In this latest newsflash from the LDS newsroom, I have some questions. And yes, I admit to you my LDS friends that I have been perturbed all day by the pious marketing title as I prepare for the Lord’s Day, tomorrow. Hey, I am just an average, dumb, impressionable spud living in Southeastern Idaho. But does the LDS newsroom expect me to stomach this? This is exasperating. How many times do I have to hear it in my lifetime?
If the Bible is correct only as far as it is translated correctly, why in the world has no group of LDS apostles since Joseph Smith attempted to correct it? This is ridiculous. I would think that passion and love and reverence for scriptures would motivate the authorities to roll up their sleeves and make what they think is a more accurate English take for the Greek and Hebrew texts. We are talking about a length of time spanning almost two centuries in order to make a better translation? So what’s up? Their sly agenda toward the scriptures is inexcusable.
Why does LDS Church hierarchy continue to hide under this reverent pretense? We all know very well the phrase by James, “Faith without works is dead.” I have no respect for a professing faith that demonstrates no loving works. So, how can I admire a professing reverence toward the Bible but no honest effort and scriptural work made by living apostles to ever lift the Bible out of its alleged mistranslation before the public’s eye? I believe in modern miracles. I believe God intends for people in 2008 to have an accurate Bible on their laps. This newsroom post is some of the oddest, religious, superficial sentimentality to dribble over non-thinking Americans. Both, liberal biblical scholars and astute believing conservatives show more authentic heart (contra and pro) toward the Bible. I can take the liberal interpretations, which I abhor, more than this high-toned fluff. The liberals make honestly clear what they denounce and accept in the O.T. and N.T. texts. It’s refreshing.
If LDS apostles really revered the Bible, wouldn’t they consider advancement of biblical translation a top priority, especially, when the Church newsroom says things like this: “Of all the standard works, the Bible remains the best source for an intimate understanding of the character and personality of Jesus Christ during His mortal mission.” I caught those words . . . the best source.
May I insert a bold dare? If the Bible contains error on Jesus’ glorious pre-existence or His post-mortal sovereign reign as King, then for the sake of the glory of God Almighty, tell the American people where the Scripture is wrong and fix it. Show us what you think is wrong. Be real. Let’s quit the guessing games on what has been translated correctly about the Lord Jesus Christ, the only perfect man to ever walk on the face of this earth.
From my standpoint, the 8th article of faith, fundamental to LDS bibliology, reveals a lot of politics and no active faith. And I don’t understand why so many LDS households are content to just sit back and quote the mantra over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Finally, in my slow, ongoing, inward burning over this issue, I highlight this paragraph:
There is a broad range of approaches within the vast mosaic of biblical interpretation. For example, biblical inerrancy maintains that the Bible is without error and contradiction; biblical infallibility holds that the Bible is free from errors regarding faith and practice but not necessarily science or history; biblical literalism requires a literal interpretation of events and teachings in the Bible and generally discounts allegory and metaphor; and the “Bible as literature” educational approach extols the literary qualities of the Bible but disregards its miraculous elements.
In vibrant historical evangelicalism, there was a reverent grip on the idea of biblical inspiration (a God-breathed book). But then came the debates. So lovers of God and His holy words came up with a new term, “infallibility” (Could this word be used to describe God? Or is God not accurate in a few areas?). Sadly, Christians argued over how to interpret “infallibility,” so conservative evangelicals coined the term inerrancy as a pointed description for where they stood on the original autographs delivered from the mind of God to the minds of men.
One final thought, there are those who do strive for a grammatical, historical, and literal interpretation of Scriptures. And they actually believe in allegories and metaphors and similes. Like over here. Similes of God as man and as woman.
Ok, I am done preaching to the corridor, tonight.
I need to get back to preparing my final Sunday School lesson in this four-week January series of How To Study The Bible.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Todd,
As an evangelical who firmly embraces the doctrine of the inerrancy and infallibility of the original text, I don’t have much problem with the quote that follows. Sure, the modern Biblical texts are not infallible or inerrant, but they convey the full message of God; and this is on account of God’s work of preservation of the text through the centuries.
