Dumbing Down

Following on from my previous post bemoaning the ongoing dumbing down in some Christian circles (see also Thinking about Thinking) I found this excellent quote that sums up very well the problems that arise when we treat people as incapable of understanding as we understand, in this instance in relation to the dumbing down of language.

"It is easy to choose to dumb down when you are suitably equipped with all the skills and tools you need to navigate your way around the language. What tends to be forgotten is that those who are 'dumbed down' to, have no choice but to take the educational mane that is offered them. Those encouraged to take this inferior educational diet will never hope to achieve the literacy skills that their 'dumbing down' masters already possess. To sum up, a student once said to me,: 'I want to know what you know.'"

(Anonymous quote from a former teacher, cited in John Humphrys' book, Lost for Words, Hodder & Staughton, 2004)

If we are not prepared to share fully with others what we know and continue to learn guess what? They will go elsewhere and find substance without truth, satisfaction without a Saviour and challenge without the change of the new birth.

Why Jesus is no Mate of Mine

At the end of the morning service we all stood to sing that familiar favourite from the inspired pen of Isaac Watts, When I Survey the Wondrous Cross. I like these old hymns as much as anything for the opportunity they give to sing some serious notes and get some air into my lungs. Whether you are a Christian believer or not their majesty, grandeur and the sheer poetry are surely striking. Imagine then my confusion when we got to the third verse which, on the overhead screen, read:

“Were the whole realm of nature mine,

That were a present far too small”

Present?

The original reads “That were an offering far too small”. Fortunately most of the congregation knew this and stuck to the original words of a much-loved and familiar hymn. It seems such a small thing but as my wife and I discussed it we realised that this one word change had altered the whole meaning of the line and robbed it of its power and clarity.

Someone has sat in a room somewhere and decided, “I could make this easier to understand”. Now I am not against making the message more accessible but this is a classic example of the dumbing down of the Christian faith. There are two problems with this dreadful trend and the first is perfectly illustrated in this hymn.

Loss of meaning

In their effort to make this hymn accessible and easier to understand whoever has done this thing has achieved the opposite. A “present” is a gift while an offering is a sacrifice. The hymn writer is talking about the sacrifice of all we have and are to the God we worship. It is not a gift that we give to show affection and enrich the life of the recipient but an offering that we make to show our worship and devotion to the God who saved us.

A further example of this inappropriate simplifying of a text is in John 3:16, the most famous summary of the gospel in the Bible. Many modern translations describe Jesus in this verse as:

God’s “only Son” (ESV, GNB, NCB)

God’s “one and only Son” (NIV)

But the Bible actually says that Jesus is God’s “only begotten Son” (gk.monogenēs). All who are born of God, or “born from above” (Jn.3:3) become God’s adopted children (Ro.8:23). Nevertheless, we are none of us sons in the way that Jesus is “the only begotten Son”. The distinction is vital and is best understood by considering the Nicene formula for describing the nature of Jesus in relation to God the Father:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being...

This is not a nice distinction but a fundamental one and it is important to maintain it. We are sons by adoption while Jesus is God’s Son by very nature, “begotten not made, of one substance with the Father”. Not all translations blur the distinction and the KJV refers to Jesus as the “only-begotten Son”, as does the NKJV and the NASB. A better understanding of church history would surely have made this revisionist think twice before changing such a fundamental phrase.

In the earliest days of the church, after the apostles, men worked and sacrificed risking exile and worst to establish and maintain the distinction that today is almost universally understood to identify Jesus as God’s “only begotten Son”. This one definition helped prevent us believing today the heresy of the Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding the nature of the Son.

Then there is the children’s song from which I got the title of this post. In the song Jesus is referred to as “my mate” [thumbs up because it is an action song] and I can’t help but cringe on hearing it. Again, the intention is honest enough, that is to have children realise that in Jesus they have a friend but there is a fine line between friendship and familiarity and, all-too-often these days, young people are encouraged to cross that line as Jesus is portrayed as this perennially indulgent, avuncular character who comes into your life and makes everything better. A sort of “don’t worry, be happy” pal who is always ready to come out to play, fight all your battles and make your life one long journey of good experiences.

But he is God! He is our Creator! He is our Saviour! And one day he will be our Judge! What are we teaching our young people; to stand in awe and wonder or to stand in line for another blessing because after all he’s our mate?

