FAIR - Recent changes [en]

The Great Apostasy

SpencerMarsh — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 04:35:14 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:35, 2 September 2026
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 254:		Line 254:
	\|\|John sees the Son of Man, who commands him to write to the seven churches. Ephesus has done many good things, is now fallen and must repent, having left the Lord (2:5-6). The church in Pergamos has held fast against Satan, but harbors proponents of the doctrine of Balaam who eat meat sacrificed to idols and commit fornication. There are also Christians there who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which the Lord hates (2:12-16). In spite of many good works, the church at Thyatira permits Jezebel to pass herself off as a prophetess while seducing the Lord’s servants to fornicate and to eat things sacrificed unto idols (2:18-20). There appear to be only a few members in Sardis who “have not defiled their garments” and who are worthy to walk with the Lord (3:1-6). Laodiceans focused on wealth, are comfortable, and do not recognize their need for the Lord’s aid. They are neither cold nor hot, and the Lord will spew them out (3:16-17).		\|\|John sees the Son of Man, who commands him to write to the seven churches. Ephesus has done many good things, is now fallen and must repent, having left the Lord (2:5-6). The church in Pergamos has held fast against Satan, but harbors proponents of the doctrine of Balaam who eat meat sacrificed to idols and commit fornication. There are also Christians there who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which the Lord hates (2:12-16). In spite of many good works, the church at Thyatira permits Jezebel to pass herself off as a prophetess while seducing the Lord’s servants to fornicate and to eat things sacrificed unto idols (2:18-20). There appear to be only a few members in Sardis who “have not defiled their garments” and who are worthy to walk with the Lord (3:1-6). Laodiceans focused on wealth, are comfortable, and do not recognize their need for the Lord’s aid. They are neither cold nor hot, and the Lord will spew them out (3:16-17).
	\|}		\|}

			====Scriptural Objections to the Great Apostasy====
			Christian apologists claim that the Church could never have been lost during the Great Apostasy because Jesus predicted that it would always remain on the earth. Some apologists claim that the Church was never lost based on a scripture from the book of Jude. Both claims are deficient for a few reasons.

			=====Jude 1:3 — The Faith Once Delivered to the Saints=====
			Jude 1:3 reads, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

			Some contend that "once" here means "one and only one time." This belief is reflected in the [https://biblehub.com/jude/1-3.htm vast majority of biblical translations]. For example, the ''New International Version'' (NIV), Jude 1:3 reads, "Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was '''once for all''' entrusted to God’s holy people" (emphasis added).

			The Greek term translated as "once" or "once for all" is ''ἅπαξ'' (HAH-pahcks). This term can mean simply "once," as the King James Version renders it.

			=====Matthew 16:18 — The Gates of Hell=====
			Matthew 16:18 reads, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

			Some Christian apologists claim this means that the earthly Church organization would never be taken away.
	</wt>		</wt>
	}}		}}
	{{CollapseHeaders		{{CollapseHeaders
	\| title = ===Question: How did the ~~death~~ of ~~the~~ Apostles contribute to the Great Apostasy?===		\| title = ===Question: How did the deaths of Jesus's Apostles contribute to the Great Apostasy?===
	\| state = closed		\| state = closed
	\| content =		\| content =
	<wt>		<wt>
	====Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority====		====Teeing the Ball Up: The Loss of Apostolic Authority====
	The best way to make an error permanent is to ensure that there is no authoritative way to correct it. The death or removal of Apostles with priesthood authority from God from the earth ensured such a demise. The scriptures predict that the great and abominable church would fight against the Apostles of the Lamb (1 Nephi 11:34–36). After their death, the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing those that rebelled against the true Church of Christ and its teachings (Doctrine and Covenants 86:1&~~ndash3~~). The Apostolic authority was restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by Peter, James, and John (Doctrine and Covenants 27:13). It is clear from historical scholarship that apostolic authority was considered necessary to lead the church, that all valid Apostles died, and that there was no apostolic authority on the earth until it was restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.		The best way to make an error permanent is to ensure that there is no authoritative way to correct it. The death or removal of Apostles with priesthood authority from God from the earth ensured such a demise. The scriptures predict that the great and abominable church would fight against the Apostles of the Lamb (1 Nephi 11:34–36). After their death, the adversary sowed tares among the wheat, symbolizing those that rebelled against the true Church of Christ and its teachings (Doctrine and Covenants 86:1–3). The Apostolic authority was restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by Peter, James, and John (Doctrine and Covenants 27:13). It is clear from historical scholarship that apostolic authority was considered necessary to lead the church, that all valid Apostles died, and that there was no apostolic authority on the earth until it was restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

	=====The Necessity of Apostolic Authority=====		=====The Necessity of Apostolic Authority=====
Line 445:		Line 460:
	John then appeared with Peter and James, with apostolic keys "committed" to them, to give those keys to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (Doctrine and Covenants 27:13).		John then appeared with Peter and James, with apostolic keys "committed" to them, to give those keys to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (Doctrine and Covenants 27:13).

	John's and the Three Nephites' existence as ministering angels does not negate the Latter-day Saint belief in the loss of Apostolic authority or in the Great Apostasy. Still, it does show that one conception of Latter-day Saint belief is inaccurate: Latter-day Saints cannot affirm that apostolic authority was simply ''extinguished'' by ~~killing~~ the Apostles. Latter-day Saints must affirm something else. One possibility is that the translated Apostles' authority to lead was taken away upon their translation. Another ~~is that whatever valid priesthood authority was left after the non-translated Apostles were killed, God removed it from the translated Apostles. Yet another~~ possibility is that they retained priesthood keys but lacked ''divine permission'' to exercise them.		John's and the Three Nephites' existence as ministering angels does not negate the Latter-day Saint belief in the loss of Apostolic authority or in the Great Apostasy. Still, it does show that one conception of Latter-day Saint belief is inaccurate: Latter-day Saints cannot affirm that apostolic authority was simply ''extinguished'' by the deaths of the Apostles. Latter-day Saints must affirm something else. One possibility is that the translated Apostles' authority to lead was taken away upon their translation (and then regranted to John, who ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery). Another possibility is that they retained priesthood keys but lacked ''divine permission'' to exercise and bestow them. The latter is the correct view, since Doctrine and Covenants 7:7 states that John’s priesthood authority would not be taken away until He comes again.
	</wt>		</wt>
	}}		}}

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

SpencerMarsh — Sat, 29 Aug 2026 21:17:31 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 29 August 2026
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~<small>[[~~Main Page~~\|Home]] > [[The Bible]] > The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible</small>~~		{{Main Page}}
	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
	{{Header}}		{{Header}}

Main Page

SpencerMarsh — Sat, 29 Aug 2026 21:17:00 GMT

Scriptures

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 29 August 2026
Line 29:		Line 29:
	** [[Book of Abraham]]		** [[Book of Abraham]]
	** [[Articles of Faith]]		** [[Articles of Faith]]
			* [[The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible]]

	===Current Events and Social Issues===		===Current Events and Social Issues===

KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon

SpencerMarsh — Tue, 25 Aug 2026 01:08:09 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:08, 25 August 2026
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 179:		Line 179:
	Lexicons (translators' dictionaries) that translators use today—and especially those dealing with ancient languages—are constantly evolving as new evidence about how words were used becomes available. The lexicons of today may not be the lexicons of tomorrow. Today's lexicons may find that a word has a meaning we didn't understand a decade ago.		Lexicons (translators' dictionaries) that translators use today—and especially those dealing with ancient languages—are constantly evolving as new evidence about how words were used becomes available. The lexicons of today may not be the lexicons of tomorrow. Today's lexicons may find that a word has a meaning we didn't understand a decade ago.

