Today’s guest post is by Mike S. We’ve all played the game of telephone when we were little – and sometimes still do when we’re teaching Primary. One person says a simple phrase, and as it’s passed along, the phrase degrades. It’s always humorous what comes out at the other end of the line of people. It seems so simple, yet nearly always fails. Why?
There are a number of theories of communication. In a fairly straightforward way of thinking about it, there are 3 levels: abstract, conceptual, and expressed. Abstract is the highest level and is fairly amorphous. It is a concept that exists in your mind. It may be subconscious or realized. Next, the concept enters the conceptual level as we prepare to express it. Things here are colored. We have to grab on to the abstract thought in a concrete way. We use vocabulary words in our language. We relate to things we have experienced. And finally, the concept is expressed externally. This may be written or typed, it may be spoken, it may be expressed some other concrete way. For communication, all three levels are essential to go from an internal, abstract thought to an external representation of that thought.
For example: we often hear in the scriptures of a thought that is so profound that “neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things” (3 Nephi 17:15-17). This is a difficulty going from the abstract to the conceptual level. Prophets seeing future events in a vision may simply not have the vocabulary to talk about something. Imagine Moses trying to describe a computer or a black hole. Book of Mormon prophets complained that their writing was weak, or engraving the plates was hard (Ether 12:22-23), representing a difficulty in going from the conceptual to the expressed level.
When more than one person is involved, this becomes communication, which is even more complex. Person A, Mary, formulates a concept from the abstract in her mind and expresses it in words, moving down through the levels. Person B, Bob, hears the words, then has to go backwards back up the levels to determine what Mary actually meant.
This can break down in many places. Bob may not hear what Mary had to say because it is a loud environment or because he is hard of hearing from too much loud music on his iPod. Mary may have a foreign accent or use words that aren’t in Bob’s vocabulary. Even if the words are heard correctly, Bob may interpret them differently at the conceptual level based on past experiences, past conversations, etc. Finally, it gets up to Bob’s abstract level, which hopefully is the same as it was on Mary’s abstract level.
So, how does this apply to scripture?
Imagine an Old Testament prophet. He (they generally seem to be men) has an impression or a vision or in some way receives God’s word. This is the highest, abstract level. He must then express the abstract thought at a conceptual level using vocabulary and terms familiar to him. Finally, this must be expressed through writing or verbally.
Assuming it’s writing, how do we get it today? The words had to be preserved. Perhaps there were intermediate steps involving oral transmission before it was written down. Hopefully none of the writings were lost and the manuscript was perfectly intact. Centuries (and possibly multiple copies) later, a translator had to read the words, conceptualize them, and process it at an abstract level to understand what the prophet originally meant. This may be close but it is necessarily colored by the translator’s own experiences. The abstract thought then has to be conceptualized in a different language, and written down again on a second manuscript. Anyone who has tried translation understands that this can be very difficult. One word may have a number of different meanings in a second language, making mistranslation possible. Or a number of different words in one language may all be expressed by the same word in a second language, thus losing precision.
Continue this process through multiple centuries and translations, and possibly ulterior motives, and eventually you get to the King James Version of the English Bible, for example, expressed in 17th century English. Like a game of telephone, meanings and context can be changed or lost. We can get the general picture, but some details may or may not be fuzzy. Much effort has been made in more recent translations of the Bible to go “further upstream”, to find earlier manuscripts closer to the original, but there are still potential problems.
Contrast this with the Book of Mormon and the Qu’ran. These are both books that claim to jump past all of this. For the Qu’ran, it is considered in Arabic to be the literal word of Allah as given through the angel Gabriel, and is accepted as proof that Muhammad was a true prophet. Other translations, such as the one I read in English, are designed to give a good idea of what the Qu’ran means, but are not considered Allah’s literal words.
Similarly with the Book of Mormon, witnesses state that Joseph Smith dictated exactly what was to be written down. He spelled unfamiliar names. The scribe would read back each section and the process wouldn’t continue until it was correct. Given this, the assumption is made that the Book of Mormon, in English, is exactly as God would have it be. It has been described as the “most correct book”.
Even with the Book of Mormon, however, there can be the same problems with communication. Book of Mormon prophets talk about their weaknesses in writing. The language of the Book of Mormon is necessarily filtered through Joseph Smith’s vocabulary, including 19th century American English and 17th century KJV constructs.
So we come to today. At this point, the Book of Mormon and the Bible are really just words on a page. For them to have an impact in our lives, we must get from those words on a page to the abstract level of our minds. And just like above, distortions can occur. Some readers may have bad vision or may encounter unfamiliar vocabulary. We all suffer from unfamiliar context (particularly in the Isaiah sections). Even if we read the words perfectly, the concepts are necessarily colored by our biases and prejudices and experiences. At the abstract level, do we all get the same thing out of the exact same words? No – two people can read the exact same scripture and have two different interpretations of it.
So, how can we ever know what was whispered in the ear of the first person in the telephone line? If there are so many places where a simple message can be distorted between a prophet and ourselves, how can we truly understand what God meant?
This is where the Holy Ghost plays an essential role. The Holy Ghost does not rely on any of the different levels of communication. He can talk directly from abstract to abstract, bypassing all of the areas where distortion can occur, independent of vocabulary or any other limitations. He can give us “pure” knowledge, uncolored by mortal man. This is why we are told to search, pray, and ponder. Our reading of the the scriptures may be imperfect, but the inexpressible, abstract knowledge given by the Holy Ghost directly to our mind can be perfect.
Questions:
– This is great in theory, but how do we do this in practice? What can we do to access the Holy Ghost as our companion when we read scripture?
– Given that the Qu’ran and the Book of Mormon are considered “perfect” books – ie. written down EXACTLY as God/Allah intended in their primary language, how do we deal with the “mistakes” present in them? Or are they true books of scripture, but not necessarily “perfect” books any more than the Bible? (Article of Faith 8)
– I have felt peace when I encountered truth in the Bible and Book of Mormon, but I’ve also felt it reading the Qu’ran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada, etc. Does the Holy Ghost only testify of truth leading to the LDS Church (ie. essence of Moroni’s promise: BofM true -> JS prophet -> LDS Church only true Church, etc) or does He testify of truth where ever we may find it, which may in practicality serve to confirm the “truth” of people practicing other non-LDS religions?
Wheat & Tares 
Great questions. As for the notion that the Book of Mormon is best understood under the influence of the Holy Ghost, the same is true of our living prophets.
Even Mormon and Nephi allow for errors in the Book of Mormon. JS said it was the most perfect book, but not A perfect book (of course we need the HG to help us understand what he meant…).
The HG testifies of truth, wherever it is found.
As for your final question, can the HG testify of truth of others practicing non-LDS religions — I’ve thought a lot about this recently after several years of association with 12 step programs. People who benefit by 12 step programs generally do not conform to a single view of their “higher power” or the God of their understanding. (Of course I’m talking of non-LDS Family Services ARP 12 steppers here.)
I concluded for myself that while not all paths lead to Rome, so to speak, all paths may be connected in the eternities. So someone walking a spiritual path through the Bhagavad Gita may not take advantage of saving ordinances today, but that spiritual path may prepare him or her for acceptance of those ordinances at some point in the journey. (As a stake president of mine used to say, “Eternity is a long time,” meaning that not everyone will accept the gospel right now.
Just my view with no GA quotations to support me…
This raises a question about the HG though.
So, the HG testifies of truth. It communicates abstract to abstract.
But isn’t the problem then that in order to act upon that abstract, we have to turn it into something tangible…and there, everything can go wrong?
I agree that Mormon and Nephi allow for errors in the Book of Mormon, and they specifically addressed it. Joseph Smith’s translation process is certainly different from how we might consider translation, where someone looks at some specific characters and determines what they meant. There weren’t many errors in the Book of Mormon once you take out grammatical things, etc., but there are some. Where did these come from?
My own personal opinion is that JS had abstract concepts placed in his mind for the “translation” process. Using the paradigm above, he then had to express this in a way he understood, which necessarily included American English as well as KJV English. As long as the word were “close enough”, the translation process would continue. If he was too far off, he would have to go back and correct what the scribe wrote, as we know happened, before he could go on. I think the few errors crept in this way.
I like the concept in the last paragraph, that people’s spiritual paths in mortality may prepare someone for something in the next life. Otherwise, in reality, only a minuscule percentage of people are LDS in this life and have the ordinances done in mortality (probably less than 0.2%).
Unless God “fails” 99.8% of the time, this implies that the vast majority of people who make it back to God will never be LDS on the earth. It makes me thankful for ALL of the various religions and people who lift others up. I do think the HG testifies of truth in all of these different denominations. I do think the spirit supports people on their various paths to make them better people. I do appreciate the different perspectives on life’s journey, and am a better person for studying them.
That is where things go wrong. Most of my thoughts on this come from Buddhism. The thoughts we have are considered a “sense”, much like vision or hearing or etc. And just like our perceptions of the world around us are colored as they work their way in, our perceptions of our thoughts are necessarily and uniquely colored by our backgrounds, experiences and karma. The concept is much too detailed to go into here (perhaps another post someday), but reality shows us that the same “inspiration” from the Holy Ghost can be VERY different for different people as it passes from Abstract -> Conceptual -> Expression.
It may be less about “wrong”, than “incomplete”; one of Mormonism’s cultural assumptions (although it is certainly not exclusive to Mormonism) is that it is vitally important to believe the “right” thing. Maybe God is perfectly happy to teach different students truths in different orders.
GOD is not the one with a shortage of time, and I think He’s built a lot of redundancy into the spirit’s of His children.
Mike S,
Great Post.
The Spirit testifies of all truth; however, even Lucifer will tell the truth to get people to believe a lie. This holds true for all faiths, except the LDS faith. You and I have disagreed on this in the past, but I would add the difference is modern day Prophets.
This was reaffirmed over the past weekend with conference. What an amazing conference, especially the talks given my President Monson; President Uchtdorf and my favorite talk by President Packer.
Thanks for this blog and thanks to all who have commented. Now let me call you all to repentance and tell you to listen not to the holy spirit but to the prophet Thomas S. Monson (Peace Be Upon Him) !!
Just messin witchyall. It is vital to listen to the Holy Ghost even while listening to the words of any prophet.
When Moroni’s Promise was mentioned it made me think about the specifics of that promise and follow it back to some of the more original intent. It seems to apply very well to this concept of getting the most out of the scriptures through personal study (not manuals) AND it also touches on how to get the most SCRIPTURES out of our personal STUDY. I feel that most of the Brethren and Sisters who gather to this post will be open to the Holy Spirit…and even if not…Moroni brings up some important things for all of us to hear.
The promise in Moroni 10: 3-5, comprises what we call Moroni’s Promise. It specifically asks us to remember God’s mercy and then pray to know if these things are NOT true. The idea is not based off of incredulity (ie. Asking IF these things are true) This requires that we already have that seed of belief mentioned in Alma 32 planted. The desire to believe at least, is necessary. It is a test of our belief. Only the believers receive the answer. The incredulous will receive no answer from the Holy Ghost. And I think that is the deeper and truer meaning behind the countless verses of The Qur’an that speak of the non-believers.
Now, the verses 1-23 which contain this promise, if you look at the context, are speaking directly, and only to, the Lamanites. Moroni starts writing to everyone else only in verse 24. I get the impression that Moroni directed his words about the gifts and powers of the Holy Ghost and about faith, hope and charity, only to the Lamanites because he knew that the majority of the Gentiles would reject these things and he wanted to instruct the Lamanites not to do as the Gentiles do. Of course the “good news” for us Gentiles is that if we repent it will be well with us and we will be numbered among the house of Israel. The Good News of the gospel is also a periodical publication. This then bodes well for Gentiles like us who are open to “New” scripture. It is my hope that we can maintain our personal testimonies of “these things” and encourage our brothers and sisters to obtain their own oil for their lamps. Let us not adopt that “A Bible, A Bible” mentality, but instead stand ready with open hearts, minds and arms to the additional scripture prophesied of in “our” scripture, namely the Plates of Brass, The Sealed Portion.
One Love!
Oh ps. please check my own new blog. The post entitled Mormons & Muslims ties in nicely with some of the things discussed here. And even covers some fascinating similarities that are rarely if ever noticed.
Enjoy!
An interesting point on the Koran. First, the Arabic of the Koran is as far away from modern Arabic, or more so, than the English of Beowulf is from modern English. That creates a number of issues.
Second, archeology of old mosques, where they are able to recover ancient Korans, laminated into the walls (which is what they did with them when they wore out), reflects that the Koran has changed over time. That creates other issues.
I think there are some risks in mistaking other abstract things for the HG:
1) confirmation bias. Honestly the way Alma 32 is worded is like a roadmap to confirmation bias. For me, it’s really hard to consider it the HG when it’s already what I think. Much easier if it contradicts my own thoughts and/or feelings.
2) emotion. For some, the HG response is very closely linked to emotions. This is not my own experience, but I know it’s true for many. But a touching movie trailer is not really the HG.
3) confabulation. It can happen. Just sayin’.
But I do believe that it can be distinguished. I just think it can be tricky.
Elder Pretender;
“Now let me call you all to repentance and tell you to listen not to the holy spirit but to the prophet Thomas S. Monson (Peace Be Upon Him)”
With that comment, you are either a freak or an imposter presenting the information in an extreme way to sway others to an opposite conclusion. Which one is it?.
“Only the believers receive the answer.”
This just makes no sense at all to me. Since the HG is the only being that can bear witness of christ, then at some point he’s going to have to speak to those who are incredulous but who may be truly seeking. Do you think that mustard seed just grows by itself? How exactly is someone supposed to be brought to the point of having a belief if the HG won’t speak to them until they have a belief? According to your interpretation, a skeptic who reads the BoM and then prays to his or her idea of god sincerely, albeit skeptically, is not entitled to an answer from the spirit. I think such an interpretation of Moroni’s promise is unsupportable.
Sorry, missed the just messin withyall…
“According to your interpretation, a skeptic who reads the BoM and then prays to his or her idea of god sincerely, albeit skeptically, is not entitled to an answer from the spirit. I think such an interpretation of Moroni’s promise is unsupportable.” My own personal experience is an example. I was a complete skeptic of the BOM and agnostic but truly seeking an answer when I had my BOM experience; in my case, Moroni’s promise worked despite my conviction to the contrary.
I’m not sure what to make of the first couple of sentences:
– The Spirit testifies of all truths
– Lucifer also tells truths so we believe lies
– This (I assume the Lucifer comment) holds true for all faiths, except the LDS faith
How do we know this? Given your assumptions, how do we know that the “confirmation” someone has that the LDS Church is the only exception isn’t actually from Lucifer? Are the confirmations we have trying to get us to “believe a lie”?
I agree that there are issues with inaccuracies in the Qu’ran, just as in the BofM. However, the vast majority of believes in both works consider them to be the EXACT word of God. In the case of the Qu’ran, exactly as given to Muhammed. In the case of the BofM, JS apparently couldn’t go on until the words were exactly what they should be.
Any resolution to this?
The way Alma 32 is worded? Remember that words have much to do with what Mike was telling us about. I see what you mean. But I also see what Alma means. I think he is trying to word it as best he can when he says…
21 And now as I said concerning faith— FAITH is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye HOPE for things which are not seen, which are true.
22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should REMEMBER, that GOD IS MERCIFUL unto all who BELIEVE on his name; therefore he desireth, IN THE FIRST PLACE, that ye should believe, yea, even on HIS WORD.
23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.
(you can hear him here and earlier when he is talking about being compelled to be humble, trying to choose his words carefully)
26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with MY WORDS. Ye cannot KNOW of their surety AT FIRST, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an EXPERIMENT upon my words, and exercise a PARTICLE of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than DESIRE to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
I think that the similar key words here and in Moroni’s promise are no coincidence. Experiment doesn’t sound like confirmation bias at all. Now it is totally possible to hold a conviction, or thoughts of disbelief in our mind (left-brain) while simultaneously planting a tiny particle of faith, hope, desire in our hearts (right-brain).
I meant no offense. “You” (your mind) misunderstand “me” my words.Incredulity in the mind (left-brain) is completely compatible with a witness of the Holy Ghost…But only when giving way for a tiny portion of belief to surge in the heart (right-brain).
I do not mean to find fault with that part of ourselves that finds it hard to believe. I wish only to point out that when The Spirit speaks it does so to both our mind and our heart and where does it dwell or where is it stored by us? In the right-brain. This means we can even return to doubt the truthfulness of something but if that thing is a reality, The Spirit which testified of it due to the mustard seed molecule of faith in our hearts, will simply recall it to our minds. Its really beautiful when you think/feel about it.
Funny how this telephone game Mike described is always at work in this world. That is why beings in the spirit world speak without words…telepathically…much clearer. : )
Well, Joseph Smith noted it was “most correct” not correct. Both he, and those he was translating, acknowledged flaws.
As to the Koran, the archeology is clear.
Mike S,
Regarding Satan – It should say part-truths. Lucifer is the father of deception, which is the truth shrouded in a lie, or a pack of lies. For instance, he will convince our youth that ‘oral sex’ is not sex; thus, they rationalize their behavior. Technically, it is not, but in reality it is still a violation of the law of chastity. He will convince those with same sex attraction that they were born this way so it must be ok to engage in homosexual activity. The truth is they may have been born with this pre-disposition, but it their challenge in life to overcome these tendencies. Just as it is our challenge in life to overcome _______ (fill in the blank). He deceives millions with the partial truth it is by grace that we are saved. The real truth is that we are saved by grave after all we can do.
I agree that we can have a confirmation of truth within us, as it “resonates” with our spirit. I agree that this confirmation of truth, such as when reading the Book of Mormon, can lead to an testimony that the LDS Church is true.
At the same time, how about the millions of stories of non-LDS people who have had the same confirmation that THEIR religion is that path that God wants for them? There are beautiful conversion stories for Muslims, all sorts of different Christian faiths, etc. There are people who feel absolutely as strongly that those are the paths that God wants for them as any I have heard in our faith. Are all of these people deceived by Lucifer, as suggested above?
Just as food for thought, consider this quote by Paramahansa Yogananda:
“God must enjoy the heterogeneous medley in His human family, for He has not troubled Himself to write clear directions across the heavens for all alike to see and follow in unity.”
I have a theory as to why this is, but it is the subject of a whole other post.
“… saved by grave …”
🙂
I suppose that’s correct, as no one who is still mortal can technically be “saved” in immortality.
For me, the part that sounds like a roadmap for confirmation bias is from v. 27: “even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.” When we desire to believe something, that leads to belief if it’s not in and of itself the essense of belief (since belief isn’t surety anyway).
“Only the believers receive the answer”
I thought the Book of Mormon was written “to the convincing” of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.
If you have to be convinced, you’re not a believer yet.
I agree about the confirmation bias. It is even more explicit in Elder Oaks recent conference talk, for example:
“Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God’s commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.”
So we are free to pray about things as per Alma’s “experiment” but… If it confirms what a Church leader has said, it is true. However, if we receive an answer that doesn’t conform to a Church leader’s counsel, it is from the devil. It seems like a very explicit confirmation bias here, as that is the only acceptable possibility.
Mike S,
Even in a typo I still get it right 🙂
I’d go so far as to say that the diversity of paths is not just the means, but part of the goal itself.
Yes, Thomas is here!
Yeah maybe I am guilty of revering Alma over some modern church leaders. And I am not fault finding with any other personal responses to Alma 32. On the contrary, I find it quite refreshing.
I guess for me that is why I like having Alma’s words to the poor and despised among the Zoramites because they soothe my soul. Whereas Elder Oaks’ false doctrine smacks of legal cunning at best and is offensive to the spirit at worst.
This guy craftily lumps violating God’s commandments with disobeyingt the counsel of priesthood leaders in those lines Mike quoted. And the most apostate portion of the talk that made my soul cringe was…
“the priesthood line of communication has the additional and necessary intermediaries of our Savior, Jesus Christ; His Church; and His appointed leaders.”
Now Christ will never be available to us except through these “other intermediaries”. I also felt the spirit raise a red flag in my heart when he vilified the “personal line” with one subtle word: Precarious. Then proceeded to even more subtly bathe his mis-labeled “priesthood line” in a favorable light with the power of the word – VITAL –
It is sad but I choose to take the truth contained in his talk.
“This is the priesthood line. But the authority that presides in the family—whether father or single-parent mother—functions in family matters without the need to get authorization from anyone holding priesthood keys.”
I gotta admit. Oaks did inspire me though. After that talk I called my family together to partake of the sacrament in the sanctity of our home. It was perfect as it is one of two days a year that as a church through the institution we are not offered what Dalin refers to as the “right to the continuous companionship of this Spirit” through worthily partaking of the sacrament each Sabbath. So just goes to show the spirit enables us to get truth and direction in any situation. Man I love the
personal-priesthood line!
One Love to both of yall Mike and Hawkgrrrl.
I have a tough time coming up with a faith promoting answer for this one. How can so many genuinely good and sincere people be so sincerely wrong all at the same time? As I see it, either God is telling them all to do different things and there are many paths that lead back to God, or confirmation bias is rampant in all of us and we all end up choosing what we want to be true.
It is certainly true that the Qu’ran and Book of Mormon claim both claim a more direct means of transmission than the Bible. However, I think for the Bible the analogy of “telephone” is rather poor and risks creating a false impression.
It is not accurate to say that the King James Bible is the end result of a process involving multiple stages of translation over a period of centuries. On the contrary, it is, in its own words, “[t]ranslated out of the original tongues: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised by the King of England’s special command, appointed to be read in churches.”
Certainly the KJV’s (one and only) translation step, from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English, encounters the problems described in the post. However there are no intermediate translators, with or without ulterior motives.
The translation itself can be compared to numerous other English Bibles, also translated from original languages. Any products of ulterior motives or erroneous translations are therefore subject to many checks and balances. At this point I should pause to acknowledge the existence of translations like the Catholic Douay Bible, which is indeed a translation of a translation, the Latin Vulgate. However, that sort of indirect translation is rather contrary to the the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, one of the foundations of the Reformation.
A fundamental issue for the Bible is deciding what the original text actually is. We certainly do not have, for example, an original Gospel of Mark as personally written down by Mark or his scribe. The issues vary from one part of the Bible to another, so I’ll continue with the gospels as an example. The scholarly consensus seems to be that all four were first put into writing during the period (roughly) 50-100 AD. The oldest known gospel manuscripts date from about 150 AD, but they are tattered fragments (like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Papyrus1.JPG). The oldest complete copies of the New Testament date from the fourth century.
These are copies, not translations, but they were made at different times in different places, and they do not agree with each other. There are literally thousands of New Testament manuscripts–no other ancient text comes close–and there is a field of Bible scholarship (the “lower criticism”) whose purpose is to determine what is authentic, what may have been added later, which variant(s) are the most reliable, and so on. The text used for the KJV New Testament and many other Reformation-era translations (the “Textus Receptus”) was a product of its time. Fewer manuscripts were known then, and efforts to reconstruct the original text were at a much earlier stage. Modern translations are based on newer original-language texts.
There is an intimidating amount of detail available about the text of the New Testament. In general, I think the questions raised by examining the evidence do not especially coincide with LDS folklore “mistranslations” (e.g., “God is a spirit”), or with the Joseph Smith Translation (which was not a translation at all in the sense of rendering meaning in a different language). This may account for the lack of interest in the subject I have observed in the church.
“from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek” … except, of course, it turns out it was not, and it relies heavily on Tindale’s earlier work.
When the Bible talks about how the hand should not say to the feet, I have no need of thee, I think the expansive reading of the text encompasses this approach.
Badger,
Thanks for the reply. I do agree that there is A LOT of information available these days regarding textual criticism, which is essentially ignored in the LDS Church.
While the KJV only had ONE translation step as you mentioned, the documents from which they translated were certainly not original documents. For the OT, for example, Moses lived approximately 1300 BC if I remember correctly. The books attributed to him were either passed down orally, or copied, or translated from “Old Hebrew”, etc. by the time they got to the writers of the KJV. And even if there was no translation involved, there are errors introduced with simple copying.
For the NT, there were dozens and dozens of books. The current books in the NT were chosen around 300AD, which were essentially ones that supported the then-current views of the Christian church. Textual analysis has shown that some of the things that made it into the KJV were added at a later date, sometimes even being written in a different hand. So changes were made to support or emphasize various things. It is from this that the KJV folks made their “ONE” translation.
And even if there was NO translation, much like telephone tag, errors can creep in with copying. BofM critics point to the number of changes that have been made to the BofM (with NO translation involved). Apologists point out that the vast majority of these are minor, grammatical, etc. fixing little things. But there were still changes made with the simple act of copying over a few decade period. Imagine what could happen over centuries and millennia when everything was hand-copied.
So, I still hold that the premise of change occurring is inevitable.
Stephen and Mike, thanks for your replies. Stephen, I am no expert on the KJV, and perhaps for that reason, I don’t think I understand the point you are making. I can’t imagine meant to say that there was no translation involved in the KJV. I agree, if it is what you meant, that there was a decision to maintain consistency whenever possible with the language of Tyndale’s Bible and other well known English translations of the time, all of which had a lot in common. I also didn’t mean to suggest that the KJV is beyond criticism. In fact, I think it’s pretty clear that the text they worked from would be unacceptable today, although I understand both the KJV and TR do have die-hard defenders who won’t be swayed.
Mike, I agree that the situation with the OT is completely separate from that of the NT, and in particular, as you say, there is a much longer time span between any original source and the available manuscripts. I restricted my comments to the NT for the sake of space.
As for change being inevitable, the NT manuscripts provide a spectacularly detailed mass of evidence of how right you are to say so (and the OT is not exempt). Or to take a different example, even the English text of the KJV exists in more than one version, although I believe only one is widely used today.
My point was not that there is no issue–quite the contrary–but that centuries of multistage (mis)translation did not occur, and that severe concern about motives is unwarranted for the reasons I gave.
In my enthusiasm I hope I didn’t come across a Biblical inerrantist, insisting that through some miracle we have the perfect text just as it was written by Matthew, Mark, etc. I suppose the existence of inerrantist beliefs about the Bible serves to illustrate how attractive some people find the security offered by the accounts of the origins of both the Book of Mormon and the Qu’ran.
I personally would trust good ol’ king james or any of his appointees with my life. I have never heard of an earthly king or government with ulterior motives.
Badger,
The “security offered by the accounts of the origins of both the BofM and the Qu’ran” is actually a double-edged sword. It can be reassuring that the words are exactly as God intended, without all of the problems involved in transmission and translation. But when there are mistakes, does that mean God makes mistakes? Or does it instead mean that perhaps the BofM and Qu’ran are NOT quite as exact as they are held up to be by millions of people but perhaps have some of the “works of man” in them?
#36 Elder C
Obama’s motives are pure, just as Bush’s were before him.