HEY TONY PINA: re LDS beliefs

Bill's Question #1

I'll answer the questions about LDS DL in a bit (although Steve has provided some good information already).

Now, Bill G. You have waited patiently enough...

BILL G: My assumption is that you have access to LDS commentaries, doctrinal books or other to help form your answers.

TONY: That is true. I also have access to an immense library of early Christian literature and major works by Christian theologians throughout history (the Deseret Book publishes this wonderful collection of over 3,000 books on CD-ROM).

Rather than just cutting and pasting the commentaries by LDS writers, however, I would prefer to take a stab at answering these questions myself. My answers may seem simplistic to you, but they will reflect the view of an active, practicing Latter-day Saint. If you wish the option of other LDS writers, I will be happy to recommend works for further study.

#1. John 1:1 JST versus Greek texts.

To answer this question coherently, It becomes necessary to understand what the Inspired Version (AKA the Joseph Smith Translation) is and what it is not.

What it is NOT:
--It is NOT a translation of the Bible using any ancient texts (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Ugartic, Coptic, etc.).
--It is NOT a canonized version of the Bible to replace the KJV or other versions of the Bible. Although I believe that the RLDS church (now called the Community of Christ) may have used it at one time as their official Bible. The version that you have was published by Herald, which is the RLDS pushing house (equivalent, I believe to our Deseret Book)

I have never cared for the term "Joseph Smith Translation," as it generally conveys a different meaning in 2002 (rendering into another language) than it did during Joseph Smith's time (to inperpret or to explain). I have always prefered the other name--"Inspired Version"--instead of "J.S. Translation."

What it IS:
--An inspired commentary of certain scriptural passages
--An attempt to restore certain "plain and precious truths" that we believe have been lost over the centuries
--A work never finished by nor published by Joseph Smith himself (and, consequently, Joseph never left instructions on how it was to be used and not used)
--A work subsequently utilized by LDS for edification and insights, but as an enhancement, not a replacement for, verses in the existing Old and New Testament. The JST passages were included in the footnotes and in an appendix of the LDS KJV starting in 1991 (never in the actual KJV text itself).

The addition of the word "gospel" in the JST John 1:1 passage conveys the message that not only God, but God's plan of salvation existed from the beginning. Eusebius also believed this (I can look up the reference if you wish). Since this is a commentary, the differences with the Greek are neither textual nor translational. Do I believe that the Word was with God and the Word was God? Absolutely. Do I believe the gospel existed from the beginning? Yes I do. John 1:1 as it currently stands poses no pdcotrinal problems for Latter-day Saints.

Latter-day Saints are encourage to consult variant readings (I bought my various New Testament translations at LDS bookstores), Variant reads of Greek and Hebrew are published in the LDS edition of the Bible and my LDS GospelLink CD-ROM includes Strong's Greek Lexicon. Although LDS tend to use the King James Version, we are certainly not forbidden from using other versions.

More to follow...and please forgive my typos. I'll try not to make another blunder like the 800-2800 one. To quote from the Book of Mormon, "And Now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men"

Tony

 

Bills Question #2

Now on to the uncomfortable question #2: Why is it that during the first 148 years of the history of the LDS Church, those of African descent were not given the LDS priesthood?

This has been answered by many others, but I do not wish to engage in cutting and pasting...so, how do I deal with this?

The LDS understand priesthood as the authority, given by God, to act in His stead and to perform certain ordinances with His approval. Much priesthood is administrative in nature. LDS also believe that we are all the children of our Father in Heaven (in a way much more literal than is allowed under current Evangelical Protestant doctrine).

Frankly, the idea that some of Heavenly Father's children would be denied the ability to exercise the priesthood is uncomfortable to me. The Bible is not always clear on the idea of authority (e.g. we have people like Melchizedek popping in and out). However, there is certainly a precident for an type of "exclusive" priesthood:

--Several millenia of priesthood exercised by a single ethnic group (Israelites).
--Even within that group, priesthood authority was limited to just one tribe (Levites).

Do I think that Levites were somehow "better" or more beloved than Ephramites or Benjamites? No, only that God assigned a certain people to perform the administrative duties and ordinances for His people. Are those of African descent somehow less children of God than myself (who is of Hispanic descent)? I certainly don't believe so, nor have I ever been taught such in my church.