	This would mean that perceived translation errors today may not actually be translation errors, and we need to wait for more evidence. ~~Now, lexicons~~ of tomorrow will probably not change drastically since language evolution tends to be conservative. Different societies want to use unique words to distinguish between objects and concepts to enhance cooperation and efficiency in problem-solving.		This would mean that perceived translation errors today may not actually be translation errors, and we need to wait for more evidence. Lexicons of tomorrow will probably not change drastically since language evolution tends to be conservative. Different societies want to use unique words to distinguish between objects and concepts to enhance cooperation and efficiency in problem-solving. However, these facts should give us pause before we assume we know everything there is to know about how words were used anciently and thus whether any given claim of there being a translation error in the Book of Mormon is true.

	====We don't have the original manuscripts of the biblical text====		====We don't have the original manuscripts of the biblical text====
Line 299:		Line 299:
	\|\|Know how to speak a word in season		\|\|Know how to speak a word in season
	\|\|"The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should '''know how to speak a word in season''' to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/50-4.htm Bible Hub])		\|\|"The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should '''know how to speak a word in season''' to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/50-4.htm Bible Hub])
	\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Translation Variant.'''</span> Critic David P. Wright laughably asserts that "the underlying Hebrew is unintelligible" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV is likely wrong." This passage, according to Wright, "is apparently taking the word läcût to mean 'to speak/do in season.'" Yet again, Wright tells us that "[h]ow it is to be understood is not clear." Then he tells us that "[s]ome modern scholars, with hesitation, take the verb to mean 'to aid/help/succor.'"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|172–73.}} ~~Even this~~ is ~~part of~~ Wright's essay discussing KJV translation ''errors'' ''perpetuated'' in the Book of Mormon. As ~~such~~, it can only be considered a translation variant. Even with the wording as is, it clearly teaches that Isaiah's gift is to speak to the weary. That can only mean a form of succoring/aiding.		\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Translation Variant.'''</span> Critic David P. Wright laughably asserts that "the underlying Hebrew is unintelligible" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV is likely wrong." This passage, according to Wright, "is apparently taking the word läcût to mean 'to speak/do in season.'" Yet again, Wright tells us that "[h]ow it is to be understood is not clear." Then he tells us that "[s]ome modern scholars, with hesitation, take the verb to mean 'to aid/help/succor.'"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|172–73.}} It is hard to understand why Wright includes this in an essay discussing KJV translation ''errors'' ''perpetuated'' in the Book of Mormon. As the Hebrew is unintelligible, the translation can only be considered a translation variant. Even with the wording as is, it clearly teaches that Isaiah's gift is to speak to the weary. That can only mean a form of succoring or aiding.
	\|-style="vertical-align:top;"		\|-style="vertical-align:top;"
	\|7. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|51\|4}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|8\|4}}		\|7. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|51\|4}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|8\|4}}
Line 427:		Line 427:
	\|\|Carcases		\|\|Carcases
	\|\|"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their '''carcases''' were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-25.htm Bible Hub])		\|\|"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their '''carcases''' were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-25.htm Bible Hub])
	\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Diachronic Shift.'''</span> Wright asserts that the better translation is "their '''corpses''' were as refuse in the midst of the streets."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|170}} This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that the word "carcass" could refer to either animal or human remains at the time that the King James Bible was translated. After about the year 1750, it came to be used as a form of contempt for human remains.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Carcass."</ref> These usages fit perfectly within the context of Isaiah~~. This appears to be an attempt to find fault where there is none—a carcass and a corpse are the same thing~~.		\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Diachronic Shift.'''</span> Wright asserts that the better translation is "their '''corpses''' were as refuse in the midst of the streets."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|170}} This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that the word "carcass" could refer to either animal or human remains at the time that the King James Bible was translated. After about the year 1750, it came to be used as a form of contempt for human remains.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Carcass."</ref> These usages fit perfectly within the context of Isaiah.
	\|-~~style="vertical-align:top;"~~		\|-
	\|29. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|5\|25}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|15\|25}}		\|29. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|5\|25}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|15\|25}}
	\|\|Were torn		\|\|Were torn
Line 512:		Line 512:
	\|\|And; and they shall be driven		\|\|And; and they shall be driven
	\|\|"And they shall look unto the earth; '''and''' behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; '''and they shall be driven''' to darkness." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-22.htm Bible Hub])		\|\|"And they shall look unto the earth; '''and''' behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; '''and they shall be driven''' to darkness." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-22.htm Bible Hub])
	\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Translation Variant.'''</span> Critic David P. Wright curiously asserts that "[t]he Hebrew here is ... obscure" and then, in the same sentence, states that "the KJV offers an unlikely translation, especially of the last phrase." This is part of an essay dedicated to KJV ''errors'' in the Book of Mormon. He asks us to compare the KJV to the following translations: "or he may look below, but behold, distress and darkness, with no daybreak, straitness and gloom, with no dawn" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society'') and "then (he will look) down to the earth, there will be only anguish, gloom, the confusion of night, swirling darkness" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|171}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/8-22.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] render this verse as "driven" or "thrust" into thick darkness. The meaning of the underlying Hebrew is uncertain, according to scholar Marvin Sweeney.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp\|991nC}} Thus, this can only be considered a translation variant. The intent and overall meaning of the passage are not affected. The passage concerns Isaiah warning people not to practice necromancy as was often practiced (and condemned) in ancient Israel ({{s\|\|Isaiah\|19\|3}}; {{s\|\|Leviticus\|19\|31}}; {{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|18\|10-11}}). With the practice of necromancy, Israel will only see greater and greater darkness and distress as they call upon the dead thought to inhabit the shadow lands of the underworld. Whether they are "thrust" into darkness, "driven" into darkness, or look and see utter darkness with no break of day, makes little difference~~. This again looks like straining to find fault~~.		\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Translation Variant.'''</span> Critic David P. Wright curiously asserts that "[t]he Hebrew here is ... obscure" and then, in the same sentence, states that "the KJV offers an unlikely translation, especially of the last phrase." This is part of an essay dedicated to KJV ''errors'' in the Book of Mormon. He asks us to compare the KJV to the following translations: "or he may look below, but behold, distress and darkness, with no daybreak, straitness and gloom, with no dawn" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society'') and "then (he will look) down to the earth, there will be only anguish, gloom, the confusion of night, swirling darkness" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|171}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/8-22.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] render this verse as "driven" or "thrust" into thick darkness. The meaning of the underlying Hebrew is uncertain, according to scholar Marvin Sweeney.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp\|991nC}} Thus, this can only be considered a translation variant. The intent and overall meaning of the passage are not affected. The passage concerns Isaiah warning people not to practice necromancy as was often practiced (and condemned) in ancient Israel ({{s\|\|Isaiah\|19\|3}}; {{s\|\|Leviticus\|19\|31}}; {{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|18\|10-11}}). With the practice of necromancy, Israel will only see greater and greater darkness and distress as they call upon the dead thought to inhabit the shadow lands of the underworld. Whether they are "thrust" into darkness, "driven" into darkness, or look and see utter darkness with no break of day, makes little difference.