Loss of Learning

Another victim of this process is the loss of learning in the Christian community. Graphic Bibles are commonplace now and recently we saw news of a Manga Bible. I know pastors who routinely use paraphrase Bibles and even try to find alternatives to Bible reading to “communicate” the message of Christianity because “young people don’t read these days”. But how do they get to pass exams, get jobs and make their way in life without hitting the books? Part of the process of communicating the faith is the practice of teaching and educating.

I can see how people might think that any means of bringing souls to a knowledge and experience of Jesus has to be a good thing and that anything that makes the process easier and the message more accessible might be used. This “all things to all men” approach is flawed however because we come to faith through the knowledge of God and once having come to faith we are meant to grow in faith and that means growing in the knowledge of God.

Contrary to what appears to be believed, especially by the extreme charismatic end of the church, knowledge is not always gained by experiences of God’s immanence; visions, pictures, prophecies and epiphanies; that “I know because I know” sort of knowledge. It is gained by faithful reading and seeking after understanding of God’s word in Scripture.

It is not wrong to seek more contemporary ways to express the truth but it is also our responsibility to challenge people to understand the difficult words, the hard sayings and to grasp the more demanding concepts – the meat of the gospel. If we don’t, we will continue to have generations of believers who should be teachers but who still need teaching (Heb.5:12) and I know too many of them. We shouldn’t be spoon feeding them, we should be providing them with reliable tools of exegesis and setting them to the task of having Scripture make them wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim.3:15)

We often hear the complaint that the world is dumbing down. If the world is dumbing down then we need to teach our young people to wise up!

A Word can Change your World

Language is a powerful weapon. The ancients knew this and some societies put such great store by it that they wouldn’t even commit it to writing. Enormous feats of memory were developed to pass on the stories of the community from one generation to another and in such communities writing was regarded with great suspicion, as placing your story at the disposal of your enemies. If it could be written it could be owned by others and altered.

In those societies where writing developed and oral traditions were committed to writing the people guarded their written texts as their greatest treasures, copying them with meticulous attention to detail. The ancient texts of the Bible were copied with careful and detailed checking and correction and modern archaeological discoveries confirm the incredible accuracy of modern translations when compared with recent discoveries of ancient texts. It is little wonder since a word can change your world or worldview. One word change can reverse entirely the meaning of a text. Take the familiar John 3:16:

“For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish” (NASB)

One word change can turn a message of hope into one of despair:

“For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should perish”

Or consider that well-known text from Paul’s letter to Christians in Rome:

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Ro.8:1)

One word change can bring us up short and cause us to question the message of the Bible:

“There is therefore now much condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”

In light of the above, one would have expected Mormons to take more seriously the recent change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon. Where once the Introduction reflected the traditional Mormon view that, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

Inevitably, and sadly it seems to me, much has been made in informal discussion about the fact that the introduction was written in 1981 by Bruce R McConkie who is now routinely seen as someone who got a lot of things wrong. That doesn’t, of course, stop the church citing him as an authority in their manuals and magazines when it suits them. When he wrote the Introduction, of course, he was singularly orthodox, reflecting the firmly held view at the time that had been taught by Mormon leaders since Joseph Smith. A Mormon correspondent wrote:

I think there's good thought in this comment:
"I have always felt free to disavow the language of the [Book of Mormon's] introduction, footnotes and dictionary, which are not part of the canonical scripture," said Barney, on the board of FAIR, a Mormon apologist group. "These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."

It is true that the introduction to the Book of Mormon was only introduced in 1981 and is not "Holy Writ" as defined by Mormons [or is it? see below]. It is not true that it has no more significance than a casual commentary that can be adopted and dismissed as it pleases Mormons and I will explain why.

The 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon was published under the name of the church. The copyright of the book is attributed to the first presidency of the church. They officially put their name to something that has been true since the earliest days of the church but, according to the latest orthodoxy, is no longer true. They have affirmed what is ultimately and by their own admission false and they have misled their followers, their missionaries and those they presume to teach the truth regarding the "true history" of the Book of Mormon and its peoples.

What Missionaries Teach

I have a copy of the missionary discussions, 1986 edition, and on the second page missionaries are instructed to use the relatively new Introduction in teaching their investigators about the Book of Mormon. Again on page fourteen missionaries were instructed:

“Show the investigators a copy of the Book of Mormon. You might show them some of the features (such as the title page, the introduction and testimonies, the table of contents, the chapter headings, the index). You might also share with them one or two passages that are most meaningful to you.”

This shows the legitimacy the Mormon Church then gave, not only to the Introduction but to all the other features now dismissed as a gloss on the text, giving them the same authority as the testimonies of the three and eight witnesses.