The problem that I encounter with many Mormons is that when confronted with an alleged contradiction between the Bible and Mormon teaching, Mormons are all-too-ready to plead the 8th Article: “This verse must be one of those sections of the Bible that wasn’t translated correctly.” Thus the 8th Article *in practice* functions as an out for Mormons unsettled by the assertions of Biblical texts–even when there are no significant textual glosses or text-critical problems with the Biblical assertion.
Now for the quote:
“The Church does not strictly subscribe to any of these interpretive approaches. Rather, in the words of Joseph Smith, it regards the Bible to be the word of God, “as far as it is translated correctly” (8th Article of Faith). Accordingly, Church members believe that during the centuries-long process in which fallible human beings compiled, translated and transcribed the Bible, various errors entered the text. However, this does not override the overwhelming predominance of truth within the Bible. As Elder Ballard noted, “Without the Bible, we would not know of His Church then, nor would we have the fullness of His gospel now.” Part of that fullness is the Bible’s seminal instruction that God reveals Himself to those who seek Him. The Bible is a living invitation to know personally the sacred revelatory experience that fills its pages.”
I never plead the 8th Scott. Internally, I hold myself open to the possibility, but I see little use in actually invoking it in dialogue with other faiths.
I’ll be honest with you Todd. I agree with your sentiments for the most part. I have some theories as to why “the brethren” might possibly not be misguided on this (my current stance is ‘wait and see’), but I have the same frustrations. Nicely written.
We sustain them as seers, but my understanding is that the Urim and Thummim (the interpreters) are no longer in possession by the leaders of the church. The “seer stone” used by Oliver(?) apparently is still around, but actual interpreters are not. Joseph Smith, then, was really the only bona fide seer we ever got, all the others who followed him were but prophets. I’m using the scriptural definitions here (JS-H 1: 35; BOM Title page “the interpretation thereof by the gift of God”; Mosiah 8: 13, 15-17; Mosiah 28: 13-16.)
Granted, there is the prevalent belief among LDS that should the Lord desire it or should there be a need, the current prophet could request and obtain the Urim and Thummim to translate additional records. Obviously, this hasn’t happened, or, if it has happened, the records translated have not been publicly disclosed.
There is also the principle found in 3 Nephi chapters 15 and 16 of if you ask not, you receive not. So, it may be that no one (referring to the church leaders) is asking for anything new, hence we get nothing new. Any LDS, of course, has access to the Holy Ghost and can, if he or she so desires, obtain all the new information they want to know, even to obtaining a Urim and Thummim, but most people are just content to wait until the prophet reveals the new stuff, instead of seeking it out themselves.
At any rate, the Brass Plates of Laban are slated (prophesied) to be revealed in this Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, which contain a record a bit more detailed than our Old Testament does, down to the time of Jeremiah, so I doubt the Lord would tell his prophet to retranslate the Biblical records. He’d probably just reveal the Brass Plates or any of the numerous other Nephite records that are mentioned. Or perhaps even the records mentioned by the Bible as authoritarian which aren’t in our current Bibles (Iddo the Seer, etc.)
The Lord has a habit of turning things upside-down, so I’d expect that if more scripture (which invariably would translate into more doctrine) were to be revealed, it would not be what the majority would expect him to reveal. (My thoughts are not thy thoughts, and all that.)
Lastly, the LDS don’t really want more scripture, as it is. The BOM is a test to get the full record, instead of the abridgment (the BOM) that we have. We’ve had it for nearly two hundred years and still we’ve done nothing with it, even to the point of President Benson proclaiming that we are still under the same condemnation that was pronounced upon the church nearly 176 years ago. (See 3 Nephi 26: 8-11 and D&C 84: 54-59.)
So, I wouldn’t be too hard on the leaders. The Lord gives the people what they want. If they don’t want seers, he takes them away. If they don’t want additional scripture, none will be forthcoming. For the most part, we have been lulled asleep. But this sleeping church will not remain sleeping for much longer. We are heading for a rude awakening and then you’ll get the seers and new scripture and re-translations you are looking for, but you may not like it then, just as the new information that has already been revealed is not palatable to you.
