They believe that the KJV is the most accurately translated version of the Bible, so they could very well dismiss your argument as “mistranslated.” Not saying they would, but they could, according to their beliefs. Plus, when arguing against someone, it makes more of an impression to use their own words against them than it does to use evidence that they could possibly deem as invalid, or “mistranslated,” in this case.
Who knew there were so many?
Merriam-Webster Dictionary can, as I’ve said in previous posts, but apparently no one deems that a valid source.
Can you point to an authoritative Mormon source that claims this? I honestly have never heard it claimed that the Mormon teaches this.
This is the only statement by the First Presidency I can find (1992)
That’s a very good point.
So how does Merrriam-Webster define Christian?
Are the LDS considered Christian according to that definition?
Who says Merriam-Webster gets to define anything? (playing devils advocate here)
Or it seems it has already been argued not to be.
This, and any LDS I’ve asked have said the same thing.
In all honesty, Sarah, I see nothing in the link you posted, nor the link I posted, claiming that the KJV is the most accurate translation.
- the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.
- Christian quality or character.
“his Christianity sustained him”
That’s a more complex question, as the LDS follow the teachings of Jesus, Joseph Smith, and various other prophets. So since the definition of Christianity (according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary) does not explicitly say “religion based on the teachings of ONLY Jesus of Nazareth” the LDS have sort of debatably wiggled their way in there.
Here’s an LDS explanation why they prefer the KJV:
Why would God render the Book of Mormon translation into KJV English?
As more than one LDS scholar has pointed out, the KJV English was the accepted scriptural language of Joseph Smith’s day. When Jesus, the Apostles, or even the angel Gabriel quote scriptures in the New Testament they do not quote from some ancient and perhaps original source. Instead they quote from the Septuagint—the Greek version of the Old Testament, which was the accepted Bible of New
Testament readers. “When ‘holy men of God’ quote the scriptures,” notes Nibley, “it is always in the received standard version of the people they are addressing…”12 Likewise, the scriptural language of Joseph Smith’s day was King James English. Quite often when other ancient texts— such as the Dead Sea Scrolls—are translated into English, they—like the Book of Mormon—are rendered into King James English.13 One can hardly chide Joseph for doing the very same thing that modern scholars often do when translating ancient religious texts.
M-W gives a very loose translation.
I’d say most definitions have lost their meaning anyway- or most definitions have been challenged and broadened to be on the safe side and not exclude anyone.
I’m not arguing that it’s the right version of the Bible. I’m arguing that if you want to make a point to someone, you have to show them the faults and inconsistencies among sources that they have deemed accurate, because if they have deemed them accurate, then they will be more willing to listen to your argument, because if you were arguing about religion with someone else and they found something in the Bible that directly and specifically, without loophole or err, disproved what you believed (not saying there is, just using it as an example to explain this to you) then I’m sure you would be more willing to reconsider your argument.
I get it. Especially in modern society where folks want to use the word Christian to describe behavior, not a belief system.
But to know the true meaning of Christian we just have to go back to Christ.
(I can find only 2 official statements made by 1)the Vatican and 2) Archdiocese of Baltimore regarding Mormons and Mormon baptism.)
"In a statement sent to all parishes, missions and offices of the diocese, Salt Lake City Bishop George H. Niederauer emphasized that the Vatican ruling “should not be understood as either judging or measuring a spiritual relationship between Jesus Christ and the LDS Church.’’
" It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints .
Oh yes, I understand they prefer it, (to this day I still love reading it because of the Old English style) but it’s not held up to be the most accurate translation.
This is what I was pushing back against. The idea that Mormons believe it is the most accurately translated version.
They don’t teach that. They prefer it, yes, but not because they believe it to be “the most accurately translated”
That is the only point I challenge.
It is a good exercise to read different translations side by side, to try to find more depth in the meaning that sometimes a single translated word does not convey.
Here is the KJV
Now, how does it compare with the BOM and other LDS writing? What does it more closely resemble (LDS or non LDS)?
(From the link that Loki provide from FairMormon. Even FairMormon concedes there are more accurate translations.)
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the Authorized (King James) Version as its official Bible. So, why does the Church insist on using the Authorized (“King James”) Version as its official Bible, even though more modern translations are easier to read, are more accurate, and include more recent manuscript discoveries? Some reasons include:
- historical continuity with the restoration, since the KJV was used by the first generation of prophets and Church members
- Church leaders feel the benefits of standardization avoid, for example, unprofitable disputes about which member’s Bible is a “better” translation
- theologically, the Church disagrees with some modern trends in some Biblical translations (e.g., removing references to priesthood offices not embraced by some denominations, gender-neutral language when referring to God, etc.)
However, there is nothing in Church policy or official Church teaching that forbids Latter-day Saints from reading other Bible translations in their personal study. Many do so."
Yes, and to Tradition and Early Church teaching…we have so much to reinforce our wonderful beliefs!
There has to be an authority. But, alas, people argue against it.
Our Catholic Bible is older than the KJV. We also have all the books, but the KJV is missing some. Using Mormon accepted sources is problematic because theirs is a house built of cards.
The LDS argue that whenever the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are implied (or even directly stated) to be One God, that they are not in fact literally One God, but rather One God in purpose and motives. They use the part in the Bible (somewhere in Acts, I think) that talks about Pentecost to support this. I can’t remember why, but I’ll go dig it out if you’re are really interested to know.