Wesley's mom here. Corey spent a good chunk of time yesterday looking at some videos that Wesley shared with him last week, so that he could help him with his reply. Corey sent him 4 emails - I'll paste them all here:
“How Joseph Smith Tried to Write Himself Into the Bible” first 4:22 minutes
“How Joseph Smith Tried to Write Himself Into the Bible”
· “You will not believe what Joseph Smith added to the Bible, I mean literally added to the Bible a lot of stuff……There is a reason the LDS Church, the Mormon Church never talks about this book because it has very revealing issues in it”.
He’s implying that the church is somehow embarrassed of the JST? I’m a lifelong member and I’ve never got that vibe – this is a new accusation to me.
“One reason, therefore, that the LDS Church did not print the entire JST is that the Church did not possess the JST manuscript. The RLDS Church (now known as the Community of Christ), which first published the JST in 1867, owned the JST manuscripts and the copyright. When the LDS edition was being prepared for publication in the 1970s, we sought for and received permission from the RLDS Church to use portions of the JST in our scriptures. Though RLDS and LDS relations had been improving, there was concern that had we asked for permission to use all of the JST changes, we may not have gotten any of them. We are fortunate and blessed to have that portion of the JST we do have.”
· There are references to Joseph Smith in the Bible that are not part of the JST.
o Isaiah 29:11 – Talks about the experience of Charles Anthon
· “Religious Pornography” - to religious pornography. Something that is sacred and meant for personal reflection and commitment and throws it before the masses in a selective, salacious, and superficial way.
· If you’re a Mormon, I care about you. I really care about you. I’m not bashing you. I’m not hating on you.
Dr. Hugh Nibley wrote a paper called “How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book”
https://archive.
"Protest your love for the Mormon people. Show your tolerant and humane attitude by allowoing the Mormons a few human failings -- that will make your story more plausible and for that reason more damning."
· If Joseph Smith is really a prophet, I want to submit my life to what he says. If not, then I want to rescue you from what he says.
· Latter-day Saints have been taught that the Bible has been … radically changed over the years. I don’t know that we’ve said it was “radically changed” only that some plain and precious truths have been lost. We really don’t want to be bashing the Bible but it is not inerrant (meaning free from error). I believe it is remarkably consistent and reliable, but there are over 450 English versions since Tyndale’s 1526 version. (https://www.patheos.com/
· Yes, there have been some changes in the Book of Mormon over the years – mostly to make it read more in line with modern-day speaking. In it’s more original form, the Book of Mormon is truer to (for example) Hebrew grammar and even older English. The original Book of Mormon didn’t have any punctuation. Grammar and spelling were fixed, and some changes in printing were made to make it more in line with the original manuscript.
https://www.
· “If you get ahold of an old Book of Mormon compared to a new one you’ll see that the racism that is in there has been systematically pushed aside and altered so that it wouldn’t be perceived that way”. I’m unfamiliar with this one. This is a great line because he’s able to off-hand claim the Book of Mormon for being racist while it's clear that is not his main point. The implication is that the church has modified stuff to cover up their evil/racist origins. I’m assuming he’s talking about a verse like 2 Nephi 5:20-25 which is about as rough as it gets (lots of context needed). I’m not sure what denomination of Christianity Mikie Winger belongs to, but a lot of our critics come from the Southern Baptists, who split from the church in 1845 in support over slavery – which has always struck me as ironic.
We don’t have almost anything of the Original Manuscript (what was originally translated by Joseph Smith) but we do have copies of the Printers manuscript online here. Some errors were introduced with the Printers Manuscript. I don’t see any changes beyond punctuation, spelling fixes – certainly nothing that would change it’s meaning.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.
Printers Manuscript:
wherefore the word of the Lord was fulfiled which he spake unto me saying that in as much as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presance of the Lord & behold they were cut off from his presance & he had caused the cursing to come upon <them> yea even a sore curseing because of their iniquity for behold they had heardened their hearts against him that they had become like unto a flint wherefore as they were white & exceding fair & delightsome that they might not be enticeing unto my People therefore the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them [p. 57] & thus saith the Lord God I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy People save they shall repent of their iniquities & cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing & the Lord spake it & it was done & because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle People full of mischief & subtelty & did seek in the wilderness for beasts of pray & the Lord God said unto me they shall be a scorge unto thy seed to stir them up in rememberance of me & in as much as they will not remember me & hearken unto my words they shall scorge them even unto destruction
Current-day version:
20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.
“How Joseph Smith Tried to Write Himself Into the Bible” 4:22 - 8:30
“How Joseph Smith Tried to Write Himself Into the Bible”
· “You will not believe what Joseph Smith added to the Bible, I mean literally added to the Bible a lot of stuff……There is a reason the LDS Church, the Mormon Church never talks about this book because it has very revealing issues in it”.