Some LDS writers have written about blacks being descendents of Cain or Ham (who were cursed as to priesthood) or that those who are born black somehow underperformed in the pre-existent life with God. The truth is that the most authoritative statement available (an official statement from the LDS First Presidency) stated that "the details of this principle have not been made known". In other words, it's one of the things known to God and not yet revealed to man (yes, even we LDS have some of those).

Since we believe in modern revelation, the Revelation on Priesthood nearly 25 years ago--opening up the priesthood to all worthy males--has resolved the issuel, except, of course, to critics of the LDS Church. Since then, black members have served in practically every type of church leadership calling (including as General Authority--the top of the Church's hierarchy).

More to follow...

Tony

 

I'm not a Greek scholar, but I understand that the word in question is "heis" or "hice" which means the numeral one. Is that right?

As far as James E. Talmage goes. He was a very learned man who I believe was called to serve as a special witness of Christ. His 1915 book, Jesus the Christ, is still required reading for anyone who wishes to understand the LDS view of Jesus. However, Dr. Talmage was a professor of geology, not classical languages. No assumption of infallibility has ever been awarded to Dr. Talmage, nor is his footnote in Jesus the Christ the source of the LDS doctrine of the Godhead. It is certainly possible that his assumptions about the masculine versus neuter ("hen"?) may have been mistaken. If he is, in fact, mistaken about the gender of the Greek noun (and, not knowing Greek, I am not in a position to judge), it might not justify his assumption as to the intended meaning of the verse state on p. 500 of "Jesus the Christ".

However, I see nothing in John 1:30 that would justify anything like the Nicene doctrine of homoousios.

More to follow...

Tony

 

Tony: Thanks for the clarification on the relative status of Joseph Smith's version in LDS and RLDS circles. I thought this was so, but could not remember for sure.

 

Re: Bill's Question #1

 

By the way, R. Launius' biography of Joseph Smith III (RLDS) is one of the very best American church-historical biographies I have ever read. It is clearly written, a fascinating portrait of a religious leader who did not take himself with excessive seriousness (!), and an interesting case-study of assembling a scattered and divided group of people [non-Utah/anti-Young Saints] into a coherent religious organization. The book is neither a deconstruction nor a piece of sappy hagiography. Well worth a weekend read.

 

Re: Bills Question #2

 

Re: Re: Re: Bill and Bill

Suppose that two religious communities espouse different and inconsistent doctrines. Suppose that each community considers that its own doctrine is divinely revealed. How can this dissonance be addressed?

I doubt that any answer to the question exists that would remain credible across community boundaries.

Does conventional secular historiography contain a procedure enabling us to recognize divine inspiration in religious writings?

So, even if an "Inspired Version" is weak by modern text-critical standards, if God himself saw fit to inspire people to make use of that text, then why does any of this stuff matter?

 

Re: Re: Bill's Question #1

1. John 1:1 JST versus Greek texts.

Tony as you know in John 1:1 the words and phrases "'Gospel", "preached" "Son' "gospel was the word" "word was with the Son" "Son was of God" are not there in the Greek in that verse at all. So, I understand, that it is accepted by the LDS that the IV is a commentary(not a translation) (SEE already I'm learning things!!) which at times rather than using and explaining the actual words of the text upon which are based the KJV and in other translations, instead may opt not to deal with the actual words but may add or eliminate words in an intent to clarify the text.

I think that this is a fair assessment.

This is helpful to me in understanding the nature, intent and function of the IV in your eyes. Do I understand correctly that the IV is a standard of authority in the LDS church in matters of doctrine and the final appeal in controversy? (General Conference Resolution, 215_)

I do not understand the reference. What is "General Conference Resolution 215_"? I am aware of no such type of document in the LDS Church. Could you please clarify the reference? Is it, perhaps an RLDS reference?

Notwithstanding, I am not comfortable with this statement, as it appears to assign a level of authority to the IV that it really does not enjoy in the Church. Anyway, I cannot think of the last time that there was a real "controversy" that would pit the IV against the KJV, NIV, etc. Another evidence that the IV is not the final word is that no succeeding LDS Church President has been inspired to finish it.