	\|-style="vertical-align:top;"		\|-style="vertical-align:top;"
	\|44. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|9\|1}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|19\|1}}		\|44. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|9\|1}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|19\|1}}
Line 599:		Line 599:
	\|\|Wild beasts		\|\|Wild beasts
	\|\|"And the '''wild beasts''' of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])		\|\|"And the '''wild beasts''' of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])
	\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Uncertain.'''</span> Jeremy Runnells asserts that the better translation would be something like either "howling beast," "jackal," or "hyena."<ref name="runnells1769" /> The word איים (aym) refers to a howling desert animal, and most translators seem to take that as a reference to either jackals or hyenas.<ref>Though [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm there are translations (mostly much older ones)] that take it as a reference to either sirens, cats, owls, dogs, or wolves.</ref> There is no evidence that jackals or hyenas were domesticated in ancient Israel. They have remained wild in most cultures. Thus, "wild" isn't truly an inaccurate translation here either. Even critic David Wright thinks that the passage is translated accurately as either "wild beasts" or "desert beasts."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|172}} The passage in the KJV already says that the wild beasts "shall cry" in desolate houses, so why "howling beast" needs to be added on top of "cry" is at least mildly uncertain. This is a case where the translation is, at best, not erroneous, and, at worst, just too broad. Certainly, there is no shift away from the intent of the passage~~. This also looks like straining to find fault~~.		\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Uncertain.'''</span> Jeremy Runnells asserts that the better translation would be something like either "howling beast," "jackal," or "hyena."<ref name="runnells1769" /> The word איים (aym) refers to a howling desert animal, and most translators seem to take that as a reference to either jackals or hyenas.<ref>Though [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm there are translations (mostly much older ones)] that take it as a reference to either sirens, cats, owls, dogs, or wolves.</ref> There is no evidence that jackals or hyenas were domesticated in ancient Israel. They have remained wild in most cultures. Thus, "wild" isn't truly an inaccurate translation here either. Even critic David Wright thinks that the passage is translated accurately as either "wild beasts" or "desert beasts."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|172}} The passage in the KJV already says that the wild beasts "shall cry" in desolate houses, so why "howling beast" needs to be added on top of "cry" is at least mildly uncertain. This is a case where the translation is, at best, not erroneous, and, at worst, just too broad. Certainly, there is no shift away from the intent of the passage.
	\|-style="vertical-align:top;"		\|-style="vertical-align:top;"
	\|59. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|13\|22}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|23\|22}}		\|59. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|13\|22}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|23\|22}}
Line 680:		Line 680:
	\|\|Chickens		\|\|Chickens
	\|\|"And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her '''chickens''' under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/23-37.htm Bible Hub])		\|\|"And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her '''chickens''' under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/23-37.htm Bible Hub])
	\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Diachronic Shift.'''</span> The ''CES Letter'' asserts that this is a translation error.<ref name="runnells1769" /> The author believes that it should be rendered "chicks." This isn't an error, but a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'' defines "chicken" as "[t]he young of fowls, particularly of the domestic hen, or gallinaceous fowls."<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828\|word=chicken}} </ref> The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' has examples from the 10th to the 16th centuries of "chicken" being used to designate "[t]he young of the domestic fowl [and] its flesh" as well as "the young of any bird."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Chicken."</ref> ~~This looks like seeking to find fault.~~		\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Diachronic Shift.'''</span> The ''CES Letter'' asserts that this is a translation error.<ref name="runnells1769" /> The author believes that it should be rendered "chicks." This isn't an error, but a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'' defines "chicken" as "[t]he young of fowls, particularly of the domestic hen, or gallinaceous fowls."<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828\|word=chicken}} </ref> The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' has examples from the 10th to the 16th centuries of "chicken" being used to designate "[t]he young of the domestic fowl [and] its flesh" as well as "the young of any bird."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Chicken."</ref>
	\|-style="vertical-align:top;"		\|-style="vertical-align:top;"
	\|74. {{s\|\|Matthew\|5\|15}} ~ {{s\|3\|Nephi\|12\|15}}		\|74. {{s\|\|Matthew\|5\|15}} ~ {{s\|3\|Nephi\|12\|15}}
Line 796:		Line 796:
	All the tabulated data above support the conclusion that the Book of Mormon, if indeed a translation of an ancient text, is a cultural and creative translation of that text. But why did God allow the translation errors?		All the tabulated data above support the conclusion that the Book of Mormon, if indeed a translation of an ancient text, is a cultural and creative translation of that text. But why did God allow the translation errors?

	The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God" and used the "Urim and Thummim."<ref>{{EJfairwiki\|author=Joseph Smith\|date=July 1838\|vol=1\|num=3\|start=42\|end=43}}</ref>		The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God" and that he used the "Urim and Thummim."<ref>{{EJfairwiki\|author=Joseph Smith\|date=July 1838\|vol=1\|num=3\|start=42\|end=43}}</ref>

	We have [[Question: Was every word of the Book of Mormon translation provided directly from God?\|some of the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith]]. The Lord speaks to His servants "after the manner of their language that they may come to understanding" according to the Doctrine & Covenants ({{s\|\|Doctrine & Covenants\|1\|24}}). That same idea is confirmed in {{s\|2\|Nephi\|31\|3}}. He can even use error for His own holy, higher purposes. The formal theological term for this idea is "accommodation." [[Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?\|The wiki page on the nature of prophetic revelation]] discusses this idea from a Latter-day Saint point of view. God can accommodate erroneous translations and even perspectives for higher, holier objectives. That should be comforting to us—the Lord accommodates His perfection to our weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.		We have [[Question: Was every word of the Book of Mormon translation provided directly from God?\|some of the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith]]. The Lord speaks to His servants "after the manner of their language that they may come to understanding" according to the Doctrine & Covenants ({{s\|\|Doctrine & Covenants\|1\|24}}). That same idea is confirmed in {{s\|2\|Nephi\|31\|3}}. He can even use error for His own holy, higher purposes. The formal theological term for this idea is "accommodation." [[Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?\|The wiki page on the nature of prophetic revelation]] discusses this idea from a Latter-day Saint point of view. God can accommodate erroneous translations and even perspectives for higher, holier objectives. That should be comforting to us—the Lord accommodates His perfection to our weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.