He’s implying that the church is somehow embarrassed of the JST? I’m a lifelong member and I’ve never got that vibe – this is a new accusation to me.
“One reason, therefore, that the LDS Church did not print the entire JST is that the Church did not possess the JST manuscript. The RLDS Church (now known as the Community of Christ), which first published the JST in 1867, owned the JST manuscripts and the copyright. When the LDS edition was being prepared for publication in the 1970s, we sought for and received permission from the RLDS Church to use portions of the JST in our scriptures. Though RLDS and LDS relations had been improving, there was concern that had we asked for permission to use all of the JST changes, we may not have gotten any of them. We are fortunate and blessed to have that portion of the JST we do have.”
· There are references to Joseph Smith in the Bible that are not part of the JST.
o Isaiah 29:11 – Talks about the experience of Charles Anthon
· “Religious Pornography” - to religious pornography. Something that is sacred and meant for personal reflection and commitment and throws it before the masses in a selective, salacious, and superficial way.
· If you’re a Mormon, I care about you. I really care about you. I’m not bashing you. I’m not hating on you.
Dr. Hugh Nibley wrote a paper called “How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book”
https://archive.
"Protest your love for the Mormon people. Show your tolerant and humane attitude by allowoing the Mormons a few human failings -- that will make your story more plausible and for that reason more damning."
· If Joseph Smith is really a prophet, I want to submit my life to what he says. If not, then I want to rescue you from what he says.
· Latter-day Saints have been taught that the Bible has been … radically changed over the years. I don’t know that we’ve said it was “radically changed” only that some plain and precious truths have been lost. We really don’t want to be bashing the Bible but it is not inerrant (meaning free from error). I believe it is remarkably consistent and reliable, but there are over 450 English versions since Tyndale’s 1526 version. (https://www.patheos.com/
· Yes, there have been some changes in the Book of Mormon over the years – mostly to make it read more in line with modern-day speaking. In it’s more original form, the Book of Mormon is truer to (for example) Hebrew grammar and even older English. The original Book of Mormon didn’t have any punctuation. Grammar and spelling were fixed, and some changes in printing were made to make it more in line with the original manuscript.
https://www.
· “If you get ahold of an old Book of Mormon compared to a new one you’ll see that the racism that is in there has been systematically pushed aside and altered so that it wouldn’t be perceived that way”. I’m unfamiliar with this one. This is a great line because he’s able to off-hand claim the Book of Mormon for being racist while its clear that is not his main point. The implication is that the church has modified stuff to cover up their evil/racist origins. I’m assuming he’s talking about a verse like 2 Nephi 5:20-25 which is about as rough as it gets (lots of context needed). I’m not sure what denomination of Christianity Mikie Winger belongs to, but a lot of our critics come from the Southern Baptists, who split from the church in 1845 in support over slavery – which has always struck me as ironic.
We don’t have almost anything of the Original Manuscript (what was originally translated by Joseph Smith) but we do have copies of the Printers manuscript online here. I don’t see any changes beyond punctuation, spelling fixes – certainly nothing that would change it’s meaning.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.
Printers Manuscript:
wherefore the word of the Lord was fulfiled which he spake unto me saying that in as much as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presance of the Lord & behold they were cut off from his presance & he had caused the cursing to come upon <them> yea even a sore curseing because of their iniquity for behold they had heardened their hearts against him that they had become like unto a flint wherefore as they were white & exceding fair & delightsome that they might not be enticeing unto my People therefore the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them [p. 57] & thus saith the Lord God I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy People save they shall repent of their iniquities & cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing & the Lord spake it & it was done & because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle People full of mischief & subtelty & did seek in the wilderness for beasts of pray & the Lord God said unto me they shall be a scorge unto thy seed to stir them up in rememberance of me & in as much as they will not remember me & hearken unto my words they shall scorge them even unto destruction
Current-day version:
20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.
· “and new passages that clarify and enhance the message of the Bible” – yeah, that’s true and I appreciate why that freaks out some traditional Christians.
· 1 Nephi 13:28 – “Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.” Yup, that is our belief.
· “Now the thing is if you read the Book of Mormon you don’t really learn a lot about Mormon teaching or theology because there’s not a whole lot of theology in it. There’s little things like what we have on the screen here and I’ll read to you in a second, but the real Mormon theology is found in like the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham then there’s some real changes in theology. The Book of Mormon is more just a long story that was meant to explain Native Americans and their sort of experiences with God since they were more recently discovered on the scene of Western culture. And he thought he could explain that and that was one of the things that drew people to Mormonism” – I’m sort of losing interest. He seems to claim that 1) he understands Mormon theology 2) the Book of Mormon doesn’t contain Mormon theology. I’m beginning to suspect he’s never read the Book of Mormon. Hearing him say that was a laugh-out-lout moment for me. Clearly he’s never read the book.
