Why Mormons are King James Only

[biscuit1953]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/51259225-80/church-bible-lds-james.html.csp
The KJV's move from "commonly used" to "official" began in the 1950s with the leadership of J. Reuben Clark, then a member of the LDS Church's governing First Presidency. 

In 1952, the National Council of Churches in New York issued a new translation known as the Revised Standard Version. It was immediately denounced by conservative believers, Barlow writes, some claiming it was "barely Christian."  Barlow wrote "Mormons and the Bible."

Clark, trained as a lawyer, defended the KJV in so many letters and speeches that his efforts culminated in his "monumental 1956 tome:" Why the King James Bible?

Clark, according to Barlow, argued the 1611 translation was:

• More acceptable doctrinally.

• Verified by Smith's own translation efforts.

• Based on a better Greek text.

• Literarily superior.

• Established in LDS tradition.

• Produced by "prayerful souls subject to the Holy Spirit."

What seemed to bother Clark the most in the newer translations was what he saw as "despicable, conspiratorial humanism," Barlow writes, reducing "the divine status of Jesus and the supernatural dimension of scripture in general."

In 1979, the LDS Church published its own edition of the KJV, with notes, headings and definitions. Thirteen years later, the LDS First Presidency declared the KJV to be the church's official English Bible.

"Although other versions of the Bible may be easier to read," the handbook says, "in doctrinal matters, latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations."

After 400 years, Barlow says, it "has a sense of the durable rather than the transient."

I have been to many churches where the "official translation" was the KJV and no other version was allowed to be used in the Sunday School classrooms or preached from the pulpit.  I see very little difference between the Mormon position and that of many King James Onlyists.

 

[Mitex]

From the article in the OP:
"In fact, Mormon founder Joseph Smith had so many reservations about its language that he stated his new church believed the Bible to be the word of God — 'as far as it is translated correctly'."

Mormon 8th 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 [their preferred version, ed.] to be the word of God."

The above has a familiar ring to it. In fact it sounds like some on this board:
"Of course the AV is the word of God in all places that it is translated correctly", "the AV is inspired insofar as it translates the original correctly", "we believe the KJV to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, but we also believe our preferred version...", etc.

The AV is the official Bible of a certain anti-KJVO Fighting Fundamentalist University which holds that it is the word of God insofar as it has correctly translated the original .

As the author of the OP argued so feverishly:
I see very little difference between the Mormon position and that of many on this board.

The egg on author of the OP's face makes him look guilty by association, so, here's a tissue so that he can wipe the egg off his face.

 

[biscuit1953]

From the article in the OP:
"In fact, Mormon founder Joseph Smith had so many reservations about its language that he stated his new church believed the Bible to be the word of God — 'as far as it is translated correctly'."

"Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorised Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner . . .. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version [KJV] may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from His own hand."  (Charles Spurgeon)

Mormon 8th 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 [their preferred version, ed.] to be the word of God."

The above has a familiar ring to it. In fact it sounds like some on this board:
"Of course the AV is the word of God in all places that it is translated correctly", "the AV is inspired insofar as it translates the original correctly", "we believe the KJV to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, but we also believe our preferred version...", etc.

"Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist's tongue; we may be beaten in our own version [the KJV], sometimes; but in Greek, never"  (Charles Spurgeon)

The AV is the official Bible of a certain anti-KJVO Fighting Fundamentalist University which holds that it is the word of God insofar as it has correctly translated the original .

Once again Charles Spurgeon agrees with that.

As the author of the OP argued so feverishly:
I see very little difference between the Mormon position and that of many on this board.

The egg on author of the OP's face makes him look guilty by association, so, here's a tissue so that he can wipe the egg off his face.

I don't have egg on my face.  I knew exactly what your response would be.  A regurgitation of Peter Ruckman's arguments.  I have shown clearly that you will lie and take quotes out of contexts to promote your King James Only nonsense.  You have yet to acknowledge that you were purposely deceitful and dishonest in quoting Spurgeon to imply he held to your own heresy in order to advance your agenda.  You attitude is no different than that of the Mormons.

 

[Mitex]

I don't have egg on my face.

Yes, you do, here let me wipe the egg off for you. You tried to paint those who hold the AV as their "official Bible" as Mormons - guilt by association. You missed the spot where certain anti-KJVO Fundamentalist Universities and churches hold the AV as their "official Bible", but only believe those words, phrases and verses that are correctly translated - just as the Mormons. You attempted to paint the Mormons as "KJVO" and missed the egg spot that clearly points out that the Mormon position on the AV is similar to the position held by some on this board. 

I knew exactly what your response would be.  A regurgitation of Peter Ruckman's arguments.  I have shown clearly that you will lie and take quotes out of contexts to promote your King James Only nonsense.  You have yet to acknowledge that you were purposely deceitful and dishonest in quoting Spurgeon to imply he held to your own heresy in order to advance your agenda.  You attitude is no different than that of the Mormons.

I do not lie, nor do I take quotes out of context as you libelously state. I was not purposely deceitful and dishonest in quoting Surgeon. My attitude toward our English Scriptures is much different than the Mormon's position. Here, let me get that egg spot out of your eyes, because you can't see that the Mormon's position on the AV is closer to some on this board and the statement's you presented of Spurgeon.

"Oh, book of books! And wast thou written by my God? Then will I bow before thee. Thou book of vast authority! thou art a proclamation from the Emperor of Heaven; far be it from me to exercise my reason in contradicting thee. Reason, thy place is to stand and find out what this volume means, not to tell what this book ought to say. Come thou, my reason, my intellect, sit thou down and listen, for these words are the words of God. I do not know how to enlarge on this thought. Oh! if you could ever remember that this Bible was actually and really written by God. Oh! if ye had been let into the secret chambers of heaven, if ye had beheld God grasping his pen and writing down these letters—then surely ye would respect them; but they are just as much God's handwriting as if you had seen God write them. This Bible is a book of authority; it is an authorized book, for God has written it. Oh! tremble, lest any of you despise it; mark its authority, for it is the Word of God...First, my friends, stand over this volume, and admire its authority. This is no common book....This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if ye please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it. Have you never heard a man say, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not"—what does the Bible say?—"Shall be damned." But that does not happen to be polite enough, so they say, "Shall be condemned." Gentlemen, pull the velvet out of your mouths; speak God's word; we want none of your alterations." The Bible, Delivered on Sabbath Evening, March 18, 1855, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon at Exeter Hall, Strand. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0015.htm

Now, if you want to quote C.H. Spurgeon proving that he was inconsistent, or perhaps you believe he was equivocating or exaggerating his point that will be fine. But you libelously accused me of lying, dishonesty, etc. When you get done belching out libel and ad hominem please let me know and then we can discuss our differences. 

There are no doubt many things that Brother Ruckman and I agree on. I'm sure there are many things where we disagree. I disagree with his mocking of other versions. I disagree with his apparent "English Onlyism" in his latter years. I note that Brother Ruckman is a Baptist. Are you? I note that Brother Ruckman teaches "ye must be born again". Do you? I note that Brother Ruckman believes the Canon is limited to 66 books. Do you? I note that Brother Ruckman believes that Jesus Christ is "God manifest in the flesh". Do you? I note that Brother Ruckman believes in a literal Hell. Do you? I note that Brother Ruckman believes in the eternal security of the believer. Do you?

As I said in my first post - go take a cold shower and chill out. When you cool off and can think straight come back to the debate and we'll discuss our differences. I'm tired of burning your scarecrows.

 

[biscuit1953]

I don't have egg on my face.

Yes, you do, here let me wipe the egg off for you. You tried to paint those who hold the AV as their "official Bible" as Mormons - guilt by association. You missed the spot where certain anti-KJVO Fundamentalist Universities and churches hold the AV as their "official Bible", but only believe those words, phrases and verses that are correctly translated - just as the Mormons. You attempted to paint the Mormons as "KJVO" and missed the egg spot that clearly points out that the Mormon position on the AV is similar to the position held by some on this board. 

Just like Mormon founder Joseph Smith the King James translators acknowledged that their translation was not perfect word for word.  Smith stated his new church believed the Bible to be the word of God — "as far as it is translated correctly."  It is Smith's followers that have become "King James Only."  In the same way it is the followers of Peter Ruckman just as yourself that have come up with the heresy that there is only one perfect English translation.

I knew exactly what your response would be.  A regurgitation of Peter Ruckman's arguments.  I have shown clearly that you will lie and take quotes out of contexts to promote your King James Only nonsense.  You have yet to acknowledge that you were purposely deceitful and dishonest in quoting Spurgeon to imply he held to your own heresy in order to advance your agenda.  You attitude is no different than that of the Mormons.

I do not lie, nor do I take quotes out of context as you libelously state. I was not purposely deceitful and dishonest in quoting Surgeon. My attitude toward our English Scriptures is much different than the Mormon's position. Here, let me get that egg spot out of your eyes, because you can't see that the Mormon's position on the AV is closer to some on this board and the statement's you presented of Spurgeon.

You do lie.  You can't take one statement and force it into your King James Only belief with the exclusion of many other statements that clarify what Spurgeon really believed and still be an honest man.  He beliefs were nothing even close to yours or your mentor Peter Ruckman.

"Oh, book of books! And wast thou written by my God? Then will I bow before thee. Thou book of vast authority! thou art a proclamation from the Emperor of Heaven; far be it from me to exercise my reason in contradicting thee. Reason, thy place is to stand and find out what this volume means, not to tell what this book ought to say. Come thou, my reason, my intellect, sit thou down and listen, for these words are the words of God. I do not know how to enlarge on this thought. Oh! if you could ever remember that this Bible was actually and really written by God. Oh! if ye had been let into the secret chambers of heaven, if ye had beheld God grasping his pen and writing down these letters—then surely ye would respect them; but they are just as much God's handwriting as if you had seen God write them. This Bible is a book of authority; it is an authorized book, for God has written it. Oh! tremble, lest any of you despise it; mark its authority, for it is the Word of God...First, my friends, stand over this volume, and admire its authority. This is no common book....This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if ye please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it. Have you never heard a man say, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not"—what does the Bible say?—"Shall be damned." But that does not happen to be polite enough, so they say, "Shall be condemned." Gentlemen, pull the velvet out of your mouths; speak God's word; we want none of your alterations." The Bible, Delivered on Sabbath Evening, March 18, 1855, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon at Exeter Hall, Strand. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0015.htm

Now, if you want to quote C.H. Spurgeon proving that he was inconsistent, or perhaps you believe he was equivocating or exaggerating his point that will be fine. But you libelously accused me of lying, dishonesty, etc. When you get done belching out libel and ad hominem please let me know and then we can discuss our differences. 

Spurgeon wasn't inconsistent at all.  He showed he had great respect for the word of God but also acknowledged that the King James was far from perfect.  That is not your position.

There are no doubt many things that Brother Ruckman and I agree on. I'm sure there are many things where we disagree. I disagree with his mocking of other versions. I disagree with his apparent "English Onlyism" in his latter years. I note that Brother Ruckman is a Baptist. Are you? I note that Brother Ruckman teaches "ye must be born again". Do you? I note that Brother Ruckman believes the Canon is limited to 66 books. Do you? I note that Brother Ruckman believes that Jesus Christ is "God manifest in the flesh". Do you? I note that Brother Ruckman believes in a literal Hell. Do you? I note that Brother Ruckman believes in the eternal security of the believer. Do you?

You also believe anyone who exposes Ruckman's beliefs concerning abortion are "talebarers." You insist that people take Ruckman's quotes on abortion out of context.  Just because Ruckman believes in the "fundamentals of the faith" doesn't make him a Christian.

King James Bible
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.  (Matt 7:22,23)



As I said in my first post - go take a cold shower and chill out. When you cool off and can think straight come back to the debate and we'll discuss our differences. I'm tired of burning your scarecrows.  It's upsetting that you can't find one verse that even hints of the King James Version being the only perfect Bible in English isn't it.