The Great Apostasy

SpencerMarsh — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 09:09:52 GMT

Show changes

Violence in the scriptures

SpencerMarsh — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 03:50:28 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:50, 18 August 2026
Line 491:		Line 491:
	\| state = closed		\| state = closed
	\| content =		\| content =
	=== The text is making a lot of rhetorical points that go unnoticed without additional context ====		==== The text is making a lot of rhetorical points that go unnoticed without additional context ====
	{{s\|2\|Kings\|2\|23-25}} has a short account that reads:		{{s\|2\|Kings\|2\|23-25}} has a short account that reads:

Line 501:		Line 501:

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	<b>23-25</b>: The episode of the cursing of the boys of Bethel who jeered at the prophet seems shocking to modern readers. For the ancient reader it demonstrated that it was dangerous to behave disrespectfully toward a man of God. <b>24</b>: The narrator does not tell the content of Elisha’s curse, and whether or not he intended to kill the boys. Forty-two boys, "forty-two" is a number sometimes associated with death: Jehu kills forty-two victims <b>(10.14)</b>, and the Egyptian Book of the Dead mentions forty-two judges of the dead.<ref>Thomas Romer, "~~Commentary on~~ 2 Kings," ''The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible'', (ed.) Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins (Oxford University Press~~: London, England~~, ~~2010~~), 536.</ref>		<b>23-25</b>: The episode of the cursing of the boys of Bethel who jeered at the prophet seems shocking to modern readers. For the ancient reader, it demonstrated that it was dangerous to behave disrespectfully toward a man of God. <b>24</b>: The narrator does not tell the content of Elisha’s curse, and whether or not he intended to kill the boys. Forty-two boys, "forty-two" is a number sometimes associated with death: Jehu kills forty-two victims <b>(10.14)</b>, and the Egyptian Book of the Dead mentions forty-two judges of the dead.<ref>Thomas Romer, "2 Kings," ''The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible'', ed. Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins (Oxford University Press, 2018), 536.</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Line 509:		Line 509:

	In summary we have:		In summary we have:
			#A symbolic representation for death, indicating that there may be more symbolism being used behind the text.
	a) A symbolic representation for death, indicating that there may be more symbolism being used behind the text.		#Clear condemnation and mocking of the prophet, using culturally charged epithets to disparage the prophet.
	b) Clear condemnation and mocking of the prophet, using culturally charged epithets to disparage the prophet.		#No indication from the narrator as to what Elisha’s curse actually was. No indication as to whether he wanted this to happen.
	c) No indication from the narrator as to what Elisha’s curse actually was. No indication as to whether he wanted this to happen.		#A clear hint as to what the author’s intent was for the story: to teach ancient readers respect for the prophet.
	d) A clear hint as to what the author’s intent was for the story: to teach ancient readers respect for the prophet.
	}}		}}
	{{CollapseHeaders		{{CollapseHeaders
Line 542:		Line 541:
	#'''Blasphemy''' ({{s\|\|Leviticus\|24\|10,23}})—God required the fidelity and faithfulness of the Israelites.		#'''Blasphemy''' ({{s\|\|Leviticus\|24\|10,23}})—God required the fidelity and faithfulness of the Israelites.
	#'''Cursing your parents''' ({{s\|\|Exodus\|21\|17}})—This also enforced the familial ideals of Israel		#'''Cursing your parents''' ({{s\|\|Exodus\|21\|17}})—This also enforced the familial ideals of Israel
	#'''Disobeying the judge or priest that mediates a specific case''' ({{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|17\|8-13}}) As noted in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'',		#'''Disobeying the judge or priest that mediates a specific case''' ({{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|17\|8-13}}) As noted in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'':

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	In the pre-Deuteronomic period, legal cases in which there was an absence of physical evidence or of witnesses were remanded to the local sanctuary, where the parties to the dispute would swear a judicial oath at the altar ({{s_short\|\|Deuteronomy\|19\|17}}; {{s\|\|Ex\|22\|7-11}}; {{s\|1\|Kings\|8\|31-32}}; note also {{s\|\|Ex\|21\|6}}). These two laws (17.2-7,8-13) thus fill the judicial void created by Deuteronomy's prohibition of the local sanctuaries (ch 12). Now, any case that requires recourse to the altar is remanded to the central sanctuary; all other cases, even capital ones, may be tried locally (vv {{s_short\|\|Deuteronomy\|19\|2-7}}).		In the pre-Deuteronomic period, legal cases in which there was an absence of physical evidence or of witnesses were remanded to the local sanctuary, where the parties to the dispute would swear a judicial oath at the altar ({{s_short\|\|Deuteronomy\|19\|17}}; {{s\|\|Ex\|22\|7-11}}; {{s\|1\|Kings\|8\|31-32}}; note also {{s\|\|Ex\|21\|6}}). These two laws (17.2-7,8-13) thus fill the judicial void created by Deuteronomy's prohibition of the local sanctuaries (ch 12). Now, any case that requires recourse to the altar is remanded to the central sanctuary; all other cases, even capital ones, may be tried locally (vv {{s_short\|\|Deuteronomy\|19\|2-7}}).

	<b>8.</b> These cases must be referred to the central sanctuary because, in the absence of witnesses o evidence, local officials cannot make a ruling. ''Between one kind of bloodshed and another'', the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter ({{s\|\|Ex\|21\|12-14}}; {{s\|\|Num\|35\|16-23}}). In each pair, he distinction is between premeditated or unintentional offenses. <b>9:</b> The tribunal at the sanctuary includes both priestly and lay members. The account of Jehosophat's setting up tribunals throughout Judah composed of lay and clerical judges reflects this law (({{s\|2\|Chr\|19\| 5-11}}).<ref>Bernard M. Levison, "~~Commentary on~~ Deuteronomy,'' in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'' (ed.) Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins (~~New York City, NY:~~ Oxford University Press, ~~2010~~), 278.</ref>		<b>8.</b> These cases must be referred to the central sanctuary because, in the absence of witnesses o evidence, local officials cannot make a ruling. ''Between one kind of bloodshed and another'', the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter ({{s\|\|Ex\|21\|12-14}}; {{s\|\|Num\|35\|16-23}}). In each pair, he distinction is between premeditated or unintentional offenses. <b>9:</b> The tribunal at the sanctuary includes both priestly and lay members. The account of Jehosophat's setting up tribunals throughout Judah composed of lay and clerical judges reflects this law (({{s\|2\|Chr\|19\| 5-11}}).<ref>Bernard M. Levison, "Deuteronomy,'' in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins (Oxford University Press, 2018), 278.</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Wiki

ReedComire — Sat, 15 Aug 2026 20:30:19 GMT

All Text One One Page vs. Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:30, 15 August 2026
Line 59:		Line 59:
	So "Brigham Young" is the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL). "Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page" is what the reader sees to click on.		So "Brigham Young" is the name of the page (after "answers" in the URL). "Click here to go to Brigham Young Main Page" is what the reader sees to click on.