· “Now there can be no argument here, a Mormon would agree with me this is their interpretation not just mine. The “great and abominable church” that’s the first century church and those shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Uh, actually I disagree. I assume the first 100 years they were able to keep much of it together, but by the time you get to 325 AD (Nicene creed) you’re over 300 years and there is a big debate about the nature of God. So yeah, I’m sure there were some things lost that first 100 years, but that is super early in Christianity, and we’re big fans of the earlier period. I guess my objection is implying that we believe the very early church was “great and abominable” – we don’t believe that. But if he’s Protestant, he likely agrees with what Protestants have said about the Catholic Church. For example, One of Martin Luther’s main objection is that the Catholic Church had this practice of selling indulgences. You could give money to pay for your sins, and even the sins of loved ones who had died. Martin Luther accused Johann Tetzel, the Pope’s seller of indulgences as saying “"As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." So we give the very early church a lot of grace but worry about the many, many, many years that followed – including the things that caused the Protestants to protest and break away. I listened to this podcast of a historian who was excommunicated from the church for her feminist writings (https://www.youtube.com/
· “Joseph Smith said all denominations where abominations, he thought everyone…the Mormon Church didn’t originally want to be called Christian because they were anti-Christian” Yikes! The original name of the church (from 1829-1834) was The Church of Christ. He’s referring to the first vision where he was told that “their creeds were an abomination”. The word abomination is super strong – that was leveled at the creeds. Yeah, he still had other criticism of the church, but the reason he was forbidden to join any of them likely had more to do with his unique role as the founder of the church so it wouldn’t look like the church was a break-off from another religion.
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.
· “Nowadays it has changed. ‘New Mormonism is totally different form Old Mormonism’” It’s more PC (politically correct” nowadays)”. That’s weird because in 1832 Joseph Smith gave us Doctrine and Covenants 76 which begins by proclaiming that Christ is the only Savior of mankind and the only source of salvation for men and women.
Below is an article showing that many people struggled to accept Doctrine and Covenants 76 which went against their tradition of a hardline doctrine of heaven for the select few or eternal damnation in hell for everyone else. People were mad that God wasn’t going send everlasting punishment to the wicked – it almost implied a universal salvation of sorts.
https://rsc.byu.edu/doctrine-
When God revealed to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon that there was a place prepared for all, according to the light they had received and their rejection of evil and practice of good, it was a great trial to many, and some apostatized because God was not going to send to everlasting punishment heathens and infants, but had a place of salvation, in due time, for all, and would bless the honest and virtuous and truthful, whether they ever belonged to any church or not. It was a new doctrine to this generation, and many stumbled at it.[2]
My point is that the characterization of the early church that we said everyone else was going to hell, that they are all wrong or an abomination is false. Yes, we think certain things like ordinances are essential, which is why we freely offer them to anyone we can get a name and a birthdate for in the temple. And then we do the ordinances individually with a lot of care. You could argue we’re the most accepting of other Christians and our doctrine from the beginning has been that way.
He's claiming that were more PC (politically correct) lately by only now accepting other Christians – and he does this in a video literally attempting to prove our religion false. He now concedes we consider him a Christian, but most likely will not agree to consider Latte-day Saints as also being Christian.
“How Joseph Smith Tried to Write Himself Into the Bible” 8:22 to 33:36
· By writing 1 Nephi 13 Joseph Smith “is setting us up so that later he can add stuff. He can bring new things because he goes and writes a book”. He’s implying that this was all part of Joseph’s plan and then uses Moses 1:42 as another example of Joseph setting us up by saying “men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which though shalt write, I will raise up another like unto thee” – so Joseph Smith is setting himself up as the person who will restore what was lost. Mike wants us to remember Genesis in particular. So does that mean that Joseph’s primary reason to give us to the book of Moses is to insert himself in history as a future prophet? There is a lot of other info given in the book of Moses. From the beginning of the video I thought he was going to talk about the new content, but maybe he’s only going to focus on Joseph “inserting” info to build up himself? Mike Winger takes exception about Joseph comparing himself to Moses like Jesus does.
· He says you can lookup the official Joseph Smith Translation on the lds.org website – that seems to contract what is implied in his first point – that the church is embarrassed about it?
