Quantcast

Comments about ‘'That's a wrap': LDS Church's Bible Videos series leaves legacy of history and faith’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 24 2013 4:05 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
bw00ds
Tucson, AZ

Thanks to all who were involved in producing these wonderful vignettes. They have inspired me.

ringger
Provo, UT

Thank you for your work on these inspiring films.

Adrian Martin
Birmingham, England

I have enjoyed so much the Bible Videos released to date. It's good to know there will be yet more to enjoy. Thank you to all those involved in this marvellous work!

bob j
Maryborough, 00

When I go back to my days of the 'Flannel Board' discussions, it is a modern miracle that such progress has been made.
How little did we then know of what it would be like in 2013. Congratulations to all concerned in this production and thanks to our Heavenly Father for this progress.

OnlytheCross
Bakersfield, CA

Should evangelicals be happy that LDS are acquiescing to the validity of the Bible, curious that they aren't using the JST, or skeptical of why they have turned "so adamantly KJV"?

Many secular and worldly folks don't know the distinctions made by early Mormon founders about their objections to KJV translations. I am happy that creators stuck to the integrity of the pure text. Now if they will just remain as adamantly honest about where they differ doctrinely, I'll have no objections. As a 6th-generation (former) Mormon, I know what we taught in the '60's & '70's... Biblical integrity was not ever taught.

So tell the world exactly what you teach in your auxillary curriculum, and we won't have to.

Congrats!!

SLCWatch
Salt Lake City, UT

@OnlytheCross

I have been a member of the LDS faith for almost 6 decades and I know what was taught in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's,and the new centuary also. I received a KJV Bible before I was 8, read it through repeatedly before I ever read the Book of Mormon. It was extensively taught, loved and the basis of our beliefs of God's Love for his children. I wasn't even aware of the JST until I served a mission but still rely on the KJV for my devotional reading. I don't know what you missed in your education as a 6th Generation member but it shouldn't have been a love for the Bible. LeGrand Richards an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ developed the first Church lesson plans and used the KJV to bring light to the world of the Great doctrines of Christ. Yes, we differ on some doctrines but only because the contentious disagreements and arguments of men have been replaced with the light of Revelation that brings understanding to the precious Bible. If you thought God was Dead or spoke no more we have wonderful news for you.

OnlytheCross
Bakersfield, CA

I agree that the Biblical issue was never one of love for the Book and its stories. We read them, taught them and studied the Bible from Sunday School to Seminary. I taught and served in every presidency, including Seminary and two years at BYU. My uncles are BYU professors, and I took Hebrew with Ann Madsen before her doctorate, 1970-71. If you never heard of the JST until your mission, you were not raised in the northwest. It was always an issue of the accuracy of the translation, which is exactly what I meant with "Biblical integrity". The accuracy of the BoM still is held above that of any Biblical text or translation. Only within Mormonism, however.

Just read the words of every prophet concerning the accuracy, efficacy and trustworthiness of the Bible. Get out the old "Doctrines of the Church", Church History (any volume) and sift through the Journals of Discourse. Read McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine״...That is the prime reason for Joseph starting his own "reformation" and church, and his retranslation of the entire Bible.

SLCWatch
Salt Lake City, UT

@OnlytheCross
Not to be obnoxious but "been there, done that" on the reading list. You put a lot of stock in your background and your personal studies. You should know then that it was not a reformation, that he didn't set out to start a church, that he didn't do a translation of documents on the "JST" but it's a commentary by revelation. I was taught the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Even you would know all translations are not equal. Try reading any of Bart Erhman on Bible accuracy. "Misquoting Jesus" is a fascinating book, please try it.
I am concerned that you don't seem to know that we have accepted the KJV almost from the founding of the church. That we believe the Bible as revealed truths given to us through prophets. That God's desire is always to talk to us through prophets. The Bible teaches us much. Please don't pretend to others unfamiliar with the Church that we don't accept the Bible. You obviously want to be spiritually aware. Can I ask what you want to believe?

OnlytheCross
Bakersfield, CA

I don't consider polite discussion obnoxious at all, dear Utah friend! I am merely referring to the fact that the Church has never accepted any Bible translation as accurate, totally sufficient for Eternal Life, or anywhere on par with the Book of Mormon's accuracy. It has always been relegated exactly as you have described here: Lovable, treasurable, but fallible. Always one of the four Standard Works, but the least perfect of the four due to errors.

You said it accurately when you stated "as far as it is translated correctly". Many denominations do not accept the Bible as 100% accurate, although they may consider it Holy Spirit-inspired and totally sufficient for salvation/exaltation, etc. I have read all the critics on both sides of this debate and hold to a 100% trustworthy document, despite minor problems/the insidious Jesus Seminar/ and nefarious naysayers. I have taught Biblical Hebrew for 20+ years, along with Biblical Inerrancy, How We Got the Bible, and Biblical Hermaneutics. Smarter scholars than either of us have differing opinions.