On page 15 missionaries were instructed:

“To help you begin reading the Book of Mormon, we suggest that you read a few selected passages by our next visit. We suggest the Introduction (including the testimonies and the brief explanations of the plates), Moroni 10:3-5, and 3 Nephi 11.”

Here the Introduction is given the same significance as Moroni's promise.

More significantly, in the most recent missionary guide, Preach my Gospel, copyright 2004, missionaries are directed on page 39 to "briefly review the contents" of the Book of Mormon:

“Scripture Study
Title page of the Book of Mormon
Introduction to the Book of Mormon Paragraphs 1-7 [ NB which include the claim in question about the Lamanites being the "principal" ancestors of the American Indians]
D&C 1:17-23; 20:5-12
Joseph Smith-History 1:27-64”

Now the Introduction is introduced within a list of "Scripture Study" texts and on a par with the title page and the Doctrine and Covenants! The Introduction is regularly used as an aid to teaching people "the truth" about Mormonism and the ancient inhabitants of America. Now that "truth" is rejected and those who challenged it are mocked for being so foolish as to take the claims of the Mormon Church so seriously. I think we get the message. The question is, do the Mormons?

But all this shouldn’t surprise us I suppose when we consider the Mormon attitude to Scripture. Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon as “the most correct book of any book on earth”. The title page of the book states, “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men". How do you think "most correct" and, "if there are faults they are the mistakes of men", compare with 2 Timothy 3:16:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"

A Christian sees in the Bible God's all-sufficient provision for equipping thoroughly every Christian for kingdom living. Mormons, on the other hand, seem to be full of excuses for their not-altogether-reliable modern revelation, ready to admit faults and declare their Scriptures correct only by comparison, i.e. "most correct" rather than thoroughly reliable because "God-breathed". One I spoke to even insisted that the title page of the Book of Mormon is, like the introduction, nothing more than a gloss on the text. This, however, is plainly not true as shown in Joseph Smith’s own words:

“I wish also to mention here, that the title page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated; the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that, said title page is not by any means a modern composition either of mine or of any other man’s who has lived or does live in this generation.”
(Joseph Smith Jr., Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, No. 24, p. 943)

If this statement was appended to the Book of Mormon, on a page just left from the Title Page, that says , “Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the House of Israel…” It would clear the issue if someone should have any questions about how Joseph Smith viewed the Lamanites/American Indians.

Every LDS president from Joseph Smith to Gordon Hinckley has made written statements that American Indians are Hebrews/Israelites. The Title page, which we are told was part of the original on gold plates, says that Lamanites (not just a few or some of them), without exception, are Israelites. DNA testing has proven that they are NOT Israelites. There has not been even one single American Indian found that is connected to Abraham and his descendents!

I press my point again, i.e. that the doctrine that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the American Indians, was routinely taught throughout the history of the church, and even in the 2004 Missionary Guide this thought is pressed into service in convincing people that the Book of Mormon is true. As it has been said by their leaders, if the Book of Mormon is not true then the church is not true.

One final point worth noting is that the Introduction declares that the Book of Mormon, "contains, as does the Bible, the fullness (sic) of the everlasting gospel". Christian apologists with an interest in reaching Mormons have been pointing out for years that, if the Bible contains the everlasting gospel as does the Book of Mormon (you see it works this way around as well), then what need have we for the Book of Mormon.

A good friend in Germany has pointed out that the new German edition of the Book of Mormon omits the words "as does the Bible". Clearly, the Bible has contained the fullness from 1981 until 2006 but has mysteriously become less reliable, at least for Germans. But it seems to still be true for the rest of us! A word can change your world and the world of Mormonism has changed again.

A Word can Change your World

Language is a powerful weapon. The ancients knew this and some societies put such great store by it that they wouldn’t even commit it to writing. Enormous feats of memory were developed to pass on the stories of the community from one generation to another and in such communities writing was regarded with great suspicion, as placing your story at the disposal of your enemies. If it could be written it could be owned by others and altered.