Todd, I have been a subscriber to your blog for a while now and have greatly enjoyed it. I have a book that might interest you and I would be happy to send it to you. It is “A Plainer Translation: Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible, a history and commentary”. My apologetics interest have turned in a different interest since the LDS is few and far between around these parts.
I think the original article is a sincere attempt by the Church to break down myths about how we view the Bible. I agree with you that the 8th article of faith is often used as a cop-out by Mormons in dialogue.
A couple things for all of us to think about:
I think the way Joseph Smith used the word “translation” is different than how we typically think of the word. I reference the rediscovery of some of the papyri from which the book of Abraham was “translated” and reports that Joseph would “translate” the Book of Mormon without looking at the plates. I think one could consider all the revelations that came to Joseph Smith during his process of “translating” the Bible as part of that “translation.” So I think we’re dealing with a process that is much different than a typical translation process that occurs today when going between languages. (and having done that kind of translation work myself I can attest to the fact that nearly every document or conversation I’ve translated could very accurately be asterisked with the phrase ‘as far as it is translated correctly’) So, I don’t think Joseph Smith’s “translation” was intended to be the ‘most accurate translation from the Greek’ and should not be viewed in that manner.
That said I think there is great value in being able to study the Bible in the original Greek and Hebrew. I also think it is valuable to study the Biblical texts in the oldest manuscripts, some of which have only been discovered in the last 50 years and differ from the texts used to generate the widely used version of the scriptures.
So what has been the Church’s response to the “as far as it is translated correctly” Bible? I think it is that they have large portions of the D&C that are revelations built off of Joseph’s translation of the Bible, I think it is the JST footnotes and appendix that they include with the King James Bible they print, I think it is the tradition of the study of Ancient languages and preserving of ancient texts that they have encouraged and fostered at their sponsored university.
So, if we’re looking for the Church to put out a ‘retranslated’ version of the Bible, nice and clear-cut with claims that it is the best ‘translation’ of the ‘oldest manuscripts’, we are misreading the intended meaning of Joseph’s statement “as far as it is translated correctly” and will continued to be disappointed.
Dave wrote, “I also think it is valuable to study the Biblical texts in the oldest manuscripts, some of which have only been discovered in the last 50 years and differ from the texts used to generate the widely used version of the scriptures.”
Dave, which texts or set of manuscripts, discovered in the last 50 years, do you have in mind that differ from the texts used to generate the widely used version of the scriptures (i.e., the KJV?)?
Maybe he’s referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Todd, I don’t think LDS share the idea that every theological problem would be fixed if only we had the mythical Ultimate Original Urtext. LDS leaders don’t see it as a solution because they don’t see the lack of one as a fundamental problem as you and other Protestants may.
Permit a lengthy quotation from Richard Mouw.
“It is important to underscore here the way in which the Mormon restoration of these ancient offices and practices resulted in a very significant departure from the classical Protestant understanding of religious authority. The subtlety of the issues at stake here is often missed by us Evangelicals, with the result that we typically get sidetracked in our efforts to understand our basic disagreements with Mormon thought. We often proceed as if the central authority issue to debate with Mormons has to do with the question of which authoritative texts ought to guide us in understanding the basic issues of life. We Evangelicals accept the Bible alone as our infallible guide while, we point out, the Latter-day Saints add another set of writings, those that comprise the Book of Mormon, along with the records of additional Church teachings to the canon- we classic Protestants are people of the Book while Mormons are people of the Books.