	===~~Parent and Child Pages~~===		===All Text One One Page vs. Links===
	The old style was to add all content for a topic on one gigantic page that scrolls forever. Then we discovered you could import the contents of an independent sub-page onto your gigantic page as if it was already together with "transclusion":		The old style was to add all content for a topic on one gigantic page that scrolls forever. Then we discovered you could import the contents of an independent sub-page onto your gigantic page as if it was already together with "transclusion":
	<nowiki>{{:NewPageName}}</nowiki>		<nowiki>{{:NewPageName}}</nowiki>
Line 65:		Line 65:
	However we are moving away from this for a few reasons.		However we are moving away from this for a few reasons.

	It's better to have a main page with a summary of the topic, then links ~~or a Navigation box~~ to additional ~~sub~~ pages (see "Linking Inside the Wiki"). This will be better for search results, and you can use things like <nowiki>{{Header}}</nowiki>.		It's better to have a main page with a <b>short</b> summary of the umbrella topic or category (for readers who just want a quick overview), then links to additional solo pages for more detail (see "Linking Inside the Wiki"). This will be better for search results, and you can use things like <nowiki>{{Header}}</nowiki>. <b>We should have solo pages for each topic.</b>

	===Redirecting===		===Redirecting===

The Great Apostasy

SpencerMarsh — Sat, 15 Aug 2026 02:36:48 GMT

The Loss of Spiritual Gifts

Show changes

Authorship of New Testament books

SpencerMarsh — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 19:27:59 GMT

Church leaders have been relatively unconcerned about the actual authorship of the New Testament

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 12 August 2026
Line 25:		Line 25:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

			<onlyinclude>
	=Church leaders have been relatively unconcerned about the actual authorship of the New Testament=		=Church leaders have been relatively unconcerned about the actual authorship of the New Testament=
	President J. Reuben Clark, as First Counselor in the First Presidency, stated, "I am not really concerned, and no man of faith should be, about the exact authorship of the books of the Bible. More than one Prophet may well have written parts of books now collected under one heading. I do not know. There may have been ‘ghost writers’ in those days, as now."<ref> J. Reuben Clark, ''On the Way to Immortality and Eternal Life'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1950), 210; as cited in Szink, "Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews," 254.</ref>		President J. Reuben Clark, as First Counselor in the First Presidency, stated, "I am not really concerned, and no man of faith should be, about the exact authorship of the books of the Bible. More than one Prophet may well have written parts of books now collected under one heading. I do not know. There may have been ‘ghost writers’ in those days, as now."<ref> J. Reuben Clark, ''On the Way to Immortality and Eternal Life'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1950), 210; as cited in Szink, "Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews," 254.</ref>

	And Elder Bruce R. McConkie, speaking specifically of the Epistle to the Hebrews but applicable to all New Testament books, noted, "The principles set forth in the Epistle are more important than the personage who recorded them; an understanding of the doctrines taught is of greater worth than a knowledge of their earthly authorship."<ref>Bruce R. McConkie, ''Doctrinal New Testament Commentary'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1973), 3:133; as cited in Szink, "Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews," 255.</ref>		And Elder Bruce R. McConkie, speaking specifically of the Epistle to the Hebrews but applicable to all New Testament books, noted, "The principles set forth in the Epistle are more important than the personage who recorded them; an understanding of the doctrines taught is of greater worth than a knowledge of their earthly authorship."<ref>Bruce R. McConkie, ''Doctrinal New Testament Commentary'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1973), 3:133; as cited in Szink, "Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews," 255.</ref>
			</onlyinclude>
	{{Endnotes sources}}		{{Endnotes sources}}

	<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->		<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->

Latter-day Saint scripture and the closed canon

SpencerMarsh — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 19:27:17 GMT

Does the fact that the Bible states that nothing should be "added to" or "taken away" from the book mean that the Book of Mormon is false?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 12 August 2026
Line 231:		Line 231:
	{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Completeness/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}		{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Completeness/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

			<onlyinclude>
	=Does the fact that the Bible states that nothing should be "added to" or "taken away" from the book mean that the Book of Mormon is false?=		=Does the fact that the Bible states that nothing should be "added to" or "taken away" from the book mean that the Book of Mormon is false?=
	==Misuse of the Book of Revelation==		==Misuse of the Book of Revelation==
Line 278:		Line 279:

	{{Critical sources box:The Bible/"Adding to" or "taking away from"/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}		{{Critical sources box:The Bible/"Adding to" or "taking away from"/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}
			</onlyinclude>
	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}

Biblical inerrancy

SpencerMarsh — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 19:26:26 GMT

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:26, 12 August 2026
Line 29:		Line 29:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

			<onlyinclude>
	=Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?=		=Do Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be untrustworthy?=
	==Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today==		==Early LDS leaders' views on the problems with biblical inerrancy and biblical translation would seem mainstream to most today==
Line 67:		Line 68:

	{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Trustworthy/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}		{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Trustworthy/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}
			</onlyinclude>
	{{Endnotes sources}}		{{Endnotes sources}}

	<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->		<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
	[[Category:Questions]]		[[Category:Questions]]

Textual variants in the Bible

SpencerMarsh — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 19:24:33 GMT

Are the Biblical textual variants theologically significant?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 12 August 2026
Line 57:		Line 57:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

			<onlyinclude>
	=Are the Biblical textual variants theologically significant?=		=Are the Biblical textual variants theologically significant?=
	==Non-LDS scholar Kenneth Clark addressed this notion==		==Non-LDS scholar Kenneth Clark addressed this notion==
Line 105:		Line 106:
	* "'''We may well begin to ask if there really was a stable text at the beginning. We talk of recovering the original text, and of course every document had such a text. But the earliest witnesses to NT text even from the first century already show such variety and freedom that we may well wonder if the text remained stable long enough to hold a priority.'''" (16, {{ea}}).		* "'''We may well begin to ask if there really was a stable text at the beginning. We talk of recovering the original text, and of course every document had such a text. But the earliest witnesses to NT text even from the first century already show such variety and freedom that we may well wonder if the text remained stable long enough to hold a priority.'''" (16, {{ea}}).
	* "The NT text and the theology of each church father, of each regional text such as fam. 13, or of each major recension such as the Caesarean text—especially where departures from the common text are notable" (16).		* "The NT text and the theology of each church father, of each regional text such as fam. 13, or of each major recension such as the Caesarean text—especially where departures from the common text are notable" (16).
			</onlyinclude>
	{{Endnotes sources}}		{{Endnotes sources}}

	<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->		<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->

The Great Apostasy

SpencerMarsh — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 22:15:19 GMT

Did Joseph Smith intend to restore a church?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:15, 11 August 2026
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3,146:		Line 3,146:

	The Restoration restored the ordinances and authority necessary for the salvation of all God’s children, including those who lived during periods when the fullness of the gospel was unavailable. Through Christ’s Atonement, missionary work in the spirit world, and temple ordinances performed on behalf of the dead, God provides every person with a fair opportunity to accept or reject the gospel.		The Restoration restored the ordinances and authority necessary for the salvation of all God’s children, including those who lived during periods when the fullness of the gospel was unavailable. Through Christ’s Atonement, missionary work in the spirit world, and temple ordinances performed on behalf of the dead, God provides every person with a fair opportunity to accept or reject the gospel.

			====Did Joseph Smith intend to restore a church?====
			Some Latter-day Saint scholars today doubt that Joseph Smith intended to restore the Church of Jesus Christ. The reasons for their doubt are not entirely clear, but they have encouraged Church members to rethink their use of the term.

			Latter-day Saint scholar Patrick Q. Mason, in his book ''Restoration: God's Call to the 21st-Century World'' (2020), notes that the term ''restored church'' does not appear in the Latter-day Saint canon of scripture.<ref>Patrick Q. Mason, ''Restoration: God's Call to the 21st-Century World'' (Faith Matters, 2020), 11–37.</ref> Latter-day Saint scholar Jason R. Combs explains, "When Latter-day Saints use that unscriptural phrase, ''restored church'', it should be understood as shorthand for the ''restorations'' the Doctrine and Covennats does address—namely, the bestowal of priesthood power, authority, and keys associated with making sacred covenants, establishing Zion (Moses 7:18), gathering scattered Israel on both sides of the veil (that is, in this life and beyond), and binding up all dispensations in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ."<ref>Jason R. Combs, "Introduction: Understanding Ancient Christians, Apostasy, and Restoration," in ''Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints'' ed. Jason R. Combs, Mark D. Ellison, Catherine Gines Taylor, and Kristian S. Heal (Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2022), 10.</ref> Combs also takes time to emphasize that the term ''great apostasy'' does not appear in the Latter-day Saint canon.<ref>Combs, "Introduction," 10.</ref>

			Combs says, "Moreover, the Lord could also say very positive things about ministers from other Christian churches (see Doctrine and Covenants 35:3–4; 39:7–8), and the Lord could speak of his [sic] 'church' already existing at the time that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was being established (see Doctrine and Covenants 5:14; 10:52–56, 67–69)."<ref>Combs, "Introduction," 11.</ref>

			Again, it is not entirely clear what motivation these scholars have for making this claim. Whatever their motivations are, it is clear that their claims cannot be sustained. In a famous canonized statement, God the Father told Joseph Smith that all the creeds of the denominations that existed at that time were an "abomination" (Joseph Smith-History 1:18–19).<ref>John W. Welch, “[https://rsc.byu.edu/prelude-restoration/all-their-creeds-were-abomination ‘All Their Creeds Were an Abomination’: A Brief Look at Creeds as Part of the Apostasy],” in ''Prelude to the Restoration: From Apostasy to the Restored Church'' (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University and Deseret Book, 2004), 228–49.</ref> Joseph Smith restored priesthood keys. He revealed that people who were baptized in another church could not count those baptisms as valid, and had to be rebaptized into the Lord's Church (Doctrine and Covenants 22). The Book of Mormon calls any other system that does not subscribe to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as revealed in the Book of Mormon, part of the church of the devil or the great and abominable church.

	====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====		====How Would We Know Whether the Church is in Apostasy Today?====

KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon

SpencerMarsh — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 19:54:40 GMT

Show changes

The Great Apostasy

SpencerMarsh — Sun, 09 Aug 2026 09:12:05 GMT

The Reformed View

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:12, 9 August 2026
Line 3,071:		Line 3,071:

	The Reformation view holds that Christianity experienced a significant falling away from original teachings and practices, particularly within medieval Catholicism, but not a complete apostasy in which Christ’s Church ceased to exist. Reformers believed God preserved the true faith through Scripture and faithful Christians, while Latter-day Saints argue that the loss of priesthood authority required a divine Restoration rather than merely a reform movement.		The Reformation view holds that Christianity experienced a significant falling away from original teachings and practices, particularly within medieval Catholicism, but not a complete apostasy in which Christ’s Church ceased to exist. Reformers believed God preserved the true faith through Scripture and faithful Christians, while Latter-day Saints argue that the loss of priesthood authority required a divine Restoration rather than merely a reform movement.

			One Protestant attempted to support her view of the limited Apostasy as follows:

			<blockquote>While the Mormon Church goes on to try to justify their reasons for rejecting the historic Christian faith by claiming that Christianity apostasized (fell away from the truth) after the death of the apostles, the Bible is clear that during the apostasy, only a few people would fall away from the faith. In 1 Timothy 4:1, the Bible says, “Not the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times, '''some shall depart''' from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”<ref>Christina R. Darlington, ''Misguided by Mormonism But Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Biblical Christianity'', 2nd ed. (n.p., 2019), 5. Emphasis in original.</ref></blockquote>

			There are two problems with this analysis.<ref>Robert S. Boylan, "Refuting Christina Darlington on 1 Timothy 4:1 and LDS Belief in the Great Apostasy," ''Scriptural Mormonism'', August 17, 2019, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2019/08/refuting-christina-darlington-on-1.html?m=1.</ref>

			# Biblical scholars agree that this verse is more aptly applied to the ''end times'' rather than the near future, i.e., the Apostasy.<ref>I Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, ''A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles'' (International Critical Commentary; T&T Clark International, 2004), 537.</ref>
			# The Greek word translated as "some," ''τινες'' (TEE-nehs), does not have the force of ''selecting a specific group''. Rather, it is an indefinite: "anyone."

	====Why Did God Allow the Great Apostasy to Happen?====		====Why Did God Allow the Great Apostasy to Happen?====

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:08, 25 August 2026
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 179:		Line 179:
	Lexicons (translators' dictionaries) that translators use today—and especially those dealing with ancient languages—are constantly evolving as new evidence about how words were used becomes available. The lexicons of today may not be the lexicons of tomorrow. Today's lexicons may find that a word has a meaning we didn't understand a decade ago.		Lexicons (translators' dictionaries) that translators use today—and especially those dealing with ancient languages—are constantly evolving as new evidence about how words were used becomes available. The lexicons of today may not be the lexicons of tomorrow. Today's lexicons may find that a word has a meaning we didn't understand a decade ago.