Only the LDS accept any document or translation by JS. You will not find any of his works accepted outside the Church.

SLCWatch
Salt Lake City, UT

You raise an important point, I don't believe the Bible is sufficent for eternal life. Only the Atonement of the Savior Jesus Christ is sufficent for that. But you probably meant that I hope.
You seem to have a lot of background on an early Bible language, although not much was written in Hebrew or those texts don't exist. Perhaps with your understanding of the Johannine Comma 1 John 5:7-8 you could explain the Inerrancy of the Bible's teaching on the Trinity as Erasmus found it in the earliest Greek texts? I would be interested to hear your opinion on this important doctrine of main stream Christianity.
(Warning: This is of course a major problem in Biblical translations)
I look forward to your explanation.
By the way, main stream Judism did not accept Christ's teachings, revelations and authority in his day, Why are you surprised that main stream Christianity doesn't accept Christ's documents and translations through a living prophet in the latter-days?
Either he was a prophet or he wasn't. I have found for myself he was. Apparently you have not learned that I assume. The scholarship is interesting, the personal revelation is ineffable.

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: SLCWatch, as far as it is translated correctly. Try reading any of Bart Erhman on Bible accuracy?
The original A of F, #8 We believe in the Word of God recorded in the Bible; we also believe the Word of God recorded in the Book of Mormon, and in all other good books.

Erhman debates Christians scholars (lower criticism) like Daniel Wallace quite and the debates are available . Why don’t Mormons lower criticism scholars debate Erhman or Christian like Wallace?

Over 26,000 N.T. quotes from the(2nd c) disciples of the apostles and early church fathers can reconstruct the N.T. less 11 verses.

SLCWatch
Salt Lake City, UT

@Sharrona
My first response was "HUH?" You left words out so I wasn't sure of what you were trying to say.
Your point on Wallace and Erhman is very important. The Debate clearly shows there is not agreement among men who are ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. (Almost sounds scriptural doesn't it.) Both agree a more sure word of prophecy would be better(paraphrasing of course). Hence why debate the argument that the argument proves...it's not inerrant. Wallace suggest that you have a RSV, NIV, NET if you are just reading and a KJV, NEB and an ESV if you are a scholar. Six choices of inerrancy? And none of which are for personal interpretation?
With 500,000 documented differences in the texts of the 200,000 word New Testament it's a wonder you can reconstruct the NT. Especially when you have to decide which one you want to reconstruct.
Wouldn't it be great if we could just know where to go to hear a prophet that could say "Thus saith the Lord."
I love the Bible. Please don't teach that I don't.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

sharrona,

"....Erhman debates Christians scholars (lower criticism) like Daniel Wallace quite and the debates are available . Why don’t Mormons lower criticism scholars debate Erhman or Christian like Wallace?...."
______________________________

The scientific approach to analyzing ancient texts from which the Bible was constructed is anathema to the tenet that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Academic inquiry poses a challenge to Christian creeds, no less so for Mormonism which believes “the glory of God is intelligence,” but whose claims to primacy are staked to the absolute conviction that theirs is the restored church. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place!

When secular scholars like Erhman and those of the much maligned Jesus Seminar dig deeper into the ancient past deconstructing texts, should their work threaten Christian faith? If it does, then the greater question is, what is ones faith based on. Is it a house built on a rock or on sand?

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

OnlytheCross,

Should evangelicals be happy that LDS are acquiescing to the validity of the Bible, curious that they aren't using the JST, or skeptical of why they have turned "so adamantly KJV"?
______________________________

LDS official use of the King James Bible began with Joseph Smith who endorsed it as the most correct English translation of the Bible. That, BTW, was the view of English speaking Protestants throughout the world at the time. The KJV remains the official Bible of the LDS Church today despite the many recent translations into modern English which the LDS Church does not offer any official opinion on.

The so-called Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not a translation at all. It is a revision of select verses Joseph Smith felt inspired to revise from the King James Bible. He was not working from ancient texts whose languages he couldn’t read anyway. He did undertake the study of Hebrew under a tutor but he never attained a level of proficiency to do translation work. For some scholars of Mormonism, the JST’s main significance is in what insights it might provide into Joseph Smith himself.

OnlytheCross
Bakersfield, CA

Missing the Biblical Truth point by focusing on textual criticism minutia will not bring you into the "new creation", promised in every ancient NT text.