Application: So were one to say who is a LDS that "The Son was of God" is clearly not the meaning of the Greek clause , "kai Theos en ho Logos" he would be corrected by an appeal to the IV?

I am not aware of any Latter-day Saint that would make such a claim. The IV does not attempt to change the meaning of the original Greek and it does not require that we discard the original saying. If it did, then we would replace the text in our printing of the Bible (which we do not). If you read the proceedings of the LDS General Conference, you would be hard-pressed to find many references from the IV.


Yet, I don't understand if it's a commentary why some verses or passages or terms fairly difficult and in need of explanation are left untouched.

The IV was a work in progress. Joseph Smith was killed before he could finish the project. The IV has never been considered complete (maybe that is why it does not enjoy more "official" status in the Church.


I now better understand your position, thankyou. I PROMISE I will use your explanation at my next opportunity, thanks!

I appreciate that. Although I am certainly not the last word on Mormon doctrine, I am a better source than Ed Decker, Walter Martin, John Ankerberg, etc.


Latter-day Saints are encourage to consult variant readings (I bought my various New Testament translations at LDS bookstores), Variant reads of Greek and Hebrew are published in the LDS edition of the Bible and my LDS GospelLink CD-ROM includes Strong's Greek Lexicon.
===========================
So, do you feel that the IV has the text right in John 1:18? The preponderence of evidence says monogenes Theos (OB or unique) God. But the IV follows the KJV .


Obviously, the real way to solve this problem (check the original manuscript) is not available to us. If the meaning of "monogenes" is rendered "only one of its kind" or "unique", it certainly poses no problem for either myself or the LDS Church (we certainly recognize the unique relationship between the Father and the Son).

It would be interesting to see which other verses might have been subjected to IV comentary had Joseph Smith lived longer. The IV occupies an interesting place in the LDS Church. We use it for gaining an added insight, but fall far short of using it as the "a standard of authority in the LDS church in matters of doctrine and the final appeal in controversy". (I'm still thinking that you may have us confused with the RLDS on that one).

Cory I have tried not to be challeging her, honestly!

Cory?

More to follow...

Tony

 

Re: Re: HEY TONY PINA: re LDS beliefs

 

TONY TONY TONY, not Cory......sorry!

 

Bill G Question #4

(4) Ralston's book, p60 quotes Brigham Young (JD 1:50;MS 15:769,770) as saying that Adam is our Father and the only God with whom we have to do. Could you comment?

Sure. This quote comes from the Journal of Discourses, a 26 volume set of hundreds of talks from 1852-1886 that were transcribed from shorthand notes by church member named George Watt. The purpose was to provide some contact between the Church and the membership in Great Britain, who were not able to attend conferences of the Church. Although Mr. Watt was given permission to transcribe and circulate the documents in England, there was no attempt by Church leadership to verify the accuracy of the documents. The LDS Church has never regarded the Journal of Discourses as any kind of an official publication, let alone as a source of official Church doctrine. Today it is largely ignored by Latter-day Saints, other than a few historians. It is, however, the single favorite text for anti-Mormons looking for ammunition. The MS (Millenial Star) reference is merely a quotation from the Journal of Discourses.

Having said that, what about Brigham's comment?

First the idea that Adam is the same being as the one LDS call God the Father, Father in Heaven, Heavenly Father and Eloheim is NOT, nor has it ever been, LDS doctrine. I do not believe this, have never been taught this during Sunday school, seminary (our term for daily religious instruction for high school students), institute (religion classes for college students not at BYU) or at Brigham Young University. Any anti-Mormon book that claims that we equate Adam with God the Father is not telling the truth. End of story.

We will occassionally refer to "Father Adam" as he is, ultimately as the first man, the Father of our human bodies (great, great, great...great grandfather, actually).

The rest of Brigham Young's 1852 sermon that the quote comes from (as well as many dozens of other recorded speeches) differentiates between Adam and Eloheim (God the Father). If this were really official "doctrine," why is it not developed anywhere else? Why do Brigham Young many other published sermons not teach this doctrine at all? No LDS lesson manuals teach (or have ever taught) it. No missionary pamphlets were distributed (even though other "unique" Mormon doctrines were widely published by official Church sources). The only mention of the doctrine in LDS literature are writers denouncing it.