· He says Joseph Smith inserting himself into the Bible is damnable. Calls the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a “twisted religion” and he wants to get us out of it, and our family and friends that Joseph started for his own sake. What exactly did Joseph get out of it anyway? Wasn’t he murdered and persecuted most of his life?
· John 1:1 – we already talked about this some in the other stuff I sent to you. I think he’s pointing out that the King James Version is a more direct/literal translation from the Greek. He quotes the ESV (English Standard Version) which relies on the original Greek. He’s probably right on that. He says there are 17 words in the original, but like 35 in the JST – so he’s upset it got a lot longer. He says “this is damn you straight to hell theology” – I wish he’d elaborate on why this would damn someone to hell. Is he talking about Joseph Smith for making the change or does it apply to those of us who believe it? He says it takes the identify of who Jesus is, ripped it out, and replaced it with nonsense. I’m not following why its nonsense. He says Joseph’s teachings simply don’t exist in the Bible so he had to change the Bible. What about baptism for the dead? What about the martyrdom of Stephen who say Christ standing on the right-hand of God? What about Jeremiah 1:5 about a pre-mortal life (my Christian friend Brian and Father David don’t believe in a pre-mortal life). There are plenty of places in the Bible that fit with the doctrine Joseph revealed. Lattery-day saints believe that Isaiah 29:11 is referring to the Joseph Smith story of the Book of Mormon, even without the differences in the Book of Mormon when quoting it – but in the original KJV.
· 1 Corinthians 15:40 – It sounds like this video is one your friend really paid attention to because it has the John 1:1 concern, but also the concern about the addition of the Telestial Kingdom. I think Mike Winger should acknowledge that in the same chapter, just a few verses beforehand, Paul is saying in verse 29 “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”. Moments ago he was saying that Joseph Smith had to change the Bible to fit with his damnable theology and that nothing in the Bible supported his teachings. But then when talking about 1 Corinthians 15 ignores one of the most common evidences that Joseph’s Smith’s teachers were Biblical. Who else teaches or practices baptism for the dead? Nobody does today except the Latter-day Saints. So Paul is teaching that there are bodies that are celestial and terrestrial and Mike says he knows what those are – I’m curious if he thinks Terrestial people are the ones that go to hell? He is upset there is a third category (Telestial) but I’m curious what he thinks about the Terrestial.
· In 1 Corinthians 15:40-41 Mike reads from his Bible version that says there are heavenly (Celestial) bodies and earthly (Terrestial) so it’s comparing two. But then it says “there is one glory of the sun, and another of the omon, and another glory of the stars” – so the talk about bodies compares 2 and the talk about light compares 3. That seems weird. If the original was meant to only compare 2 (heavenly/earthly or celestial/terrestrial) why would Paul then make a comparison with three levels of glory/light. Makes me think something like Telestial might have been missing. After talking about the three degrees with light (sun, moon, stars) Mike’s own version says “so it is with the resurrection of the dead”. He also seems to suggest its not talking about resurrected bodies – even though that is what it says in verse 42.
· “Mormons generally speaking are taught that the Bible has been radically adjusted and changed over the years. It’s like the telephone game.” That’s not true, we don’t teach that. We believe the Bible to be the word of God. He quoted an Article of Faith saying we believe in the Bible. What evidence does he have that it has been radically changed? I feel like that is a lie.
· He then shows a video by Kevin L Barney, and LDS apologist talking about 1 Corinthians 15:40 (https://www.
· Mike says soon he’ll show us about a passage where “he added a whole passage to the Bible to say it was prophesy of himself. This is so caught red-handed right, so caught red-handed. False prophet. Hands down, no question about it” Looking forward to it.
· Hebrews 7:3 – he seems not to know how to pronounce the word Melchizedek. He says our version of Melchizedek is different than in “Christianity”. We also think of him as a type of Christ – meaning king-priest who literally ruled is Kingdom under his father…a prince of peace. I’m not sure he understands Hebrews 7:3. The KJV makes it sound like Melchizedek was “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” I guess Mike does believe that? I think Melchizedek did have a father and mother, but like Abraham was not ordained to the Priesthood because of lineage. His version makes it sound like Melchizedek had no father and son but resembles the Son of God. In the JST it says “and all those” to include more than just Melchizedek. I guess Mike is OK if Melchizedek is made like unto God, but it’s not OK for anyone else? So is that why the addition is problematic?
· Mike says “anyone who makes their own translation to support their own sect is incredibly suspicious”. FYI, Mike quotes the ESV Bible version published in 2001 (according to Wikipedia) and "created by a team of more than 100 leading evangelical scholars and pastors."
· “All those who receive this priesthood can become like the Son of God” – then the goes on about how Mormons think we can become like God which evangelicals don’t like. Psalm 82:6 says: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” Jesus quotes that passage in John 10:
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
The Jews in Jesus’ time were offended that he said he was God. Today’s mainstream Christians are offended that we believe that we can become like our Heavenly Father.
The Eastern Orthodox church has a belief they call Theosis – which is similar to what Latter-day saints call Exaltation. So, it’s not just us.
Theosis (Ancient Greek: θέωσις), or deification (deification may also refer to apotheosis, lit. "making divine"), is a transformative process whose aim is likeness to or union with God, as taught by the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Church; the same concept is also found in the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, where it is termed "divinization". As a process of transformation, theosis is brought about by the effects of catharsis (purification of mind and body) and theoria ('illumination' with the 'vision' of God). According to Eastern Christian teachings, theosis is very much the purpose of human life. It is considered achievable only through synergy (or cooperation) of human activity and God's uncreated energies (or operations)
· He says there is no version of the original Bible that compares with Joseph Smith’s translation – we don’t have the original, original version of the Bible. I hope that he doesn’t think that.
· Genesis 50 in any other Bible ends with vs 26. He’s taking issue with 12 new verses that Joseph Smith adds (Book of Moses). He claims that Joseph Smith was trying to prove that there were prophecies about him in the Old Testament. I’ve never heard that before. Mik makes it sound like all these people are asking for Joseph to prove that he’s mentioned in the Old Testament and then he whips out the Book of Moses to prove it. I’ve never actually heard of people accusing him of not being a true prophet because he’s not mentioned in the Bible. I’d like to hear some of those accusations. Who is asking? He doesn’t understand the stick of Joseph/Ephraim. He actually gets a major doctrine wrong. He confuses things by making it sound like the “fruit” is the writings, but it is the “fruit of they loins” which shall write, and he says the fruit that comes from Joseph (of Egypt) was really meant to be the writings of Joseph Smith. He says “the fruit of the loins of who, Joseph, whose fruit is that going to be? Joseph Smith”. So he gets this all wrong. We claim the Book of Mormon is written by descendants of Joseph of Egypt, not Joseph Smith. He’s confused on what we believe and what the passage means. That’s a pretty bad misinterpretation and not one you get from the reading. He also says Joseph claims to have Jewish ancestry – I’ve never head that before. We think of the Jews as generally NOT of the lost 10 tribes of Israel, but we do believe Joseph (and others) are of the house of Israel. Jews trace their ancestry to tribes that inhabited the Kingdom of Judah, including Judah, Benjamin and partially Levi. It’s not clear he has a good understanding of the tribes of Israel. He really needs to mention Lehi, Nephi and characters in the Book of Mormon to correctly explain LDS theology on this point.
· “Remember they’re called Latter-day Saints because they think in the Last Days was the time when Joseph Smith showed up”. I don’t know what to do with just thought it was odd. Are we the only ones who think that Christ is soon to come? That were in the last days before Christ comes?
· He has this sort of snarky laugh when he says (first reading) “and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded. Actually, people/a mob killed him and they weren’t confounded. That’s the actual history of it”. Is he suggesting that Joseph Smith said he would live forever? I interpreted those that “seek to destroy him” as similar to what Mike is doing. I gotta admit I felt a little offended at his flippant comment about the murder of Joseph. Was he glad that he was shot?
· So there was this big tease at the beginning of the video that we wouldn’t believe what Joseph Smith added to the Bible, but his main thing was that he added himself into it and things that matched with other Latter-day Saint doctrine. Nothing about Moses 1:39 or any of the other powerful insights from the JST. Here is an article entitled “Major Doctrinal Contributions of the JST” https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-
· “Mormons have been brought up to believe the Bible has been utterly corrupted over time” – that isn’t what we believe. It does appear that Mike is utterly corrupting what it is that we believe as Latter-day Saints. We’re not trying to attack the Bible.
· 1948 the oldest book of Genesis in Hebrew was discovered. He’s talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written about 300-100 BC. He points out that the JST extra verses are not found in that version. Joseph of Egypt lived about 1500 years earlier so we can’t know if earlier versions had that extra stuff. Speaking of the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is a phrase in the Dead Sea Scrolls with the phrase “land of Jerusalem” which is a phrase used a lot in the Book of Mormon but never in the Bible. It’s important because Latter-day Saints believe that the “land of Jerusalem” is the general, bigger area around Jerusalem but not strictly in the city. For example, the Book of Mormon says (Alma 7:10) that Jesus “shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers” and people freak out saying obviously the Book of Mormon is wrong since everyone knows Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Google says Bethlehem is 5.5 miles from Jerusalem, which is half the distance of my morning bike ride. But if the “land of Jerusalem” can mean the general area, then some other criticisms go away. The phrase “land of Jerusalem” is often quoted in the Book of Mormon but never in the Bible. So it’s cool that language was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There is another archaeological dig about 37 miles from Jerusalem called Khirbet Beit Lei (also spelled Beit Lehi) or Beth Loya (Hebrew: חורבת בית לויה). The Arabic word Khirbet means “ruin” and “beit” means house. Some think that might be the house of Lehi – who knows – but goes with the Land of Jerusalem thing, much like we refer today to Chicagoland - the Chicago metropolitan area or Greater Chicago Area, is 10,286 square miles.