In those societies where writing developed and oral traditions were committed to writing the people guarded their written texts as their greatest treasures, copying them with meticulous attention to detail. The ancient texts of the Bible were copied with careful and detailed checking and correction and modern archaeological discoveries confirm the incredible accuracy of modern translations when compared with recent discoveries of ancient texts. It is little wonder since a word can change your world or worldview. One word change can reverse entirely the meaning of a text. Take the familiar John 3:16:

“For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish” (NASB)

One word change can turn a message of hope into one of despair:

“For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should perish”

Or consider that well-known text from Paul’s letter to Christians in Rome:

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Ro.8:1)

One word change can bring us up short and cause us to question the message of the Bible:

“There is therefore now much condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”

In light of the above, one would have expected Mormons to take more seriously the recent change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon. Where once the Introduction reflected the traditional Mormon view that, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

Inevitably, and sadly it seems to me, much has been made in informal discussion about the fact that the introduction was written in 1981 by Bruce R McConkie who is now routinely seen as someone who got a lot of things wrong. That doesn’t, of course, stop the church citing him as an authority in their manuals and magazines when it suits them. When he wrote the Introduction, of course, he was singularly orthodox, reflecting the firmly held view at the time that had been taught by Mormon leaders since Joseph Smith. A Mormon correspondent wrote:

I think there's good thought in this comment:
"I have always felt free to disavow the language of the [Book of Mormon's] introduction, footnotes and dictionary, which are not part of the canonical scripture," said Barney, on the board of FAIR, a Mormon apologist group. "These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."

It is true that the introduction to the Book of Mormon was only introduced in 1981 and is not "Holy Writ" as defined by Mormons [or is it? see below]. It is not true that it has no more significance than a casual commentary that can be adopted and dismissed as it pleases Mormons and I will explain why.

The 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon was published under the name of the church. The copyright of the book is attributed to the first presidency of the church. They officially put their name to something that has been true since the earliest days of the church but, according to the latest orthodoxy, is no longer true. They have affirmed what is ultimately and by their own admission false and they have misled their followers, their missionaries and those they presume to teach the truth regarding the "true history" of the Book of Mormon and its peoples.

What Missionaries Teach

I have a copy of the missionary discussions, 1986 edition, and on the second page missionaries are instructed to use the relatively new Introduction in teaching their investigators about the Book of Mormon. Again on page fourteen missionaries were instructed:

“Show the investigators a copy of the Book of Mormon. You might show them some of the features (such as the title page, the introduction and testimonies, the table of contents, the chapter headings, the index). You might also share with them one or two passages that are most meaningful to you.”

This shows the legitimacy the Mormon Church then gave, not only to the Introduction but to all the other features now dismissed as a gloss on the text, giving them the same authority as the testimonies of the three and eight witnesses.

On page 15 missionaries were instructed:

“To help you begin reading the Book of Mormon, we suggest that you read a few selected passages by our next visit. We suggest the Introduction (including the testimonies and the brief explanations of the plates), Moroni 10:3-5, and 3 Nephi 11.”

Here the Introduction is given the same significance as Moroni's promise.

More significantly, in the most recent missionary guide, Preach my Gospel, copyright 2004, missionaries are directed on page 39 to "briefly review the contents" of the Book of Mormon:

“Scripture Study
Title page of the Book of Mormon
Introduction to the Book of Mormon Paragraphs 1-7 [ NB which include the claim in question about the Lamanites being the "principal" ancestors of the American Indians]
D&C 1:17-23; 20:5-12
Joseph Smith-History 1:27-64”

Now the Introduction is introduced within a list of "Scripture Study" texts and on a par with the title page and the Doctrine and Covenants! The Introduction is regularly used as an aid to teaching people "the truth" about Mormonism and the ancient inhabitants of America. Now that "truth" is rejected and those who challenged it are mocked for being so foolish as to take the claims of the Mormon Church so seriously. I think we get the message. The question is, do the Mormons?

But all this shouldn’t surprise us I suppose when we consider the Mormon attitude to Scripture. Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon as “the most correct book of any book on earth”. The title page of the book states, “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men". How do you think "most correct" and, "if there are faults they are the mistakes of men", compare with 2 Timothy 3:16:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"

A Christian sees in the Bible God's all-sufficient provision for equipping thoroughly every Christian for kingdom living. Mormons, on the other hand, seem to be full of excuses for their not-altogether-reliable modern revelation, ready to admit faults and declare their Scriptures correct only by comparison, i.e. "most correct" rather than thoroughly reliable because "God-breathed". One I spoke to even insisted that the title page of the Book of Mormon is, like the introduction, nothing more than a gloss on the text. This, however, is plainly not true as shown in Joseph Smith’s own words:

“I wish also to mention here, that the title page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated; the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that, said title page is not by any means a modern composition either of mine or of any other man’s who has lived or does live in this generation.”
(Joseph Smith Jr., Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, No. 24, p. 943)

If this statement was appended to the Book of Mormon, on a page just left from the Title Page, that says , “Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the House of Israel…” It would clear the issue if someone should have any questions about how Joseph Smith viewed the Lamanites/American Indians.

Every LDS president from Joseph Smith to Gordon Hinckley has made written statements that American Indians are Hebrews/Israelites. The Title page, which we are told was part of the original on gold plates, says that Lamanites (not just a few or some of them), without exception, are Israelites. DNA testing has proven that they are NOT Israelites. There has not been even one single American Indian found that is connected to Abraham and his descendents!

I press my point again, i.e. that the doctrine that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the American Indians, was routinely taught throughout the history of the church, and even in the 2004 Missionary Guide this thought is pressed into service in convincing people that the Book of Mormon is true. As it has been said by their leaders, if the Book of Mormon is not true then the church is not true.

One final point worth noting is that the Introduction declares that the Book of Mormon, "contains, as does the Bible, the fullness (sic) of the everlasting gospel". Christian apologists with an interest in reaching Mormons have been pointing out for years that, if the Bible contains the everlasting gospel as does the Book of Mormon (you see it works this way around as well), then what need have we for the Book of Mormon.

A good friend in Germany has pointed out that the new German edition of the Book of Mormon omits the words "as does the Bible". Clearly, the Bible has contained the fullness from 1981 until 2006 but has mysteriously become less reliable, at least for Germans. But it seems to still be true for the rest of us! A word can change your world and the world of Mormonism has changed again.

Integrity without God is Hypocrisy

After a week of incredible and breathtaking scandal in the British Parliament and with recriminations flying, calls for resignations, and a mad scramble for the moral high ground I find my thoughts turning to a familiar Bible theme. There are significant parallels it seems to me between the way politicians have been behaving and the conduct of the Pharisees in the New Testament. The problem in each case is the same; “integrity” without God is hypocrisy.

The Pharisees fall into the category of religious and cultural purists fighting against long-standing efforts to reconcile Hebrew religion with Greek philosophy. Aiming for integrity in your faith is a noble thing but it can become religion for religion’s sake and this is what happened to the otherwise noble Pharisees. They defined and enforced their religion to the extreme, hedging it about with endless laws and regulations designed to ensure strict adherence.

This led inevitably to both strange and cruel interpretations and applications of the law as well as widespread abuses. They insisted, for instance, that on the Sabbath a man may spit on rocky ground but not on soft earth because it may make a furrow and that would constitute ploughing. Individuals found technicalities that allowed them to condemn others while excusing themselves. Famously, while the Law of Moses commanded that children should “honour your father and your mother” there was a technicality that allowed a man to absolve himself of any responsibility for his parents by declaring his money and property a gift to the temple. He wouldn’t actually have to part with any property, just pronounce it “Corban” or dedicated and then live off it with the declared intention of one day giving it to the temple and meanwhile no longer bearing any filial responsibility.

Their real problems started when they ran up against the One who gave the Law and found his standards and expectations very different from their own. Jesus made them look bad when they were working so hard to do good as they saw it. In Matthew 12 we see what happened when the ones who interpreted the Law came up against the One who gave the Law.

In this passage we read that, “Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, ‘Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath” To the Pharisees Jesus’ disciples were ‘harvesting’ wheat and thus breaking the Sabbath; to Jesus they were hungry men being practical about meeting their needs. “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” Jesus said.

As Jesus went into the synagogue they seemed to have a man with a withered hand there already set up to entrap him. “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath”, they asked, clearly looking for an excuse to accuse and condemn him on the basis of the law. But Jesus replied, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep?” The man was duly healed.

Finally, we see Jesus heal a demon-oppressed blind and mute man. Determined now to not be impressed the Pharisees ascribed the miracle to Satan and accused Jesus of serving Satan. Of course, Jesus response was again perfect reason; if Satan casts out Satan then Satan is divided against himself. What was worse however was their denial of the power of the Holy Spirit, a show of their total opposition now to what Jesus had clearly and consistently demonstrated was of God; the sin against the Holy Spirit.

The aims of the Pharisees were noble, that is, to serve Israel by maintaining a pure religion but their means of achieving this end were heartless, putting their rules before God and the outcome was a disaster because, as Jesus said, their rules demanded sacrifice but allowed no mercy. They sought to serve the God of mercy by becoming a merciless religious regime.

In the same way, our politicians have set out, most of them, with the best of intentions, to serve the community in which they live and represent them in Parliament. However, they have, over generations, drafted rules for themselves that are politically convenient and interpreted without any moral compass but in ways that simply “apply” the rules. This has led to widespread abuse and, like the young man who absolves himself of any responsibility for his parents by “sticking to the rules” of Corban, they too easily declare themselves as acting within the law while ignoring entirely their original purpose to serve the wider community.

Like mercy, morality cannot be legislated; you are either merciful or you are not; either a man or woman of good moral standing or you are not. It depends I suppose on who and what influences you. This week has shown that neither mercy nor morality is ultimately attainable without God. Men and women when left to their own devices might entertain the best of intentions declaring themselves prepared to make any sacrifice to serve the community but without God such intentions and such service will lack both mercy and morality because without God everything is relative and everyone will do what seems right to them at the time.

We should pray for our leaders and for our country that the good and the godly will rise up and demonstrate service that is truly sacrificial and that is informed by both mercy and integrity that can only come from the God who is both merciful and true to his word.

Is the Book of Mormon “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”?

In the early 1980’s at the instigation of Gordon B. Hinckley, The Book of Mormon became The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Most people today, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, would be unaware that it was ever any other way. To Mormons at the time this marked a welcome clarification that their faith is centred on Jesus Christ. It also served to strengthen in the public mind the claim that Mormonism is restored Christianity.

‘Another Testament’ implies another of the same kind and conjures in people’s minds thoughts of the original “testaments” to which this ‘other’ testament clearly alludes. We have already seen that the Book of Mormon is described as “a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible”. It takes no great imagination, therefore, to make the connection thus, Old Testament, New Testament, Another Testament and of course this is exactly the train of thought the Mormon Church wants us to follow. But is the Book of Mormon another of the same kind?

The word testament comes from the Latin testamentum. The Latin Bible comprises the Vetus Testamentum and the Novum Testamentum, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Greek for testament is diathéké and the Greek Bible comprises the hépalaia diathéké and the hé kainé diathéké. The Latin testamentum and the Greek diathéké in the biblical context both mean covenant, as in a solemn and binding agreement between two parties. The New Testament can then be called the collection of the books of the New Covenant. This is borne out in some key New Testament passages:

“This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant [testament, KJV] in my blood” (Luke 22:20, ESV)

“He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor.3:6,NIV)

The new “covenant” is established in the pouring out of Jesus’ blood and those who minister the gospel are ministers of this new “covenant”. And in Galatians 4 we have a clear picture of the old covenant, which is “from Mount Sinai and bears children who are slaves”, and the new covenant whose children are “children of promise”. The Old Testament is the old covenant, which is of the law and which brings slavery and the New Testament is the new covenant which is of the Spirit and which brings freedom in Christ.

Given that we now have in The Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus Christ it seems appropriate to ask what the nature of this other covenant is.

Of course, any Mormon challenged with such a question would readily explain that they mean testimony, not covenant. The Book of Mormon is another testimony of Jesus Christ. But can testament mean testimony? Yes it can and according to Webster’s third New International Dictionary one definition of testament is, “a tangible proof or tribute: EVIDENCE, WITNESS…an expression of conviction: AFFIRMATION, CREDO…”

But given this definition of testament can we say, as we are clearly meant to believe, that The Book of Mormon is “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”, i.e. another of the same kind as the first two testaments? Having led us by that word “another” to think of the other testaments of our Christian experience, the Old and New Testaments, it seems reasonable to understand testament in the full biblical sense. In the Bible testament means covenant. The Old Testament is the old covenant whilst the New Testament is the new covenant “in my blood”. The Old Testament is not the Old Testimony and neither is the New Testament the New Testimony.

Again we have here an example of Mormon doublespeak. It is clear that the addition of “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” to the title of the Book of Mormon is designed to help people associate the Book of Mormon with the Bible, i.e. the Old Testament, the New Testament, and Another Testament. It is clear from the introduction to the Book of Mormon that this other testament is meant to be viewed as “a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible”. Yet the Mormon word testament means testimony while the biblical word testament means covenant. Once again, an attempt on the part of the Mormon Church to appear orthodox, when closely examined, shows anything but an orthodox, Bible-based religion.

In the June 2000 Ensign Gordon B Hinckley was quoted as saying of the Book of Mormon:

“Believe in the Book of Mormon as another witness of the Son of God. This book has come forth as an added testimony to the world of the great truths concerning the Master as set forth in the Bible. The Bible is the Testament of the Old World. The Book of Mormon is the Testament of the New World, and they go hand in hand in testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ensign. June 2000, pp.18/19)

But this is an abuse of the language used to describe the Bible. In consulting Vine’s Expository Dictionary we found the following simple entry under the word Testament:

For TESTAMENT see COVENANT

Easton's Bible Dictionary helpfully clarifies the NT use of the word:

Testament: occurs twelve times in the New Testament (Heb. 9:15, etc.) as the rendering of the Gr. diatheke, which is twenty times rendered "covenant" in the Authorized Version, and always so in the Revised Version. The Vulgate translates incorrectly by testamentum, whence the names "Old" and "New Testament," by which we now designate the two sections into which the Bible is divided.