	This would mean that perceived translation errors today may not actually be translation errors, and we need to wait for more evidence. ~~Now, lexicons~~ of tomorrow will probably not change drastically since language evolution tends to be conservative. Different societies want to use unique words to distinguish between objects and concepts to enhance cooperation and efficiency in problem-solving.		This would mean that perceived translation errors today may not actually be translation errors, and we need to wait for more evidence. Lexicons of tomorrow will probably not change drastically since language evolution tends to be conservative. Different societies want to use unique words to distinguish between objects and concepts to enhance cooperation and efficiency in problem-solving. However, these facts should give us pause before we assume we know everything there is to know about how words were used anciently and thus whether any given claim of there being a translation error in the Book of Mormon is true.

	====We don't have the original manuscripts of the biblical text====		====We don't have the original manuscripts of the biblical text====
Line 299:		Line 299:
	\|\|Know how to speak a word in season		\|\|Know how to speak a word in season
	\|\|"The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should '''know how to speak a word in season''' to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/50-4.htm Bible Hub])		\|\|"The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should '''know how to speak a word in season''' to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/50-4.htm Bible Hub])
	\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Translation Variant.'''</span> Critic David P. Wright laughably asserts that "the underlying Hebrew is unintelligible" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV is likely wrong." This passage, according to Wright, "is apparently taking the word läcût to mean 'to speak/do in season.'" Yet again, Wright tells us that "[h]ow it is to be understood is not clear." Then he tells us that "[s]ome modern scholars, with hesitation, take the verb to mean 'to aid/help/succor.'"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|172–73.}} ~~Even this~~ is ~~part of~~ Wright's essay discussing KJV translation ''errors'' ''perpetuated'' in the Book of Mormon. As ~~such~~, it can only be considered a translation variant. Even with the wording as is, it clearly teaches that Isaiah's gift is to speak to the weary. That can only mean a form of succoring/aiding.		\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Translation Variant.'''</span> Critic David P. Wright laughably asserts that "the underlying Hebrew is unintelligible" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV is likely wrong." This passage, according to Wright, "is apparently taking the word läcût to mean 'to speak/do in season.'" Yet again, Wright tells us that "[h]ow it is to be understood is not clear." Then he tells us that "[s]ome modern scholars, with hesitation, take the verb to mean 'to aid/help/succor.'"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|172–73.}} It is hard to understand why Wright includes this in an essay discussing KJV translation ''errors'' ''perpetuated'' in the Book of Mormon. As the Hebrew is unintelligible, the translation can only be considered a translation variant. Even with the wording as is, it clearly teaches that Isaiah's gift is to speak to the weary. That can only mean a form of succoring or aiding.
	\|-style="vertical-align:top;"		\|-style="vertical-align:top;"
	\|7. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|51\|4}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|8\|4}}		\|7. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|51\|4}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|8\|4}}
Line 427:		Line 427:
	\|\|Carcases		\|\|Carcases
	\|\|"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their '''carcases''' were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-25.htm Bible Hub])		\|\|"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their '''carcases''' were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-25.htm Bible Hub])
	\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Diachronic Shift.'''</span> Wright asserts that the better translation is "their '''corpses''' were as refuse in the midst of the streets."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|170}} This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that the word "carcass" could refer to either animal or human remains at the time that the King James Bible was translated. After about the year 1750, it came to be used as a form of contempt for human remains.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Carcass."</ref> These usages fit perfectly within the context of Isaiah~~. This appears to be an attempt to find fault where there is none—a carcass and a corpse are the same thing~~.		\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Diachronic Shift.'''</span> Wright asserts that the better translation is "their '''corpses''' were as refuse in the midst of the streets."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|170}} This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that the word "carcass" could refer to either animal or human remains at the time that the King James Bible was translated. After about the year 1750, it came to be used as a form of contempt for human remains.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Carcass."</ref> These usages fit perfectly within the context of Isaiah.
	\|-~~style="vertical-align:top;"~~		\|-
	\|29. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|5\|25}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|15\|25}}		\|29. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|5\|25}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|15\|25}}
	\|\|Were torn		\|\|Were torn
Line 512:		Line 512:
	\|\|And; and they shall be driven		\|\|And; and they shall be driven
	\|\|"And they shall look unto the earth; '''and''' behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; '''and they shall be driven''' to darkness." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-22.htm Bible Hub])		\|\|"And they shall look unto the earth; '''and''' behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; '''and they shall be driven''' to darkness." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-22.htm Bible Hub])
	\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Translation Variant.'''</span> Critic David P. Wright curiously asserts that "[t]he Hebrew here is ... obscure" and then, in the same sentence, states that "the KJV offers an unlikely translation, especially of the last phrase." This is part of an essay dedicated to KJV ''errors'' in the Book of Mormon. He asks us to compare the KJV to the following translations: "or he may look below, but behold, distress and darkness, with no daybreak, straitness and gloom, with no dawn" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society'') and "then (he will look) down to the earth, there will be only anguish, gloom, the confusion of night, swirling darkness" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|171}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/8-22.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] render this verse as "driven" or "thrust" into thick darkness. The meaning of the underlying Hebrew is uncertain, according to scholar Marvin Sweeney.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp\|991nC}} Thus, this can only be considered a translation variant. The intent and overall meaning of the passage are not affected. The passage concerns Isaiah warning people not to practice necromancy as was often practiced (and condemned) in ancient Israel ({{s\|\|Isaiah\|19\|3}}; {{s\|\|Leviticus\|19\|31}}; {{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|18\|10-11}}). With the practice of necromancy, Israel will only see greater and greater darkness and distress as they call upon the dead thought to inhabit the shadow lands of the underworld. Whether they are "thrust" into darkness, "driven" into darkness, or look and see utter darkness with no break of day, makes little difference~~. This again looks like straining to find fault~~.		\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Translation Variant.'''</span> Critic David P. Wright curiously asserts that "[t]he Hebrew here is ... obscure" and then, in the same sentence, states that "the KJV offers an unlikely translation, especially of the last phrase." This is part of an essay dedicated to KJV ''errors'' in the Book of Mormon. He asks us to compare the KJV to the following translations: "or he may look below, but behold, distress and darkness, with no daybreak, straitness and gloom, with no dawn" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society'') and "then (he will look) down to the earth, there will be only anguish, gloom, the confusion of night, swirling darkness" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|171}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/8-22.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] render this verse as "driven" or "thrust" into thick darkness. The meaning of the underlying Hebrew is uncertain, according to scholar Marvin Sweeney.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp\|991nC}} Thus, this can only be considered a translation variant. The intent and overall meaning of the passage are not affected. The passage concerns Isaiah warning people not to practice necromancy as was often practiced (and condemned) in ancient Israel ({{s\|\|Isaiah\|19\|3}}; {{s\|\|Leviticus\|19\|31}}; {{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|18\|10-11}}). With the practice of necromancy, Israel will only see greater and greater darkness and distress as they call upon the dead thought to inhabit the shadow lands of the underworld. Whether they are "thrust" into darkness, "driven" into darkness, or look and see utter darkness with no break of day, makes little difference.
	\|-style="vertical-align:top;"		\|-style="vertical-align:top;"
	\|44. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|9\|1}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|19\|1}}		\|44. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|9\|1}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|19\|1}}
Line 599:		Line 599:
	\|\|Wild beasts		\|\|Wild beasts
	\|\|"And the '''wild beasts''' of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])		\|\|"And the '''wild beasts''' of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])
	\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Uncertain.'''</span> Jeremy Runnells asserts that the better translation would be something like either "howling beast," "jackal," or "hyena."<ref name="runnells1769" /> The word איים (aym) refers to a howling desert animal, and most translators seem to take that as a reference to either jackals or hyenas.<ref>Though [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm there are translations (mostly much older ones)] that take it as a reference to either sirens, cats, owls, dogs, or wolves.</ref> There is no evidence that jackals or hyenas were domesticated in ancient Israel. They have remained wild in most cultures. Thus, "wild" isn't truly an inaccurate translation here either. Even critic David Wright thinks that the passage is translated accurately as either "wild beasts" or "desert beasts."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|172}} The passage in the KJV already says that the wild beasts "shall cry" in desolate houses, so why "howling beast" needs to be added on top of "cry" is at least mildly uncertain. This is a case where the translation is, at best, not erroneous, and, at worst, just too broad. Certainly, there is no shift away from the intent of the passage~~. This also looks like straining to find fault~~.		\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Uncertain.'''</span> Jeremy Runnells asserts that the better translation would be something like either "howling beast," "jackal," or "hyena."<ref name="runnells1769" /> The word איים (aym) refers to a howling desert animal, and most translators seem to take that as a reference to either jackals or hyenas.<ref>Though [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm there are translations (mostly much older ones)] that take it as a reference to either sirens, cats, owls, dogs, or wolves.</ref> There is no evidence that jackals or hyenas were domesticated in ancient Israel. They have remained wild in most cultures. Thus, "wild" isn't truly an inaccurate translation here either. Even critic David Wright thinks that the passage is translated accurately as either "wild beasts" or "desert beasts."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp\|172}} The passage in the KJV already says that the wild beasts "shall cry" in desolate houses, so why "howling beast" needs to be added on top of "cry" is at least mildly uncertain. This is a case where the translation is, at best, not erroneous, and, at worst, just too broad. Certainly, there is no shift away from the intent of the passage.
	\|-style="vertical-align:top;"		\|-style="vertical-align:top;"
	\|59. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|13\|22}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|23\|22}}		\|59. {{s\|\|Isaiah\|13\|22}} ~ {{s\|2\|Nephi\|23\|22}}
Line 680:		Line 680:
	\|\|Chickens		\|\|Chickens
	\|\|"And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her '''chickens''' under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/23-37.htm Bible Hub])		\|\|"And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her '''chickens''' under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1611] \| [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1769] \| [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/23-37.htm Bible Hub])
	\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Diachronic Shift.'''</span> The ''CES Letter'' asserts that this is a translation error.<ref name="runnells1769" /> The author believes that it should be rendered "chicks." This isn't an error, but a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'' defines "chicken" as "[t]he young of fowls, particularly of the domestic hen, or gallinaceous fowls."<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828\|word=chicken}} </ref> The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' has examples from the 10th to the 16th centuries of "chicken" being used to designate "[t]he young of the domestic fowl [and] its flesh" as well as "the young of any bird."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Chicken."</ref> ~~This looks like seeking to find fault.~~		\|\|<span style="color:#7BB375">'''Diachronic Shift.'''</span> The ''CES Letter'' asserts that this is a translation error.<ref name="runnells1769" /> The author believes that it should be rendered "chicks." This isn't an error, but a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'' defines "chicken" as "[t]he young of fowls, particularly of the domestic hen, or gallinaceous fowls."<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828\|word=chicken}} </ref> The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' has examples from the 10th to the 16th centuries of "chicken" being used to designate "[t]he young of the domestic fowl [and] its flesh" as well as "the young of any bird."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Chicken."</ref>
	\|-style="vertical-align:top;"		\|-style="vertical-align:top;"
	\|74. {{s\|\|Matthew\|5\|15}} ~ {{s\|3\|Nephi\|12\|15}}		\|74. {{s\|\|Matthew\|5\|15}} ~ {{s\|3\|Nephi\|12\|15}}
Line 796:		Line 796:
	All the tabulated data above support the conclusion that the Book of Mormon, if indeed a translation of an ancient text, is a cultural and creative translation of that text. But why did God allow the translation errors?		All the tabulated data above support the conclusion that the Book of Mormon, if indeed a translation of an ancient text, is a cultural and creative translation of that text. But why did God allow the translation errors?