In the 1976 General Conference, LDS President Spencer W. Kimball was unambiguous as to the Church's position on this topic: "We denounce that theory [Adam-God] and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

More to follow...

Tony

 

Re: Re: Re: Bill's Question #1

 

Brgham Young Univesity's Bachelor of General Studies Degree allows 3/4 of the degree to be done non-resident, so it is geared primarily to the folks who either attended BYU but didn't finish or others who wish to spend summers in Utah.

Incidentally, I spoke with the program's director in August to suggest tat they consider canging the title to Bachelor of Arts in General Studies, as the B.G.S. might be seen as as a degree not equal to a B.A. or B.S. He said that they might consider it, but until now had received no complaints about the degree title.

BYU's Continuing Education also offers over 280 web-based courses and over 500 independent study (print-based) courses. they even offer some free personal enrichment courses in genealogy/family history and other areas.

http://ce.byu.edu/is/site/catalog/pe.dhtm

Brigham Young University-Idaho (formerly Ricks College) requires that all students take at least one online course as a requirement for graduation. I think that other colleges/universities should follow suit.

So far, no degrees that can be earned 100% DL are offer by either of the three BYU campuses.

Tony

 

Re: Bill G Question #4

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill's Question #1

If it was intended as a more accurate translation of "kai Theos en ho Logos," ten you would be correct. But the IV never claims to be a translation of Greek words. And since LDS believe that "the Word was God," We treat the IV version as an addition, not a replacement. Some LDS might argue that if we were to somehow unearth John's orignial version that it would read like the IV, but I would not.

You asked what LDS consider to be authoritative. It is an excellent (and a perfectly fair) question, but is also a loaded one (I don't mean to insinuate that I feel that you are trying to trap me). If by authoritative, you mean infallible, then we have no such standard. The first section of our Doctrine & Covenants includes this passage which LDS believe is a revelation from the Lord:

"Behold...these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."
--Doctrine & Covenants 1:24

We consider our prophets and apostles to be inspired but not infallible. We believe the same for our scriptures. We believe in modern revelation that is available to all who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We consider the scriptures (Standard Works) which include the Bible (Old and New Testaments), Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price to be authoritative but not infallible in the sense that fundamentalists do. Official Statements by the First Presidency are considered authoritative, as are books and manuals published by the Office of the first Presidency. General Conference talks are considered authoritative (the Journal of Discourses, a set of sermons not published by the Church, does not enjoy authoritative status).

Tony

 

Re: Re: Bill G Question #4

Originally posted by Bill Grover


You (LDS) really must be in conflict with the Reorginized Church of JC...

A few years back, the Reorganized LDS Church changed its name to the Community of Christ. We actually get along quite well with them (exchanges of historical documents and other stuff) although our doctrines and practice have become quite dissimilar.


...for Ralston's book (not Martin now) accuses your group of believing in many gods. He cites not only BYoung but also the Pearl of great Price, the Book of Abreaham, and a couple of Utah presidents to evince this claim.

I'm not familiar with Ralston's book (different church), but since LDS doctrine of doctrine of the Godhead (Holy Trinity) emphasizes the the physical separateness and metaphysical unity of the Father, son and Holy Ghost, it is at variance with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, those who hold those creeds as authoritative often accuse us of being polytheists.

I do, however, have Smith's "Way to Perfection," although, to be honest, I have not read much of it. It's pretty old (1949) and other, more up-to-date works cover the same area.

Incidentally, the best work for anyone who wishes a complete introduction to "Mormonism" is probably the 4-volume Encyclopedia of Mormonism published by Macmillan. It should be available in the local public library. A visit to the lds website http://www.lds.org is also useful.

Tony

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill's Question #1

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill and Bill

Bill, the main thrust of your question is addressed comprehensively in Kevin J. Vanhoozer's Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Zondervan, 1998). Vanhoozer (who holds a PhD from Cambridge and lectured at the University of Edinburgh before joining the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) ably defends the concept of author-oriented interpretation while interacting with the likes of Derrida, Rorty and Fish. The book draws on interdisciplinary resources and has attracted the interest of scholars in numerous fields.

 

Re: Bill and Bill