Nave's Topical Bible gave the following information:

TESTAMENT: A will: Heb 9:16-18

The new: Mt 26:28; Mr 14:24; Lu 22:20; 1Co 11:25

See COVENANT

Testament occurs in the following verses in the NT:

Mat 26:28; Mar 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1Cr 11:25; 2Cr 3:6; 2Cr 3:14; Heb 7:22;

Heb 9:15; Heb 9:16; Heb 9:17; Heb 9:18; Heb 9:20; Rev 11:19 .

We will look at four key verses:

Matt.26:28 and Luke 22:20 recount how the Lord, the night before he died, “took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new Covenant (testament) in my blood”.

1 Cor. 11:25 is Paul’s account of that same event, an account he claims he “received from the Lord” (v.23) in which he repeats the words, “This cup is the new covenant (testament) in my blood”.

2 Cor. 3:6 is Paul’s account of his ministry wherein he refers to himself and his companions as “competent as ministers of a new covenant (testament)…”

In each instance the Greek word used is diatheke which commentators already quoted translate covenant. Interestingly, there is an instance in Revelation where Jesus himself uses the word testimony in its true meaning (Rev:22:16). The Greek word used here is martureo which means to testify. The Old Testament, therefore, is the Old diatheke, the New Testament the New diatheke. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand is no diatheke but a martureo, and cannot, then be another Testament. Furthermore, whatever it testifies to it is not complimentary to the Bible but clearly contradicts it.

Does the Book of Mormon Contain the Fullness of the Gospel?

Anyone looking at the Book of Mormon for the first time today may also find a bookmark inside the front cover directing the reader to key references, including Christ’s alleged visit to America, Moroni’s ubiquitous promise - and the introduction. A relatively recent addition to the Book of Mormon, the Introduction explains that “The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible…”

Noteworthy is the statement at the very beginning of the introduction that The Book of Mormon “is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.” Perhaps you want to read that again. The introduction to the Book of Mormon declares that the Bible contains “the fulness of the everlasting gospel”. The significance of this statement might be lost on those who do not understand that Mormonism claims to be a restored religion. It is a fundamental “truth” of Mormonism that the plain and simple truths, the “fulness” of the gospel, were substantially lost after the death of the apostles. The religion of Joseph Smith was a restoration of those truths.

The Book of Mormon itself says of the Bible:

1 Nephi 13

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book [the Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God…

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away…

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.

A promise is made later in the same chapter that these plain and precious truths, which had been lost through the corruption of the great and abominable church, would be restored:

35 For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious [The Book of Mormon]; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb [through Joseph Smith].

38 And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren [the Lamanites, or American Indians].

39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.

40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records [The Book of Mormon], which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first [The Bible], which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved. (words in [square brackets] and italics added)

The following is taken from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism under ‘J’ for Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible:

A somewhat parallel statement [to that in 1 Nephi 13] came to Joseph Smith in June 1830 while he was restoring a revelation received by Moses, declaring that many things would be taken "from the book" which Moses would write, but that the missing information would be restored through another prophet and thus be "had again" among those who believe (Moses 1:41). Latter-day Saints believe that the "other records" referred to include the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the JST, and other records still to come forth, and that the prophet divinely raised up to begin restoring the lost material is Joseph Smith (see Scriptures: Forthcoming Scriptures). In light of the foregoing statements, it is worth observing that the principal difficulty in the Bible apparently has been omissions. The remaining text may be generally correct in itself, but many important doctrinal items (resulting from the loss of a single word, a verse, a longer passage, or even whole books in some instances) are now missing. (Words in [square brackets] and italics added]

Now if the Bible contains the “fulness of the everlasting gospel” what exactly did Joseph restore? In the introduction to the Book of Mormon we have a message which declares that the Bible contains the fulness of the gospel while at same time declaring that the Book of Mormon is a restoration of the fulness of the gospel. Matters are further complicated by the fact that much of what we would today recognise as Mormonism is not to be found either in the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

The Mormon Church would claim that revelation is progressive in nature and that “further light and knowledge” is one of the benefits of having modern prophets. In other words further restoration work as described in the above quote. This leaves us with a picture of the fulness of the gospel being consistently available in the Bible, being restored through the Book of Mormon, though it was never missing, and being topped up by modern revelation, though we had the fulness of the gospel all along. How did the restoration of “plain and precious truths” come to be so confusing?

Of Course we Believe the Bible!

In an attempt to appear orthodox and align themselves with the mainstream Christian churches the Mormon Church must embrace the book that everyone associates with the Christian faith, the Bible. Having started a religion that is based on an unreliable Bible they have realised what a liability they have in a message that distrusts the Bible and prefers the Book of Mormon. In Mormonism the Bible is the only book of scripture that is not viewed as wholly reliable. Just look at their eighth article of faith:

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.”

However, this idea cannot be allowed to enter into the perceptions of the world “out there” before there has been an opportunity to “explain” the Mormon position on the Bible.

This is nowhere better illustrated than in the experience of a friend of mine who met several times with Mormon missionaries. On their first visit he set out to establish their attitude to the Bible, declaring, “I am a Christian and trust the Bible as the fully reliable word of God. I have been told that Mormons are not Christians and do not fully trust the Bible”. Their reply was an unequivocal endorsement of the Bible and they promised that they took exactly the same view as my friend.

Several meetings later, frustrated at not being able to deal with the Bible verses my friend used to challenge what they were teaching, they declared the Bible to be unreliable and corrupt, “translated incorrectly”. Challenged to square this with their first declaration of full trust in the Bible they struggled to hold two contradictory thoughts in their minds at the same time. On the one hand the “official” stand before the world is that Mormons trust the Bible, on the other the true position is that the Bible is only reliable “as far as it is translated correctly”.

The average Mormon’s knowledge of translation-work generally and how we got our Bible in particular, is woefully inadequate. They fall back on the myths manufactured by the Mormon Church and trust that their leaders are keeping them reliably informed. The truth is that the popular Mormon account of Bible translation work is embarrassingly fanciful and is designed with a built in prejudice against the Bible and for the restored gospel of Joseph Smith. A common Mormon explanation of how we got our Bible is that it is “a translation of a translation of a translation…” Each generation is seen as a translation of a previous translation, a truly ridiculous notion and easily refuted but still fondly adhered to by Mormons the world over.

Using this flawed reasoning Mormonism leads people to believe that modern translations of the Bible are merely paraphrases of previous Bibles, subject to the fads and prejudices of translators. The following is again taken from the same section of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The official position of the Church is stated in its eighth article of faith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." The message of the Bible is held to be true, while details of accuracy and completeness are accepted within certain limits. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained: "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" (TPJS, p. 327). And again, "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (TPJS, pp. 9-10). (Italics added)

And the following was written by Mormon apostle Orson Pratt:

The Bible has been robbed of its plainness; many sacred books having been lost…and what few we have left, were copied and re-copied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to that degree that scarcely any two of them read alike. (The Seer, p.213, 1854)

The very process of translation is seen as having a corrupting effect, the more modern the Bible, the more times it has been translated, the more corrupt the text. Thus the Bible is explained away. Not wanting the world to know this they are happy to declare that the Bible contains “the fulness of the everlasting gospel”. Having gained a hearing by presenting themselves as Bible believing Christians who simply have more to offer, they can then proceed to teach their message of a corrupt Christianity and an unreliable Bible. The trouble is that this leaves them with a claim to be a restoration of something that has always been here, and with a book that claims to be another testimony of something we fully knew all along.

US teacher broke law by describing creationism as 'superstitious nonsense' | World news | guardian.co.uk

If ever there was an argument against establishing a written constitution for Europe this is it. Once you have a written constitution it is interpreted endlessly by opposing factions  until they leave behind the original intentions of those who framed the constitution and make a nonsense of any attempt to make sensible and reasoned decisions.

Much better to allow precedent make our laws and define our rights as they do now in the UK. That way our constitution is respected but not carved in stone and given the same status as Holy Writ.

If Christians need written laws to protect them from being “offended” there is no hope for this Christian generation and if the unscientific claims of Creationism cannot be intelligently challenged by educators and need to be protected by law instead of reason then Creationism doesn’t deserve to be heard or taken seriously.

A US teenager has successfully won a lawsuit against a teacher who described creationism as "superstitious nonsense".

Chad Farnan, a devout Christian studying at California's Capistrano Valley high school, persuaded a judge that his European history teacher, James Corbett, violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which courts interpret as banning government employees from promoting, or displaying hostility towards, religion.

US teacher broke law by describing creationism as 'superstitious nonsense' | World news | guardian.co.uk