	The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God" and used the "Urim and Thummim."<ref>{{EJfairwiki\|author=Joseph Smith\|date=July 1838\|vol=1\|num=3\|start=42\|end=43}}</ref>		The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God" and that he used the "Urim and Thummim."<ref>{{EJfairwiki\|author=Joseph Smith\|date=July 1838\|vol=1\|num=3\|start=42\|end=43}}</ref>

	We have [[Question: Was every word of the Book of Mormon translation provided directly from God?\|some of the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith]]. The Lord speaks to His servants "after the manner of their language that they may come to understanding" according to the Doctrine & Covenants ({{s\|\|Doctrine & Covenants\|1\|24}}). That same idea is confirmed in {{s\|2\|Nephi\|31\|3}}. He can even use error for His own holy, higher purposes. The formal theological term for this idea is "accommodation." [[Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?\|The wiki page on the nature of prophetic revelation]] discusses this idea from a Latter-day Saint point of view. God can accommodate erroneous translations and even perspectives for higher, holier objectives. That should be comforting to us—the Lord accommodates His perfection to our weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.		We have [[Question: Was every word of the Book of Mormon translation provided directly from God?\|some of the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith]]. The Lord speaks to His servants "after the manner of their language that they may come to understanding" according to the Doctrine & Covenants ({{s\|\|Doctrine & Covenants\|1\|24}}). That same idea is confirmed in {{s\|2\|Nephi\|31\|3}}. He can even use error for His own holy, higher purposes. The formal theological term for this idea is "accommodation." [[Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?\|The wiki page on the nature of prophetic revelation]] discusses this idea from a Latter-day Saint point of view. God can accommodate erroneous translations and even perspectives for higher, holier objectives. That should be comforting to us—the Lord accommodates His perfection to our weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.