· The Septuagint is the earliest known Greek translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew, and was written between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE. Also doesn’t have Joseph’s extra verses. Still about 1500 years after the fact, but it is as far back as we can go at the moment.
“Why Mormons and Christians Can’t Understand Each Other”
· “Mormons and Christians have the same vocabulary but a different dictionary” – ok, this is interesting. Let’s hear more. We’re talking about the “secret language of Mormonism and I thin its fair to call it a secret language of Mormonism because its kind of a mystery, even to a lot of Mormons in their younger years until they get sort of further on in the faith and then they get the meat teachings and they find out some of this stuff”…. says the guy who is trying to explain the concept of the Trinity.
· “You can’t call Mormons Christians…it’s not a prejudice thing…it just comes out of a desire for truthfulness and honesty”. Some years ago a prominent Evangelical leader said "Let me state it clearly, We evangelicals have sinned against you," (https://www.christianpost.
· He later clarified saying: "I certainly did not mean to imply that every evangelical has sinned in this regard," Mouw wrote in defense to questions asked by BP. "Suppose I were to address an African-American gathering and say that we whites have sinned against you blacks. Who would deny that this is a correct assessment? But who would think that I was speaking about and on behalf of all white people?"
"In none of this am I saying that Mormons are 'orthodox Christians.' But I do believe that there are elements in Mormon thought that if emphasized, while de-emphasizing other element[s], could constitute a message within Mormonism of salvation by grace alone through the blood of Jesus Christ," Mouw wrote. "I will work to promote that cause."
Nonetheless, Mouw said he still stands by the validity of his comments.
"I am deeply sorry for causing distress in the evangelical community," Mouw wrote. "[But] I make no apology for wanting to foster gentle and reverent dialogue with Mormon friends."
"At the very least admit that we have not always been fair in our wholesale condemnation of Mormonism as simply a false religion," said Mouw.
· “God” – yeah, we have different beliefs on the nature of God. But in the other video he said like about 80% of Americans believed in a heretical view of the Trinity, of the nature of Jesus. I think he said that most believed Jesus was God the Father’s first and best creation. He said that is heretical. But so who has the secret language of the word “God” if most Americans don’t instinctively agree with the Trinitarian version even though that is what they are taught in mainstream Christianity?
· To the Mormons listening “I love you as much as I can love a stranger”. Thank you. Maybe try a bit harder to understand and give us a little bit of benefit of the doubt. I like pastor Jeff’s YouTube channel, he recently discussed Book of Mormon passages with a BYU religion professor. Previously pastor Jeff had criticized the Book of Mormon for saying Jesus would be born in Jerusalem, but was much better when trying to understand reading with someone more educated in the faith. It was a good watch. If Mike wants us to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which version of Christianity does he support? Does it matter? Do we need to get rebaptized? Does he support gay marriage? Mainstream Christianity is pretty split on stuff, but pretty united against the Latter-day Saints. So I guess that have that going for them.
· Mike’s talking about Joseph King Follett discourse. Always funny to me when they mispronounce stuff. He said “Follett” like nobody I have ever heard of, which suggests he hasn’t actually discussed (at least in person) the contents with a Latter-day Saint who might have corrected him. It was delivered at “a funeral” – it was actually a funeral for a guy whose first name was “King”. He mispronounced “Follett” again which made me laugh. I mean, I don’t really know how it was pronounced back then, but I know how everyone pronounces it now.
· I think its interesting that Evangelicals get upset that we think God is in the form of an exalted man, but will say Jesus is the Son of God, is also God the Father, and is in the form of an exalted man. One time my evangelical friend Brian (I think it was him) wasn’t even sure that Jesus has a body right now. Like he was resurrected to show that he could overcome death, but then perhaps discarded his body somewhere along the way. God is one, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus was resurrected, to die no more, and they have a problem that we think God is an exalted man. Mike could recognize that the Jews had a difference view of what God is from what Jesus said.
· “Jesus Christ” – he doesn’t get our definition of Jesus correct. He’s wrong in that we believe Jesus became incarnate to become God and has been a God for 2000 years. He also uses the word “Trinity” which we never use. Doesn’t sound like he is super solid on our understanding, but yea there are a lot of differences in the nature of God. However, if you’re a Trinitarian and believe that Jesus is the “earth” version of God, then it seems like we’re a lot closer to them. We’re talking about the same son of Mary who was born in Nazareth, right? The one talked about in the Bible? The Savior and Messiah? Mike, it feels like you’re re-using the last criticism of the word “God” meaning different things. Given we disagree on the nature of God, would be great to concede that we believe in the same Jesus talked about in the Bible – even while acknowledging some big differences. Otherwise, you guys make it sound like we believe in some other random guy named Jesus from Mexico or Yugoslavia. I wonder if Mike believes in the pre-mortal existence. He says “Jesus is exactly the same as us, but a little bit older” – that’s not quite right. Not exactly wrong, but a bit off. We believe Jesus/Jehova was the God of the Old Testament who also created the world.
· “Trinity” – we don’t use the word Trinity. If he knew our church better he would know that we use the word “Godhead”. Yes, we believe that the Godhead is three distinct persons but one in unity and purpose.
John 17 make it sound like Christ wants us to be “one” with him in unity and purpose just as he is “one” with the Father. This isn’t JST, but KJV:
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
The reason why I think its important to point out we don’t use the word Trinity is that he is claiming we have a secret language and the 3rd word on the list is a word we don’t (intentionally) actually use. He must know we don’t because in another video he cites Mormonism as one of the groups (cults?) criticizing the Trinity. Why would we criticize the word “Trinity” if it is one of our words with a secret definition. We don’t use it and we don’t define it. We let evangelicals try (and stumble) to define it for themselves.
He says on LDS.org there are statements of a Mormon Trinity. I’d like to see that. There may be, in trying to build on common-ground. When I looked I found this on this first link that came up:
Like many Christians, we believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. However, we don’t believe in the traditional concept of the Trinity. We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings who are one in purpose.
I think being united as talked about in John 17 is better than the diagram he shows. The diagram doesn’t explain – it just enforces dogma in the face of logic. He says we attack some weird version of the Trinity – not the diagram he has which says. A = B, B = C, but A ≠ C. We don’t go around attacking the concept of the Trinity, generally we try to build on common ground which is why he thinks we use the same words though they mean different things.
· “There is only one God…ask any Jew, ask any Christian”. The Jews believe in one God, and it doesn’t include Jesus. So you guys aren’t exactly on the same page with them.
· “There’s only one God” – OK, so he introduced this video on the Mormon secret language and every word so far deals with the Trinity. “God”, “Jesus Christ”, “Trinity” and the next “word” in the dictionary is “There’s only one God”. Feels like he keeps re-using the same argument. I would consider these four arguments “one” argument, but apparently there are “four” arguments. It’s like a weird parallel of the Trinity. Are they one? Are they separate? Are they united in purpose? Why can’t he see that these four arguments are the same, one argument?
He says in Mormon religion there are more God’s than in any other religion in the world. That is an inference based on the exaltation of Man discussed previously. It’s kind of a distortion because as far as we’re concerned those other beings have nothing to do with us. But the implication is that we’re sort of like the Hindus. That inference (which I’m not necessarily disagreeing with) distorts the picture. We have no names, knowledge, or understanding of these inferred beings – there is no relation to us whatever. He’s making some assumptions, running with it way beyond anything we teach in our religion so it becomes a distortion. Yes, you could (strictly speaking) say that in a sense we are polytheist in a way, but don’t imply we know anything about these other Gods or how many there might be. I’m not discounting the King Follette discourse, but anything beyond that is inference. “So when a Christian says ‘There is only one God’ we just mean it in the plain sense of the word”. Fittingly with a discussion on the Trinity, we keep confusing plural with singular. The phrase “There is only one God” isn’t a word. He accuses us of trying to get people into the organization more than teach the doctrine – I wonder why he says that. He says we’re trained to skirt issues. Wes, have you been trained to trick? If so, where did you learn it from?
· He’s quoting the hymn “If You Could Hie to Kolob” where it says “Find out the generation Where God’s began to be”. Reads from the Book of Abraham (sounds like KJV to trick people) chapter 4. He says that when the Book of Abraham talks about “The Gods” in chapter 4 it was later on when Joseph Smith went all in on polytheism. The Book of Abraham was given in 1835. King Follete died in 1844 – and that sermon was revolutionary. So people reading Abraham 4 probably thought (as I do currently) that “The Gods” in Abraham 4 is talking about God the Father and Jesus Christ. We believe Jesus Christ created the world under the direction of the Father. Maybe it means others who assisted in creation?
· “This has led one of the recent leaders of the church, McConkie to come out and say hey, we don’t worship Jesus”. I’m not sure of that quote, but Bruce R. McConkie. That was in 1982 – I’ll have to look into it: https://speeches.byu.edu/
· “God Created All Things” – OK, I guess I’ll give up expecting he’ll talk about words that we define differently like faith, sin, repentance, chastity, love, forgiveness, parables, atonement, prophets, scripture, baptism, priesthood. I guess the whole dictionary thing was just a marketing thing? He’s forcing doctrinal differences into a dictionary framework but it’s not quite working for me. So we’re going to talk about ex nihilo creationism (out of nothing) vs ex materia (from matter). I’d like to see some evidence that early Judaism believed in ex-nihilo creation. I’ve heard to the contrary. Here is a quick search I did online. I don’t understand how saying that God created the world from pre-existing matter somehow diminishes or demotes Him. Mike also pronounces ex-nihilo different than anyone I’ve heard before. Why wasn’t that is word we use in our secret language?
Concluding, no known ancient Jewish text affirms the doctrine of creation ex nihilo in precise terminology, and few of them do so indirectly. Nevertheless, biblical passages and their reception in rabbinic literature consistently affirm that God is the creator of all there is in heaven and earth, seen and unseen, material and spiritual. The result of this is that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo cannot be established by sola scriptura, but only in later exegesis.
Mike goes on to quote Joseph Smith criticizing the doctrine of ex nihilo creation by reading again from the King Follet. The version he reads varies slightly with this version (perhaps multiple people taking notes) http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.
Now I ask all who hear me why the learned men who are preaching salvation say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. The reason is they are unlearned. They account it blasphemy to contradict the idea; they will call you a fool....The Holy Ghost within me comprehends more than all the world, and I will associate with him. The word create came from the word baurau; it does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize, the same as a man would organize materials to build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos--chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles that can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized but not destroyed.
“they infer from the word create that it must have been made out of nothing. Now the word create came form the word baurau which is not actually accurate” and then he laughs. Joseph had a funny New England accent and misspelled the word “church” as “chirch” like was a Kennedy. Joseph had a Hebrew instructor named Joshua Seixas (https://www.
In the initial post, we looked at the first word of the Bible, berē’šît (בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית), often translated as “In-(the)-beginning.” (In a future post, we’ll look at other translation possibilities for this word in relation to Genesis 1:1–3.) This time, we’ll look at the second word of Genesis 1:1, bārā’ (בָּרָא), a verb. (It is pronounced as ba-ra´: the ‘a’s are pronounced like the a in father].)
When I go to Google translate here is what it says:
.png)
I think Mike could concede he got the Hebrew word for create correct – even if he thinks it more means shape/form instead of ex-nihilo. It seems to laugh at Joseph’s pronunciation of the Hebrew word but he does nothing to prove he got it wrong. But was Joseph correct about what creation meant? I’m curious about this. I started searching for more on the bārā’ word and found the words tõhû and bõhû which mean shapeless and formless. That reminded me of this podcast on Genesis 1. Here is the link where a BYU professor talks about ex-hilo creation on the Follow Him podcast – transcription below:
So Christians several centuries ago came up with this theological idea of creation ex nihilo, right out of nothing, which not only Joseph Smith pushed back on that for theological reasons. He said there's no such thing as immaterial matter. That God is organizing matter. That's right there. And that's the same worldview that the ancient Israelites have. That it's not that there was nothing there, but what God's role in creation was, was organizing this stuff. And that's what created is getting at here in the Hebrew
So now I’m looking at that phrase Tohu wa-Bohu and I found this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?
.png)
He literally has something on the wall that says TOHU VA BOHU and the description below says: Believe it or not but the concept of "creation out of nothing" (or in fancy terms, "creation ex nihilo") is completely unbiblical. It's all right there in the second verse of the Bible: "The earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God sept over the face of the waters."
Who is this guy, and why does he agree with Joseph Smith? He goes into Genesis 1:2 and basically attacks creation ex-nihilo. “I was taught that God created the universe out of absolutely nothing”….The guy quotes this book https://www.amazon.com/Face-
Back to Mike he says the traditional Jewish view throughout time has been always been ex-nihilo. He doesn’t give any evidence for that I’m seeing evidence to the contrary. Mike says about figuring out the evidence for ex nihilo in Hebrew “just go start researching it on your own and you’ll find lots of great resources on it”. He says the people Joseph Smith talked to didn’t know enough about Hebrew to contradict him.
https://www.thetorah.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment