the fine people at CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry), there are several “core doctrines” of Mormon theology that you will not find in the “Most correct book of any on earth”:

Church organization
Plurality of Gods
Plurality of wives doctrine
Word of Wisdom
God is an exalted man
Celestial marriage
Men may become Gods
Three degrees of glory
Baptism for the dead
Eternal progression
The Aaronic Priesthood
Temple works of washings, anointing, endowmants, sealing.

So not only does the BOM not contain even one-third of essential Mormon doctrine–it doesn’t even define what it means by “fulness of the everlasting gospel.” To think, when they were making those 4000+ changes and additions, they could have at least slipped something in there about plurality of gods, celestial marriage, etc. I guess by the time Joseph came up with these things, it was too late.

This is simply another smokescreen thrown up by (un)FAIR to divert people from the truth. They figure if they throw out that little bone, people will say, “Oh, that’s what it means. OK” and move on. They don’t like when people go deeper than the cute little sound bites they offer. And unfortunately, most people will be convinced by these. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from dialoging with Mormons over the years it is this: You will not proof-text a Mormon. And it helps to be ready for them to answer our objections to their beliefs.