This way of getting at the nature of our differences really does not take us very far into exploring some of our basic disagreements. What we also need to see is that in restoring some features of Old Testament Israel, Mormonism has also restored the kinds of authority patterns that guided the life of Israel. The old Testament people of God were not a people of the Book as such- mainly because for most of their history, there was no completed Book. Ancient Israel was guided by an open canon and the leadership of the prophets. And it is precisely this pattern of communal authority that Mormonism restored. Evangelicals may insist that Mormonism has too many books. But the proper Mormon response is that even these Books are not enough to give authoritative guidance to the present-day community of the faithful.The books themselves are products of a prophetic office, an office that has been reinstituted in these latter days. People fail to discern the full will of God if they do not live their lives in the anticipation that they will receive new revealed teachings under the authority of the living prophets.”
-Richard Mouw, “What does God think about America?” BYU Studies, 43:4 (2004):10-11.
I was thinking particularly of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library. For the most part these older texts are remarkably similar to the later manuscripts which were used to create the KJV but there are portions that are quite different including entire new books that predate books in the New Testament specifically the Gospel of Thomas. I’m not saying that all these newly discovered books belong in the New Testament canon and represent accurate teachings of Jesus but their very existence poses many questions for the idea of an infallible Biblical text. Here is a wikipedia excerpt about the Dead Sea Scrolls:
In spite of these limitations, the scrolls have already been quite valuable to text critics. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were Masoretic texts dating to 9th century. The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls push that date back to the 2nd century BC. Before the discovery, the oldest Greek manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus were the earliest extant versions of biblical manuscripts. Although some of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text, most do not. The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability to be more confident of those readings where the Dead Sea manuscripts agree with the Masoretic text or with the early Greek manuscripts
I would second Dave’s comment about the different meanings of the word “translate”. While there may be some minor errors going from one language to another, I personally suspect most error comes when an author tries to transcribe the meaning of his inspiration. Thus the issue, in my mind, is larger than which translation is best.
Todd, you inspired some questions from me over at HI4TW. I do get a kick out of you telling us what the LDS apostles would do if they really revered the Bible.
Dave,
I have James Robinson’s”The Nag Hammadi Library” and have taken a graduate level class on gnosticism and the New Testament. These texts are among the most bizaar religious literature I’ve ever read. If I remember correctly, the vast majority of these texts are dated no earlier than the forth or fifth century AD. The Gospel of Thomas is among the earliest of these texts, and yet it doesn’t predate any New Testament document…unless you put stock in the arguments of the liberal feminist scholar, Elain Pagels.
I don’t know enough about the Dead Sea Scrolls to make detailed comments. I’ve read, however, that the DSS confirm that the MT carries forward an accurate textual tradition. I’ll bet that none of the differences between the DSS and the MT are much more than the differences between the MT and the Septuagint.
What should be of interest to Mormons is that none of our earliest NT documents support in any way the Joseph Smith Translation.
Scott
President Hinckley died 😦
Andrew, just popping in here tonight after a full Lord’s day. Thanks for the news. I didn’t know. I will take some time here personally to pray for his family.
Guys, I would think someone like Don Parry would have the JST of Isaiah trump the great Isaiah scroll variants almost every time. I have his Isaiah translation. Nitsav is free to correct me where I might be wrong on this. And Nitsav, if there is anyone that misses subtleties of the Book held dearly by conservative evangelicals and stark statements by living LDS apostles, I think it would be Mouw. It’s too bad.
Scott and others, thanks for joining in on the conversation.
Joel, I would appreciate having the book: 1671 Brenthaven St., Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Jacob J., one of these days I would like to sit down with any one of these apostles and hear the top ten KJV phrases that he simply flat out rejects, even though he might not ever publicly tell anyone this through national media. Bad PR. I am learning that modern LDS public apostles are not to be used for correcting false doctrine in faulty translation. Silly me. I know it is an amusement to a lot of LDS in the corridor. I am like the goofball in the midst of the ongoing beehive production.
Do. Do. Do. Do. And keep listening to the mantra of the newsroom.
Todd, the fact is that Mormons read, study, and believe in the Bible. What you are expecting here is for Latter-day Saints to share your belief in biblical supremacy and sufficiency; if Latter-day Saints really did share these beliefs with you then your demand for the Apostles to provide a “corrected” translation would follow logically.
The kicker is that Latter-day Saints do not believe in biblical supremacy/sufficiency. Instead, Latter-day Saints view their religious life as similar to that of the early followers of Jesus Christ who did not have a closed canon of scripture to dictate belief but rather followed living prophets, informed by the scriptures of the past. The past and the present become equally constitutive parts of the whole of religious experience.
As to pinpointing specific errors in the Biblical text, we have the Book of Mormon which funtions together with the Bible to clarify doctrine — so, God has already done what you are demanding LDS Apostles to do.
John F., so you are saying that the Book of Mormon is God’s sufficient way of revealing what is not accurately translated in the Bible? Hmmm. I wonder how the next book is going to fit into the picture.
Actually, I don’t think the hierarchy in my lifetime will ever tolerate another book. Would be too much uproar for the corporation.
I think LDS anarchist is right about future turmoil. Word is coming. But it will come outside the LDS Church.
And boy, what a shakeup it will all be.
But this future Word will not compromise the ancient scriptures, where even ancient prophets like Isaiah pointed people toward.
I long from ever part of my being for the supremacy of the Word on this gusty, stormy Monday morning. The King is coming. And don’t just take Todd Wood’s word for it.
Todd, Latter-day Saints commonly believe that the Book of Mormon provides a second witness, so to speak, for the sound doctrines of the Gospel. Doctrines that otherwise might have come through to us somewhat distorted through the transmission of the Bible are clarified by having this second witness. The relationship between grace and ordinances is one area that comes to mind. The Bible, by itself, can leave ambiguity about what is meant about the relationship between the two. The Book of Mormon supplements our knowledge about this relationship. Latter-day Saints read them together.
When Jesus comes again I find it genuinely hard to believe that he is going to destroy faithful Mormons, Todd. To think that Jesus is going to destroy people who have dedicated their lives to him and who believe in him sincerely and fervently — with all the strength that they possess — just because they believe he and God the Father are two separate beings each with a resurrected physical body is just obscene. Truth be told, it makes reason stare. How does confessing that Jesus and God the Father are “one substance” become the all-important factor in who survives his coming? It seems safe to say that God does not base salvation on whether someone accepts the ad hoc philosophical conclusions of thinkers exasperated by how the Old Testament’s invocation of “one God” could be reconciled with the obvious presence of the Son of that one God in the various scrolls and parchments comprising what would eventually be the New Testament (no NT canon existing, of course, for the first couple of hundred years after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ). “One substance” might have brought peace of mind to early Christian philosophers but it is not the necessary conclusion the follows from the Bible — rather it is one among various plausible solutions of sufficient conclusions to resolve that difficulty arising from the Biblical text.
John f., as I have explored with LDS on the concept of God, the implications and ramifications go way, way beyond the coining of this Greek word, translated “substance”.
LDS friends are putting limitations right and left on what I see as unequivocal glory of the Lord Jesus Christ in Scripture.
The great problem with mankind is that we fall short of the glory of God. The Bible puts forth God’s glory in unbelievable splendor. And we refuse it, reject it, repress it, or re-package it. The sinful nature of men, doing what it does naturally and of their own free will.
Joseph’s charge is that the Bible is not altogether translated correctly about God and His glory. (phew)
What is God suppose to say about this?
Men corrupt God’s word all the time through their teachings, their writings, and their actions. I struggle with this. But I don’t think God will ever allow the fundamental message of His word in the 66 books to be torn, fragmented, or disintegrated. He will just remove rebellious men’s opportunity for understanding.
John F., God the Father has set me on a heart path in revering and giving glory to Jesus Christ (I can’t even begin to boast in myself or anyone else). Yet the writings of Joseph Smith are seeking to derail my path and set me on a completely different track for what is proper heart motivation and understanding in giving glory to Jesus Christ.
I don’t make light of the differences Joseph is setting forth. They are HUGE. And if I (with my puny brain) think they are massive, again, what does God think?
And in the end, after continual forebearance and extending of mercy, God is not going to just wink His eye over the boundaries mankind has dug in and set in regards to His Only Begotten.