Just go into your prayer closet and ask the God who created you:
1- if the Blood of His Son covers all your sins: and
2- if confessing and accepting His finished Work on the Cross of Calvary will bring you & keep you in His Eternal Dwelling place?

John 1: 6-13 cannot be debated or maligned. It can only be accepted and experienced. You either accept Him for Who claims to be and then become "the children of God", or you add your own requirements, retranslations, regressions from His original message and mission.

Either Christ, His Word and Work are sufficient, or you have "another gospel, another Jesus", as Paul warned. Colossians, Ephesians and Galations alone can "save you", change you from your human DNA to the "new creature in Christ".

Only mothers know what carrying and giving life feels like. Only "Born-Again" (spiritually-birthed) believers know how the radical, new and powerful Holy Spirit in-dwelling alters your human experience and existence.

Utahgrandma
Salt Lake City, Utah

For SLCwatch
@OnlytheCross
FYI,by all standards of the Evangelical, protestant traditions I am saved! Yes, I have prayed as you asked (Not that I needed your invitation but thanks for suggesting it. I know you care.) On a brighter note, I believe in the Bible so I am also including being a contrite spirit, I wait on the Lord, walk uprightly, enduring to the end, call on his name, I have been baptized, I keep his commandments, do all that he has commanded, forsake all, I enter in, have faith that he promised will save me, save my self by having others hear the foolishness of my preaching, have the gospel by which I am saved,and am working out my own salvation with fear and trembling, all of which the Bible says I must do also. Or is the Bible verses referred to here in error? (opposite of inerrant)
I appreciate you being worried about my Salvation, I am equally worried about yours. Maybe more so. I do accept John 1:6-13. Do you reject all these other verses that say will save you? Find a paradigm that fits all of them, please. I have.

sharrona
layton, UT

@ SLCWatch: Translations are helpful, but the Greek is essential serious Bible study.

Although you read thousands of variants or mistakes, keep in mind that they count the same error in each of the 5,000 manuscripts. After careful examination, they have found that only 40 lines (400 words) of the 20,000 lines are in question. We can be sure that the New Testament is 99% pure. The Iliad by contrast has 5% corrupted text. There is no ancient text that is more reliable than the N. T..

RE: Craig Clark, Non-Catholic historians admit, it can be demonstrated easily that early Church writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Eusebius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, had no conception of Mormon doctrine, and they knew nothing of a "great apostasy." Nowhere in their writings can one find references to Christians embracing any of the peculiarly Mormon doctrines, such as polytheism, polygamy, celestial marriage, and temple ceremonies. If the Church of the apostolic age was the prototype of today’s Mormon church, it must have had all these beliefs and practices. But why is there no evidence of them in the early centuries, before the alleged apostasy began? Catholic Answers.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

sharrona,

"Non-Catholic historians admit, it can be demonstrated easily that early Church writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Eusebius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, had no conception of Mormon doctrine, and they knew nothing of a "great apostasy...."
______________________________

You’ve misconstrued my point. The so-called ‘great apostasy’ is a later interpretation of what happened in the early centuries. The early church writers you reference were better aware of events of those times than we are. But they were the vanguard of change. Would you expect them to see their own activities as apostasy? The very notion is ludicrous. They had their own ideas of who the heretics were in their time.

==========

"If the Church of the apostolic age was the prototype of today’s Mormon church, it must have had all these beliefs and practices...."
______________________________

Don’t look to Catholic Answers to explain Mormon doctrines. CA should concern itself with Catholic issues such as priestly celibacy for starters. BTW, where in the Bible does it tell us to pray to dead saints? See my point?

Thinkman
Provo, UT

When are we going to get these types of Videos from the LDS church on the most correct book, and the keystone to the religion.

I thought the Bible was 2nd fiddle or even 4th fiddle to the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price. Seems to me that the LDS church should have made videos on these books first, no?

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: Craig Clark Don’t look to Catholic Answers to explain Mormon doctrines.

“NON-Catholic” historians admit,early Church writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Eusebius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, had no conception of Mormon doctrine, and they knew nothing of a "great apostasy." Nowhere in their writings can one find references to Christians embracing any of the peculiarly Mormon doctrines, such as polytheism, polygamy, celestial marriage, and temple ceremonies. If the Church of the apostolic age was the prototype of today’s Mormon church.

RE:SLC, Modern translations are helpful. i.e.

In (D&C 110: 1-16) Elias and Elijah appear to JS, but in the Bible they are the same person. The KJV translators attempted to transliterate Elijah to Elias because there isn’t a Greek character for the English letter J.
To avoid confusion, modern translations: NIV, NJKV, NASB and the Catholic Bible have Elijah instead of Elias in(Mt 11:14,; Luke 1:17)JS was fooled. See my point;

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments