Revision as of 14:45, 23 May 2010

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be trustworthy?

Questions

==

• Critics claim that Latter-day Saint leaders diminish the Bible as untrustworthy.

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here

Detailed Analysis

== In 1979, the Church produced its own King James Bible, complete with a set of footnotes and cross references, as well as translational notes and study helps. Prior to this publication, the Church purchased most of its King James Bibles from Cambridge University Press. Does this sound like an organization that is using the Bible merely as a public relations gimmick? If so, millions of members were never told. The Church and its members have a deep love and appreciation for the Word of God as found in the Bible.

This bold assertion is amusing. There is no presentation of statistics, only the anecdotal idea that first, LDS members do not read the Bible and are not familiar with it, and second, that we hear constantly from our leaders that the Bible is less than trustworthy.

In a survey published in July 2001, Barna Research Group, Ltd. (BRG) made the following observations:

The study also revealed that barely half of all Protestant adults (54%) read the Bible during a typical week. Barna pointed out that Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants-even though most Mormons do not believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.^[1]

BRG is not affiliated with the LDS Church, nor was the LDS Church involved in the survey. Members of the LDS Church likewise would not categorize their faith in this fashion. Yet the survey indicated that they certainly do read the Bible consistently. Also, over the course of two years out of every four years, every member of the Church is asked to read and study the entire text of the Bible as part of the Church's Sunday School curriculum. Asked by whom? By the leaders of the LDS Church.

One of the often-neglected events in LDS history happened in 1836. Joseph Smith arranged for a Hebrew scholar to come and teach Hebrew to the members of the LDS Church in Kirtland Ohio. The members of the Church had already been studying the Hebrew language, having purchased some grammars, a Hebrew Bible, and a lexicon, and had previously attempted to hire a teacher. The Hebrew scholar who came was Joshua Seixas. He spent several weeks instructing many of the members of the Church in Hebrew.^[2] Why the interest in the Hebrew we might ask? Clearly it was to be able to (in the words of Pope Pius XII) 'explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern.'

What this shows is that not only were the early LDS aware of the challenges associated with the Bible, but that they were just as interested in going back to the original language and to the original texts (if possible) as was the rest of Christendom who were aware of these discrepancies. Despite McKeever and Johnson's unfounded assertions to the contrary, there has never been a leader of the LDS Church who has ever suggested that the Bible was not suitable for study and for learning the Gospel due to any shortcomings it may have. Rather than substantiate their claim, they simply write it as the conclusion to their observations -- observations which do not have a basis in reality.

The authors then discuss two of Nephi's statements regarding the Bible as found in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's perspective is that of modern Latter-day Saints: The Bible contains truth from God. However, it is still the work of men, and is only as reliable as the men who wrote, translated and copied it.

It is interesting that the Book of Mormon itself has begun to be seen as a witness to the textual criticism of the Bible. Source critical theory of the Old Testament splits the story of David and Goliath into two separate accounts that were later merged into the common story that we have today.^[3] Scholars believe these two traditions represent an earlier source and a later source. One of the primary evidences for this argument is the fact that some of the added material is missing from the Septuagint (LXX). In a paper presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, Benjamin McGuire presented evidence that Nephi, in borrowing from the story of David and Goliath, relied on a text that did not have the added or late material.^[4] This would be in harmony with current scholarship of the Old Testament, which indicates that this material was added at the time of the captivity in Babylon, and certainly after Nephi had left Jerusalem with his Brass Plates.

Do the Latter-day Saints detract from the Bible? Do they criticize it? No more so than the majority of Biblical scholars. The views of the early LDS leaders by today's standards seem quite normal to some, and somewhat liberal to many. But only those who also throw modern biblical textual criticism out with the bath water view these opinions as radical and evil. LDS beliefs are quite at home with the statements of other Christians. This vilification of LDS belief is no more than a rejection of the modern orthodox Christian scholar's position on Biblical inerrancy. It is the recognized LDS belief that the Bible is true as it was inspired by God, and as it was written by prophets, apostles, and disciples of Jesus Christ.

== Notes ==

1. [note]  The full survey, entitled "Protestants, Catholics and Mormons Reflect Diverse Levels of Religious Activity," can be found at the Barna Web site at www.barna.org.
2. [note]  Perhaps as many as 120 members of the LDS Church studied under Seixas while he was in Kirtland.
3. [note]  See, for example, Emmanuel Tov, "The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version," in Jeffrey H. Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 97-130.
4. [note]  Benjamin McGuire, "Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi" FAIR link (text), or video.