CARM.org misrepresents MORMONISM - AND HOW!

8/4/2019 CARM.org misrepresents MORMONISM - AND HOW!

1/75

CARM.org on Mormonism

What Does Mormonism Teach? - by Matt Slick

The doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints (Mormons) are very interesting. Most of the 'odd'

ones are not initially taught to potential converts. But they

should be. Instead, "they are revealed later as one matures

and gains the ability to accept them." The LDS Church

tries to make its official doctrines appear Christian but what

underlies those Christian sounding terms is far fromChristian in meaning.

Following are the teachings of its officials throughout the

years. Please note that these teachings are documented

from Mormon writers, not anti-Mormon writers.

Finally, many Mormons respond that most of the citations

below are not from official Mormon writings, as if thatdisproves the doctrines they teach. If they are not official,

fine. But, if not, then why have the Mormon apostles and

high officials taught them, written them, and why are their

books sold in Mormon bookstores? The truth is, the

following is what Mormons are taught.

Atonement


2/75

"Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the

Garden of Gethsemane," (Laurel Rohlfing, Sharing Time:The Atonement, Friend, Mar. 1989, p. 39.).

Ronnie Bray responds:

The line in quotes comes from a story told by Paul H Dunn,

one time member of the Quorum of Seventy, now

deceased. Dunn is retelling a story about forgiveness and

atonement using the words his father used when young

Paul sent a baseball through the window of a local churchs

stained glass window, and the ministers came to his houseto be compensated.

This selective use of a third hand quote is typical of Anti-

Mormons that scour Mormon writings and works to find a

word or a sentence that they can turn to sinister use. With

such a fine ability to track down single words and short

phrases it is evident that they pass by perhaps hundreds ofsubstantial theological works that tell how Latter-day

Saints [Mormons] actually do view the Atonement of Jesus

Christ. This is part of the story used by writer Laurel

Rohlfingin an article correctly attributed to Sharing Time:

The Atonement, from the childrens LDS Magazine, The

Friend, used for 3 to 11 year old children. Since children of

that age are unlikely to be able to follow profound

theological expositions, any more than Paul Slick seems to

be, the stories are intentionally aimed and weighted to the

understanding of children. In this story, eleven years old

Paul Dunn scored a home run through the window of a

nearby churchs stained glass window. The ministers were


3/75

in his hiome when Paul went to tell his parents what he had

done. The passage to which Slick refers is:

Paul admitted to the ministers that he had hit the ball thathad broken the window and told them that he was very

sorry. Pauls father put his arm around his sons shoulder,patted him on the head, and said, This is a good boy.

He, too, apologised [to the two ministers] for the mishapand asked how much it would cost to replace the stained

glass window. They told him that it would be about $500.

It was then that his father taught young Paul a greatlesson. He asked the ministers if they understood the principle of Christs atonement. They seemed a little

puzzled. His father said,

In our Church, we believe that through the Atonement ofChrist, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws

and ordinances of the gospel (third article of faith). Heexplained that the atonement allows each of us to be

forgiven of our sins if we repent. Jesus paid for all our sinswhen He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane. As the

only perfect person who ever lived on earth, He was the

only one who could do this for us. We could not do it forourselves. Without His sacrifice, we could never be

forgiven of our sins and would not be able to live withHeavenly Father and Jesus again.

Pauls father pointed out that although Paul had broken a

window, he could never pay for it himself. His allowance of25 a week would never pay for a $500 window. Taking his


4/75

chequebook from his coat pocket, he wrote out a check for

the amount needed and said, As Pauls father, andbecause I love him, I will pay the price that he cannot.

This experience helped Paul understand what Jesus did for

us when He atoned for our sins. At this Easter time we canbe thankful that Heavenly Father loved us enough to send

His Son so that we can be forgiven when we do somethingwrong.

Let me expand Mr Slicks understanding of the Mormon

view of the Atonement of Jesus Christ by introducing himto authoritative statements made by Latter-day Saints on

the subject.

Is the cross important to our faith? The answer is an

unequivocal yes! The Redeemers suffering on the cross is

vitally important to us and is an inseparable part of the

Atonement, through which He suffered and died for oursins and thereby provided us with a clear path to salvation

and exaltation. [Elder Gregory A. Schwitzer Of the

Seventy. Ensign, July 2011]

Rich meaning is found in study of the word atonement in

the Semitic languages of Old Testament times. In Hebrew,

the basic word for atonement is kaphar, a verb that means

to cover or to forgive. 19 Closely related is the

Aramaic and Arabic word kafat, meaning a close

embraceno doubt related to the Egyptian ritual embrace.

References to that embrace are evident in the Book of


5/75

Mormon. One states that the Lord hath redeemed my soul

; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about

eternally in the arms of his love. 20 Another proffers the

glorious hope of our being clasped in the arms of Jesus.21

I weep for joy when I contemplate the significance of it all.

To be redeemed is to be atonedreceived in the close

embrace of God with an expression not only of His

forgiveness, but of our oneness of heart and mind. What a

privilege! And what a comfort to those of us with loved

ones who have already passed from our family circlethrough the gateway we call death!

Scriptures teach us more about the word atonement. The

Old Testament has many references to atonement, which

called for animal sacrifice. Not any animal would do.

Special considerations included:

the selection of a firstling of the flock, without blemish,

22

the sacrifice of the animals life by the shedding of its

blood, 23

death of the animal without breaking a bone, and 24

one animal could be sacrificed as a vicarious act for

another. 25

The Atonement of Christ fulfilled these prototypes of the

Old Testament. He was the firstborn Lamb of God, without

blemish. His sacrifice occurred by the shedding of blood.


6/75

No bones of His body were brokennoteworthy in that

both malefactors crucified with the Lord had their legs

broken. 26 And His was a vicarious sacrifice for others.

While the words atone or atonement, in any of their forms,

appear only once in the King James translation of the New

Testament, 27 they appear 35 times in the Book of

Mormon. 28 As another testament of Jesus Christ, it sheds

precious light on His Atonement, as do the Doctrine and

Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Latter-day

revelation has added much to our biblical base of

understanding.

Infinite Atonement

In preparatory times of the Old Testament, the practice of

atonement was finitemeaning it had an end. It was a

symbolic forecast of the definitive Atonement of Jesus the

Christ. His Atonement is infinitewithout an end. 29 Itwas also infinite in that all humankind would be saved from

never-ending death. It was infinite in terms of His immense

suffering. It was infinite in time, putting an end to the

preceding prototype of animal sacrifice. It was infinite in

scopeit was to be done once for all. 30 And the mercy of

the Atonement extends not only to an infinite number of

people, but also to an infinite number of worlds created by

Him. 31 It was infinite beyond any human scale of

measurement or mortal comprehension.

Jesus was the only one who could offer such an infinite

atonement, since He was born of a mortal mother and an


7/75

immortal Father. Because of that unique birthright, Jesus

was an infinite Being.

The Ordeal of the Atonement

The ordeal of the Atonement centered about the city of

Jerusalem. There the greatest single act of love of all

recorded history took place. 32 Leaving the upper room,

Jesus and His friends crossed the deep ravine east of the

city and came to a garden of olive trees on the lower slopes

of the Mount of Olives. There in the garden bearing the

Hebrew name of Gethsemanemeaning oil-pressolives had been beaten and pressed to provide oil and food.

There at Gethsemane, the Lord suffered the pain of all

men, that all might repent and come unto him. 33 He

took upon Himself the weight of the sins of all mankind,

bearing its massive load that caused Him to bleed from

every pore. 34

Later He was beaten and scourged. A crown of sharp thorns

was thrust upon His head as an additional form of torture.

35 He was mocked and jeered. He suffered every indignity

at the hands of His own people. I came unto my own, He

said, and my own received me not. 36 Instead of their

warm embrace, He received their cruel rejection. Then He

was required to carry His own cross to the hill of Calvary,

where He was nailed to that cross and made to suffer

excruciating pain.

Later He said, I thirst. 37 To a doctor of medicine, this is

a very meaningful expression. Doctors know that when a


8/75

patient goes into shock because of blood loss, invariably

that patientif still consciouswith parched and shriveled

lips cries for water.

Even though the Father and the Son knew well in advance

what was to be experienced, the actuality of it brought

indescribable agony. And [Jesus] said, Abba, Father, all

things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me:

nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. 38 Jesus

then complied with the will of His Father. 39 Three days

later, precisely as prophesied, He rose from the grave. He

became the firstfruits of the Resurrection. He hadaccomplished the Atonement, which could give

immortality and eternal life to all obedient human beings.

All that the Fall allowed to go awry, the Atonement

allowed to go aright.

The Saviors gift of immortality comes to all who have ever

lived. But His gift of eternal life requires repentance andobedience to specific ordinances and covenants. Essential

ordinances of the gospel symbolize the Atonement.

Baptism by immersion is symbolic of the death, burial, and

Resurrection of the Redeemer. Partaking of the sacrament

renews baptismal covenants and also renews our memory

of the Saviors broken flesh and of the blood He shed for

us. Ordinances of the temple symbolize our reconciliation

with the Lord and seal families together forever. Obedience

to the sacred covenants made in temples qualifies us for

eternal lifethe greatest gift of God to man 40 the

object and end of our existence. 41


9/75

Footnotes:

19. We might even surmise that if an individual qualifies

for the blessings of the Atonement (through obedience to

the principles and ordinances of the gospel), Jesus willcover our past transgressions from the Father.

20. 2 Ne. 1:15.

21. Morm. 5:11; additional examples are in Alma 5:33;

Alma 34:16.

22. See Lev. 5:18; Lev. 27:26.

23. See Lev. 9:18.

24. See Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12.

25. See Lev. 16:10.26. See John 19:3133.

27. See Rom. 5:11.

28. Atonement=24; plus atone, atoning, or atoned=8; plus

atoneth=3; total 35 times.

29. See 2 Ne. 9:7; 2 Ne. 25:16; Alma 34:10, 12, 14.

30. See Heb. 10:10.

31. See D&C 76:24; Moses 1:33.32. See John 3:16.

33. D&C 18:11.

34. See Luke 22:44; D&C 19:18.

35. See Matt. 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2, 5.

36. 3 Ne. 9:16; see also D&C 6:21; D&C 10:57; D&C

11:29; D&C 39:3; D&C 45:8; D&C 133:66.

37. John 19:28.

38. Mark 14:36. The word Abba is significant. Ab means

father; Abba is an endearing and tender form of that

term. The nearest English equivalent might be Daddy.


10/75

39. Centuries later, the Lord shared innermost recollections

of this experience with the Prophet Joseph Smith, the

record of which we read in Doctrine and Covenants 19.

40. See D&C 14:7.41. Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah (1978),

568.

[Elder Russell M. Nelson, Of the Quorum of the Twelve

Apostles, Ensign, October 1996]

"We accept Christ's atonement by repenting of oursins, being baptised, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost,

and obeying all of the commandments." [Gospel Principles,

Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ

of Latter-day Saints, 1979, p. 68.]

Baptism

Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. II,

p. 141). This is a practice of baptizing each other in place

of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in

the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to

enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.

There is no such thing as Mormon Heaven. The heaven

to which Latter-day Saints look is that heaven where God

and Christ dwell.


11/75

Baptism for the dead leading to Salvation for the

unbaptised dead is a Christian teaching traceable to the

New Testament Church, and is found in the teachings of

the Apostolic and Sub-apostolic fathers.

Some scholars suggest that baptism for the dead was

practiced by some Early Christian groups, continuing until

at least the late fourth century, which must be correct in

light of the ruling of the Roman Catholic Church.

As part of their Sacraments, the New Apostolic Church and

Old Apostolic Church also practices Baptism for the Dead,as well as Communion and Sealing to the Departed. In this

practice a proxy or substitute is baptised in the place of an

unknown number of deceased person. According to NAC

and OAC doctrine the deceased do not enter the body of the

substitute.In the Reformed Old Apostolic Church it is

believed that all deceased persons that are baptised reside

within the body of the substitute.

Fourth Century Baptism for the Dead

A fourth-century Christian custom of baptizing dead bodies

and giving the Eucharist to them as Baptism of the Dead,

give support for modern Baptism for the Dead. Hebrew

and early Christian scholar Dr John A Tedvetnes formerly

of Brigham Young University writes:


12/75

That baptism for the dead was indeed practiced in some

orthodox Christian circles is indicated by the decisions of

two late fourth century councils.

The fourth canon of the Synod of Hippo, held in 393,

declares, "The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies,

nor baptism conferred upon them."

The ruling was confirmed four years later in the sixth canon

of the Third Council of Carthage.

John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom describes a similar practice among the

Marcionites of the same century: if one of their followers

who was being prepared for baptism died before receiving

baptism, the dead person's corpse was addressed with the

question whether he wished to be baptized, whereuponanother answered affirmatively and was baptized for the

dead person.

In the same passage, Chrysostom, a speaker of the language

(Koine Greek) in which Paul the Apostle wrote, explained

Paul's mention of people being "baptized for the dead" as a

reference to the profession of faith in their own future

resurrection that Christians made before being baptized.

Metaphorical Exegesis


13/75

Some interpret "baptized for the dead" as a metaphor for

martyrdom, as in Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50 baptism is a

metaphor for suffering or martyrdom; accordingly they

would translate it as "being baptized with a view to death".

In this interpretation, the phrase is closely linked with what

Paul says immediately afterwards of the suffering that he

himself faces and is enabled to endure precisely because of

his faith in his resurrection which is similar to John

Chrysostom's idea.

More Explaining Away

Martin Luther regarded the biblical reference to 'baptism

for the dead' as a practice of being baptized above [ ]

the tombs of the unconverted dead whereas John Calvin

thought it a reference to being immersed when close to

death.

In Praise of Good Sense

The third and for many the most natural interpretation sees

the phrase as referring to vicarious baptism on behalf of

dead people performed in the belief that the dead were

thereby benefitted in some way. This belief is put forward

as the reason why, when Paul compares the Corinthians'

experience to that of the Israelites in crossing the Red Sea

and being fed on manna, he insists that the Israelites were

not thereby prevented from sinning.


14/75

The Search For Truth Rages

The Tyndale Bible Dictionary concludes that Paul probably

did not approve the practice of baptism for the dead. He

refers to its practitioners as "they", not as "you" (the

Corinthian Christians to whom he wrote).

The note in the Catholic New American Bible is more

cautious:

"Baptized for the dead: this practice is not further explained

here, nor is it necessarily mentioned with approval, but

Paul cites it as something in their experience that attests in

one more way to belief in the resurrection."

This is similar Tertullian who wrote in 207 CE, that Paul's

aim in alluding to the practice of baptism for the dead,"whatever it may have been", was "that he might all the

more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in

proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead

resorted to the practice from their belief of such a

resurrection."

Blame It On Gnosticism!

The practice of baptism for the dead, according to Professor

Elaine Pagels is easily explained by gnostics who argued

that the text was an allegory and that, therefore baptism for


15/75

the dead refers to pneumatics (i.e. gnostics) taking the place

of psychics (i.e. literalists), who were dead to gnosis.

Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, wrote about the gnostics as being heretical in his work On the Detection and

Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis.

Or on the Marcionites

The doctrines of Marcion were similar enough to those of

Gnosticism to cause Irenaeus in the to consider Marcionone of their number. Eventually Marcion was

excommunicated for his views.

Tertullian wrote about gnostics in his work Against

Marcion indicating that there was another aberrant

Christian sect who believed in baptism for the dead.

Clement of Alexandria in his Excerpta ex Theodoto against

paganism and deviations from Christianity, cites baptism

for the dead as a doctrine peculiar to Christian gnostics.

Although not a ringing endorsement for Christian belief in

salvation for the dead through proxy baptism, the noted

Christian theologian, Karl Rahner, accepted the notion that

without Christ it was impossible to achieve salvation, but

he could not accept the notion that people who have never

heard of Jesus Christ would be condemned. [see: Stephen

Clinton, Peter, Paul, and the Anonymous Christian: A

Response to The Mission Theology of Rahner and Vatican


16/75

II October, 1998 The Orlando Institute, Leadership Forum

November, 1998 Evangelical Theological Society]. Rahner

said:

"Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the

grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly

constituted Christianity Let us say, a Buddhist monk

who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation

and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is

an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose

that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains

that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with JesusChrist. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone

depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same

time I hold that many live in the world who have not

expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my

opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an

anonymous Christianity." [see: Todd Wilkin, What is the

Catholic Teaching of "Anonymous Christianity"?]

Saint Paul's discourse emphasising the reality of the

resurrection from the dead of all that have passed from

mortality through the door of death is a stirring argument

against the position of those that denied the reality of the

resurrection of Jesus and likewise taught that none of the

dead would be raised either.

If their teaching was true,then the hope of salvation as

Christians believed would be a futile daydream with no

hope of it being realised. Paul makes a fulsome answer to

this false teaching in 1 Corinthians chapter fifteen:


17/75

15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel

which I preached unto you, which also ye have received,

and wherein ye stand;15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory

what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also

received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the

scriptures;

15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the

third day according to the scriptures:

15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred

brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this

present, but some are fallen asleep.

15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the

apostles.

15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born

out of due time.15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to

be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of

God.

15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his

grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I

laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the

grace of God which was with me.

15:11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach,

and so ye believed.

15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the

dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection

of the dead?


18/75

15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is

Christ not risen:

15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching

vain, and your faith is also vain.15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God;

because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ:

whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are

yet in your sins.

15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are

perished.15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of

all men most miserable.

15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become

the firstfruits of them that slept.

15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the

resurrection of the dead.

15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all bemade alive.

15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the

firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered

up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall

have put down all rule and all authority and power.

15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under

his feet.

15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when

he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is

excepted, which did put all things under him.


19/75

15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then

shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all

things under him, that God may be all in all.

15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the

dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then

baptized for the dead?

15:30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ

Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

15:32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beastsat Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let

us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good

manners.

15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have

not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up?and with what body do they come?

15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened,

except it die:

15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that

body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat,

or of some other grain:

15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and

to every seed his own body.

15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind

of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes,

and another of birds.


20/75

15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial:

but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the

terrestrial is another.

15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory ofthe moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star

differeth from another star in glory. 15:42 So also is the

resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised

in incorruption:

15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is

sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a

living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that

which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man

is the Lord from heaven.

15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy:and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we

shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot

inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit

incorruption.

15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all

sleep, but we shall all be changed,

15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last

trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be

raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.


21/75

15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and

this mortal must put on immortality.

15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on

incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality,then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written,

Death is swallowed up in victory.

15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy

victory?

15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is

the law.

15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory

through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Some Christians posit that Apostle Paul is appealing to a

pagan rite to support his belief in the resurrection. Why

would a Christian apostle appeal to paganism to buttress

the Christian doctrine of resurrection? It makes no sense.

Paul was clearly pointing to a well known Christian ritethat required no further explanation other than it was linked

to the expectation of Christian resurrection and full

salvation for those baptised by proxy.

Wherever there is a belief in the continued existence of

man's personality through and after death, religion naturally

concerns itself with the relations between the living and the

dead. And where the idea of a future judgment or of

Purgatory obtains, prayers are often offered on behalf of the

dead to God.


22/75

JUDAISM AND THE DEAD

Yizkor

Prayer for the dead appears in 2 Maccabees where Judas

Maccabeus offers a sacrifice as a propitiatory sin-offering

and a memorial thank-offering. These prayers and

sacrifices were intended to improve the standing of the

dead during the resurrection. However, Jews do not regard

2 Maccabees as canonical, possibly because of that are seen

as its theological innovations.

Yet in Judaism prayers form important elements in Jewish

services. The prayers offered on behalf of the deceased

consist of:

Recitation of Psalms; Reciting a thrice daily communal prayer in Aramaic

known as "Kaddish" which actually means

"Sanctification" (or "[Prayer of] Making Holy") which is

a prayer "In Praise of God";

other special remembrances known as Yizkor; and also a

Hazkara said either on the annual commemoration

known as the Yahrzeit as well on Jewish holidays.

The form of Kaddish in use in England contains the

following:


23/75

Have mercy upon him; pardon all his transgressions . . .

Shelter his soul in the shadow of Thy wings. Make knownto him the path of life.

But, whether Christian or Jew why pray for the dead if their

condition cannot be affected thereby?

CHRISTIANITY AND THE DEAD

In the New Testament

A passage in the New Testament which may refer to a

prayer for the dead is found in 2 Timothy 1:16-18, which

reads as follows:

May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, forhe often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain,

but when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, andfound me (the Lord grant to him to find the Lords mercy

on that day); and in how many things he served at Ephesus,you know very well.

But, why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be

affected thereby?

As with the verses from 2 Maccabees, these verses refer to

prayers that will help the deceased "on that day" (meaning

Judgement Day).


24/75

It is not stated that Onesiphorus, for whom Saint Paul

prayed, was dead, though some scholars infer this, based on

the way Paul only refers to him in the past tense, and prays

for present blessings on his household, but for him only "onthat day".

And towards the end of the same letter, in 2 Timothy 4:19,

Paul sends greetings to "Prisca and Aquila, and the house

of Onesiphorus," distinguishing the situation of

Onesiphorus from that of the still living Prisca and Aquila.

The Historic Christian Tradition

Prayer for the dead is well-documented within early

Christianity, both among prominent Church Fathers and the

Christian community in general.

Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected

thereby?

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity prayers are raised for

"such souls as have departed with faith, but without having

had time to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance."


thereby?


25/75

In Roman Catholic Christianity the assistance that the dead

receive by prayer on their behalf is linked with the process

of purification known as purgatory.


thereby?

While prayer for the dead continues in both these traditions

and in those of Oriental Orthodoxy and of the Assyrian

Church of the East, many Protestant groups reject the

practice.

The tomb of the Christian Abercius of Hieropolis in

Phrygia (latter part of the 2nd century) bears the

inscription:Let every friend who observes this pray for me,i.e. Abercius, who throughout speaks in the first person.

Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affectedthereby?

The inscriptions in the Roman catacombs bear similar

witness to the practice, by the occurrence of such phrases

as:

Mayst thou live among the saints (3rd century);

May God refresh the soul of . . . ;

Peace be with them.


26/75


thereby?

Among Church writers Tertullian ( 230) is the first to

mention prayers for the dead, and not as a concession to

natural sentiment, but as a duty: The widow who does not

pray for her dead husband has as good as divorced him!

This passage occurs in one of his later Montanist writings,

dating from the beginning of the 3rd century.

Subsequent writers similarly make incidental mention of

the practice as prevalent, but not as unlawful or even

disputed (until Arius challenged it towards the end of the

4th century).

The most famous instance is Saint Augustine's prayer for

his deceased mother, Monica, at the end of the 9th book of

his Confessions, written around 398.


thereby?

An important element in the Christian liturgies both East

and West consisted of the diptychs, or lists of names of

living and dead commemorated at the Eucharist. To be


27/75

inserted in these lists was a confirmation of one's

orthodoxy, and out of the practice grew the official

canonization of saints; on the other hand, removal of a

name was a condemnation.


thereby?

In the middle of the 3rd century we find St. Cyprian

enjoining that there should be no oblation or public prayermade for a deceased layman who had broken the Church's

rule by appointing a cleric trustee under his will:

"He ought not to be named in the priests prayer who has

done his best to detain the clergy from the altar."


Although it is not possible, as a rule, to name dates for the

exact words used in the ancient liturgies, yet the universal

occurrence of these diptychs and of definite prayers for the

dead in all parts of the Christian Church, East and West, in

the 4th and 5th centuries shows how primitive such prayers

were.

The language used in the prayers for the departed is very

reserved, asking only for rest and freedom from pain and


28/75

sorrow. We may cite the following from the so-called

Liturgy of St James:

Remember, O Lord, the God of Spirits and of all Flesh,those whom we have remembered and those whom we have

not remembered, men of the true faith, from righteous Abelunto to-day; do thou thyself give them rest there in the land

of the living, in thy kingdom, in the delight of Paradise, inthe bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, our holy fathers,

from whence pain and sorrow and sighing have fled away,where the light of thy countenance visiteth them and

always shineth upon them.


thereby?

Public prayers were only offered for those who were

believed to have died as faithful members of the Church.But Saint Perpetua, who was martyred in 202, believed

herself to have been encouraged in a vision to pray for her

brother, who had died in his eighth year, almost certainly

unbaptized; and a later vision assured her that her prayer

was answered and he had been translated from punishment.

St. Augustine thought it needful to point out that the

narrative was not canonical Scripture, and contended that

the child had perhaps been baptized.


thereby?


29/75

Among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, while there is

no doctrine of purgatory, prayer for the dead is encouragedin the belief that it is helpful for them. Specifically how the

prayers of the faithful help the departed is not elucidated;

Eastern Orthodox simply believe that tradition teaches that

prayers should be made for the dead.


thereby?

Saint Basil the Great ( 379), a saint of undivided

Christianity, writes in his Third Kneeling Prayer at

Pentecost,

O Christ our God...(who) on this all-perfect and saving

Feast, art graciously pleased to accept propitiatoryprayers for those who are imprisoned in hades, promising

unto us who are held in bondage great hope of releasefrom the vilenes that doth hinder us and did hinder them ...

send down Thy consolation... and establish their souls in

the mansions of the Just; and graciously vouchsafe untothem peace and pardon; for not the dead shall praise thee,

O Lord, neither shall they who are in Hell make bold tooffer unto thee confession. But we who are living will bless

thee, and will pray, and offer unto thee propitiatoryprayers and sacrifices for their souls.


30/75


thereby?

Saint Gregory Dialogus ( 604) in his famous Dialogues

(written in 593) teaches that,

"The Holy Sacrifice (Eucharist) of Christ, our savingVictim, brings great benefits to souls even after death,

provided their sins (are such as) can be pardoned in thelife to come."


thereby?

However, St. Gregory goes on to say, the Church's practice

of prayer for the dead must not be an excuse for not living a

godly life on earth.

"The safer course, naturally, is to do for ourselves duringlife what we hope others will do for us after death."


thereby?

Father Seraphim Rose ( 1982) says,


31/75

"the Church's prayer cannot save anyone who does not

wish salvation, or who never offered any struggle (podvig)for it himself during his lifetime."


thereby?

The various prayers for the departed have as their purpose

to pray for the repose of the departed, to comfort the living,

and to remind those who remain of their own mortality. For

this reason, memorial services have an air of penitenceabout them.


thereby?

Orthodox Christians offer particularly fervent prayers forthe departed on the first 40 days after death. Traditionally,

in addition to the service on the day of death, the memorial

service is performed at the request of the relatives of an

individual departed person on the following occasions:


thereby?

The Roman Catholic Church


32/75

In the West there is ample evidence of the custom of

praying for the dead in the inscriptions of the catacombs,

with their constant prayers for the peace and refreshment of

the souls of the departed and in the early liturgies, whichcommonly contain commemorations of the dead; and

Tertullian, Cyprian and other early Western Fathers witness

to the regular practice of praying for the dead.


thereby?

The West felt that it was inappropriate to pray "for" the

martyrs, since they were believed to be in no need of such

prayers. Theoretically, too, prayer for those in hell would

be useless, but since there is no certainty that any particular

person is in hell, prayers were and are offered for all the

dead, except for those believed to be in heaven. These are

prayed to, not for. With the development of the doctrine ofpurgatory, the dead prayed for were spoken of as being in

purgatory, and in view of the certainty that by the process

of purification and with the help of the prayers of the

faithful they were destined for heaven, they were referred

to as the "holy souls".


thereby?

Limits were placed on public offering of Mass for the

unbaptised and notorious sinners, but prayers and even


33/75

Mass in private could be said for them. The present Code of

Canon Law states that, unless the person concerned gave

some signs of repentance before death, no form of funeral

Mass may be offered for notorious apostates, heretics andschismatics; those who for anti-Christian motives chose

that their bodies be cremated; and other manifest sinners to

whom a Church funeral could not be granted without public

scandal to the faithful.


thereby?

During the slaughter of the First World War, Pope Benedict

XV on 10 August 1915, allowed all priests everywhere to

say three Masses on All Souls' Day. The two extra Masses

were in no way to benefit the priest himself: one was to be

offered for all the faithful departed, the other for the Pope's

intentions, which at that time were presumed to be for allthe victims of that war. The permission remains.


thereby?

Anglicanism

The Church of England's 1549 Book of the Common

Prayer still had prayer for the dead, as (in the Communion

Service):


34/75

"We commend into thy mercy all other thy servants, which

are departed hence from us with the sign of faith and now

do rest in the sleep of peace: grant unto them, we beseech

thee, thy mercy and everlasting peace."


thereby?

But since 1552 the Book of Common Prayer has no express

prayers for the dead, and the practice is denounced in the

Homily "On Prayer" (part 3).

Nonjurors included prayers for the dead, a practice that

spread within the Church of England in the mid-nineteenth

century, and was authorized in 1900 for forces serving in

South Africa and since then in other forms of service.

Many jurisdictions and parishes of the Anglo-Catholic

tradition continue to practice prayer for the dead, including

offering the Sunday liturgy for the peace of named departed

Christians and the keeping of All Soul's Day.


thereby?

Non-Anglican Protestant churches


35/75

The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation continued at

first the traditional custom of praying for the dead, but

before long came to denounce it, partly because they

believed it to be without biblical foundation, partly throughtheir rejection of the doctrine of purgatory and the practices

associated with it.


thereby?

Prayer for the dead is rigorously avoided by those ofmarked Evangelical beliefin keeping with their denial thatthe mercy and love of God are universally available.

"[A]nd they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which

had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the

noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves freefrom sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had

happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He

also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of

two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to

provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well

and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he

were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise

again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray

for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward

that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was

a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for


36/75

the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

[Catechism of the Catholic Church, 12:43-45]


Bible

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as

it is translated correctly. . ." (8th Article of Faith of the

Mormon Church).

"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," (1

Nephi 13:28).

It is evident that Latter-day Saints are not alone in

recognising difficulties and problems with The Holy Bible.

Even so, no Latter-day saint will go as far in criticism of

biblical texts as the Christian website

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm

While Mormons withdraw from such extremism, all

Christians must believe it because Mr Slicks reasoning that

if a Mormon said it then all Mormons must, perforce,
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htmhttp://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm


37/75

believe it, so the logical extension of Slicks thinking is that

since a Christian said it, then all Christians must believe it!

Therefore, this is what all non-Mormon Christians believeabout the Bible:

Modern Bible Versions Are Dangerous

Watch Out For Them!

We must also be aware that the Bible is under attack. Satan,

who succeeded in selling the first "revised" edition of God'sWord to Eve in the Garden of Eden, has surely been busy

in this 20th Century along the same lines. We know about

the "population explosion" and the "explosion of scientific

knowledge," but we are also in the middle of a "Bible

translation explosion"- a veritable flood of new Bible

translations, versions, revisions and paraphrases, all

claiming to be the "most accurate," the "most readable" and

the "most up-to-date."

The publishing and sale of these new Bibles has become a

highly profitable business, employing all the psychological

approaches of modern advertising to sell them to the public.

Some think this proliferation of Bible versions is

wonderful.

But serious-minded, thoughtful people must eventually ask,

"Which Bible is the real Bible, the true Word of God?"


38/75

In 2 Corinthians 2:17, the Spirit of God warned against the

"many which corrupt the word of God " Therefore, it is not

surprising in studying church history to discover that such

attempts to corrupt the Word of God were clearly evident inthe altered, polluted and revised manuscripts purporting to

be the Word of God that have existed through the centuries.

Unfortunately, many people today fail to see that even

greater corruptions of the Word of God are taking place

before our very eyes. The purpose of this leaflet is to share

with God's people, simply and briefly, some of the

important information we have found in studying this

important subject.

It is impossible in such limited space to trace the history

and preservation of the true Word of God down through the

centuries. However, in the providence of God, two very

important things happened in the 15th and 16th centuries

for which we should all be eternally grateful. First, was the

invention of the printing press and second, the ProtestantReformation. It was the combination of these two

developments that made possible the translation and

publication of the Authorized King James Version of the

Bible in 1611. From then until now, this wonderful gift of

God and its subsequent translation into every known major

language in the world has changed the course of history and

we enjoy its benefits today.

In the latter part of the 19th Century, Satan and his angels

of light set out to destroy the Church by undermining its

foundation, the Bible. Charles Darwin's Origin of the

Species was blindly accepted as "new light on an old


39/75

problem" by the scholarship of that day which had become

largely obsessed with rationalism and humanism. Theories

and methods of "higher criticism" and "textual criticism"

were developed and couched in such scholarly languagethat most people failed to recognize that these were actually

attacks upon the Word of God - even though carefully

disguised as an effort to "supply the English reader with a

more correct text of the New Testament" and to "render the

New Testament more generally intelligible." The rush

toward new versions was on and though the early progress

was slow, we are seeing the results today.

Three important issues must be understood and addressed

when discussing the translation of the Bible from one

language to another: first, the reliability of the document

being translated; second, the knowledge and skill of the

translators and third, the philosophy of translation (formal

or dynamic equivalence). On all counts, the King James

Bible still stands supreme. In 1881, influenced by andsympathetic to the Darwinian theory of evolution, two men,

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort brought forth a

different version of the Greek New Testament - one which

differed from the Textus Receptus (the underlying Greek

text of the KJV) in over 5,700 places.

This Westcott-Hort Greek Text was later to become the

basis for the English Revised Version and the American

Standard Version. It gave great weight to two corrupted

manuscripts-the Vaticanus (Codex B) which was found in

the Vatican Library in 1481 and was known to the KJV

translators but was not used by them, and the Sinaiticus


40/75

(Codex Aleph) which was found in a monastery

wastebasket at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1844. The

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus appear to have been copied from

the same source in the 4th Century and held great weightwith Westcott and Hort due to their antiquity. Tischendorf,

who discovered the Sinaiticus manuscript, noted at least

12,000 changes that had been made on this manuscript by

others than the original copyist. It is difficult to understand

why such documents as these could lead one to ignore the

simple fact that the Greek text underlying the King James

Version, the Textus Receptus, agreed with 90-95% of all

known Scripture- related manuscripts, numbering over fivethousand.

English Revised Version (1885)

American Standard Version (1901)

The first full-scale frontal attack on the Word of God came

with the publication of the ERV in 1885, and itscounterpart, the ASV in 1901. Only a few voices of protest

were raised. Most staunch defenders of the faith of that day

were apparently unaware that the ASV differed from the

KJV in over 36,000 places or that the Greek text underlying

the translation of the ASV (the Westcott-Hort Text)

differed from the Textus Receptus (underlying the KJV) in

over 5,700 instances. Possibly it was because the

Fundamentalists then were too busy combating the

modernists' infiltration of seminaries and churches; or,

perhaps it was due to the fact that the ASV never really

found great acceptance publicly. It was not until the

publication of the Revised Standard Version in 1946 and


41/75

1952 that many Fundamentalists became aware of how

effectively a new Bible version or translation could be used

to pervert the truth.

Revised Standard Version (1946, 1952)

Some of God's people woke up with a start when the

Revised Standard Version was published in 1952. This

version, supposedly a revision of the ASV of 1901,

eliminated the word virgin in the prophecy of Christ's birth

in Isaiah 7:14. It was also copyrighted by the apostate

National Council of Churches. Protests were heard far andwide! Sadly, many failed to recognize that some of the

same changes they found so objectionable in the RSV were

also true of the ASV. The furor over the RSV gradually

died down. But this was the version which paved the way

for future perversions of the Scriptures. It had conditioned

people to accept changes in the Bible- changes dictated by

modern scholarship. At least the RSV left the word virginin the New Testament references to the birth of Christ. It

remained for the Good News Bible to remove it in both the

Old and New Testaments.

Good News For Modern Man (1966)

Good News Bible (1976)

When the first edition of Good News For Modern Man

(The New Testament in Today's English) was published in

1966, the word virgin appeared in all the texts in Matthew

and Luke referring to the birth of Christ. But, when the 2nd

and 3rd editions were published and then the entire Good


42/75

News Bible was published in 1976, the word virgin had

mysteriously disappeared from Luke 1:27 while remaining

in Luke 1:34 and Matthew 1:23. Of course, the latter two

verses have no meaning at all if the word virgin is removedor replaced. Also, the blood of Christ, a most important and

precious word and theme, was lacking in many key New

Testament references. It was replaced by "death" or "costly

sacrifice," both good words in their own place but not what

the Holy Spirit gave in the original text. The heretical

views of the main translator, Dr. Robert Bratcher, help to

explain the many places in which the Deity of Christ is

played down or omitted. The Good News Bible is one ofthe worst versions, yet it has been distributed by the

millions, largely due to endorsements by Billy Graham, Bill

Bright and other evangelical leaders.

The Living Bible (1967, 1971)

This is neither a translation nor a version - it is a

paraphrase. The Living Bible, praised by Billy Graham and

other New Evangelical leaders, has reached a publication

figure of 37 million copies and has made its author, Ken

Taylor, a wealthy man. It is very readable, but at the

expense of truth in so many places. Taylor admits that the

principle he worked from was not a "word-for-word"

translation but rather a "thought-for-thought" paraphrase

which he called, "dynamic equivalence." Taylor said he

worked for the most part from the ASV of 1901, a corrupt

translation to begin with. The Living Bible decimates the

Scriptures, almost completely eliminating important and


43/75

precious words and truths as grace (see John 1:17; Acts

4:33, 15:11, 20:24; Romans 3:24; 2 Corinthians 9:8;

Ephesians 2:8-9; Jude 4) and repentance (see Matthew 9:13

and Acts 17:30). "Honor" is substituted for "begotten" inActs 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5. Significant changes are

made regarding such matters as creation in Genesis 1:1-2

and a prophecy of Christ in Zechariah 13:6. The meaning

of Romans 8:28 is changed completely. Vulgar language is

used in John 9:34, 11:39 and 2 Kings 18:27. The language

of 1 Samuel 20:30 in early editions of TLB shocked many

but it has now been softened. The author has left the door

open for further suggestions, corrections and clarifications.Who knows what future editions may contain?

New American Standard Version (1960, 1971)

The NASV was to be the Bible for conservatives,

Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. The foreword states thatthe NASV "has been produced with the conviction that the

words of Scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew and

Greek were inspired of God." The basic problem with this

translation, however, is revealed in this statement: "This

translation follows the principles used in the American

Standard Version 1901 known as the Rock of Biblical

Honesty." Who gave the ASV such a title? In the Principles

of Revision, it is stated: "In revising the ASV consideration

was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to

determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 23rd

edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed."

This gets right to the heart of the major problem with the


44/75

modern Bible versions - most are patterned after the

corrupted Westcott-Hort Greek Text rather than the Textus

Receptus. The word virgin does appear in Isaiah 7:14, but a

footnote says, "or, young woman"- no doubt a sop to theliberals. Verses like Matthew 18:11 and Matthew 23:14

appear in brackets with a footnote saying, "most ancient

manuscripts omit this verse" or, "this verse is not found in

earliest manuscripts." A corrupted Greek text thus becomes

the basis for raising questions about the entire verse In

other instances as in Luke 24:40, the number of the verse

appears followed by "see marginal note" which explains

that "some ancient Mss. add verse 40." One wonders if the NASV translators were determined to list everything

anyone ever added or left out of a manuscript until one

discovers that some parts of verses are left out with no

explanation whatsoever as in Colossians 1:14 and 1

Timothy 6:5. It is sad to see so many conservatives pushing

this version and criticizing the KJV.

New International Version ( 1973, 1978)

Like the NASV, the NIV was produced by those who are

said to "hold a high view of Scripture." Sponsored by the

New York Bible Society, they admitted the NIV translators

represent a "broad spectrum in evangelical Christianity"

and the list of names confirms the broadness of the

spectrum. Instead of being a revision of a previous version,

the preface says, "It is a completely new translation made

by many scholars working directly from the Greek." The

Greek text used is an "eclectic one." that is, the translators


45/75

mixed different texts supposedly in "accord with sound

principles of textual criticism." However, they did not state

what those principles were - and much of the previous

undermining of the Scripture has been done on thesupposed basis of "sound principles of textual criticism."

Examining the text, you find that the NIV leaves out many

of the same verses and portions that the ASV and the

NASV also omit. An added problem, however, stems from

the fact that where an entire verse is omitted, even the verse

number is missing and only a small letter refers to a

footnote of explanation. A careful study of this version

confirms what one [unnamed!] Christian leader said severalyears ago,

"For every verse or word clarified in these new translations,

two new problems are created."

We agree with his statement. In a critique of the New

International Version, one Fundamentalist scholar[unnamed!] correctly objected that "words were dropped

out; words were added; and key words were sometimes

changed."

Yet, the same objection must also be raised concerning the

New American Standard Version which this same

[unnamed] Fundamentalist scholar defends and

recommends. This objection - the deletion or addition of

words-also applies to all the other modern versions. We

still insist on using and recommending only the Authorized

Version.


46/75

New King James Version (1979,1982)

The NKJV translators claim to have "preserved theauthority and accuracy" and "improved the purity and

beauty" of the original KJV. We disagree that the "purity

and beauty" have been improved.

Although the NKJV uses the underlying Textus Receptus

Greek text, the translators repeatedly use marginal

notations to reference the Modem Critical Text upon which

all of the modem versions are based. The NKJV advocateopens a door that lends credibility to a perverted underlying

text used by all the other versions. Furthermore, changes in

the text are made which simply are not warranted.

The NKJV primarily uses the 1967/ 1977 Stuttgart edition

of Biblia Hebraica and draws from sources which result in

a Hebrew text that is different from the Jacob ben Chayyimtext underlying the KJV Old Testament. As a result the

NKJV preface rightly stated, "significant variations are

recorded in footnotes." We believe the potential for most

textual problems and variants between the KJV and NKJV

will be found in the Old Testament.

New Revised Standard Version ( l990)

The NRSV is the latest product of ecumenical scholarship

and will soon replace the RSV, thus helping to fill the

financial coffers of the apostate National Council of


47/75

Churches which holds the copyrights on both the RSV and

NRSV. Translated by liberal Protestant, Catholic and

Jewish scholars, and eliminating so-called sexist language,

the NRSV with the Apocrypha, has already received theImprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church and may well

become the ecumenical Bible of the future.

Other Recent Versions

In recent years, the proliferation of modem Bible versions

has increased tremendously. New versions that are based primarily upon the United Bible Societies' 4th revised

edition Greek New Testament and the Nestle-Aland 27th

edition Novum Testamentum Graece include the New

Living Translation (NLT), the New Century Version

(NCV), the Contemporary English Version (CEV) and

Eugene H. Peterson's The Message.

Most of these versions and translations are not only based

on an inferior Greek text, but are also thought-for-thought

translations (which allow for greater interpretive freedom

of the text by the translators) rather than literal, word-for-

word translations.

The more we have studied and researched this question of

Bible versions, the more convinced we are that many of our

dear brethren in the ministry and many Fundamentalist

leaders have not taken time to look at the abundant

evidence now available that clearly demonstrates the

inaccuracies, inconsistencies and confusion that results


48/75

from new translations. It is clear that many scholars who

consider themselves to be evangelical have been influenced

by the apostate scholarship of the past and present. We

recognize the difference between "higher criticism" (whichwould be rejected by most Fundamentalists) and "textual

criticism" or "lower criticism" (which is accepted by most

Fundamentalists).

But many do not see how the whole field of textual

criticism has been shaped and moulded by the false

premises and conclusions of "higher criticism."

The central issue revolves around the acceptance of the

Westcott-Hort text rather than the Textus Receptus as the

basis for Bible translations, versions and revisions.

While recognizing the extreme difficulties involved in

translations of any kind and especially of a book as

important as the Bible, we are convinced that the KingJames Bible has been blessed by God for hundreds of years

and should be used by believers today. It will be far better

for us to expand our vocabulary in order to understand its

terminology than to continually rewrite the Bible to suit

those who will not be able to understand it anyway apart

from the New Birth or to suit those Christians who are too

lazy to study. It is true that the meanings of some English

words have changed and others are no longer commonly

used. Yet such words are comparatively few and can easily

be comprehended with the use of a good dictionary; but if

the word is missing altogether, what then?


49/75

The promotion and use of so many different Bible versions

has resulted in great confusion among God's people. Why

don't more pastors and Christian leaders see this?

Congregational reading is becoming virtually impossible.

Bible memorisation is most difficult. Men and women lose

confidence in the validity of God's Word when some verses

are included, some are bracketed, and some are missing

completely.

For all of these reasons and many more, we conclude that

modem Bible versions are dangerous and that God's peopleshould beware of them. We close with a plea to all who

love the Lord and His Word-look into this important

question quickly and carefully. Then join us in seeking to

alert and warn others concerning these subtle and

devastating attacks being made upon God's Holy Word.

Our Final Authority

The written Word of God is our final authority in all

matters of which It speaks, for It is God's final revelation to

man. The Bible is God's trustworthy, authoritative Book,

and no more is to be added thereto.

The Holy Spirit supernaturally inspired the writers of the

39 books of the Old Testament to record the very words

God desired His people to possess (2 Pet. 1: 2 1).


50/75

Likewise, the prophetic promise Jesus Christ made to His

disciples (soon to be the apostles and writers of the 27

books of the New Testament) restated the same divine

operation of inspiration, for the Holy Spirit later alsoguided these men "into all truth" (Jn. 16:12-15). "All

Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16, 17),

and that inspired Scripture encompasses nothing more, nor

anything less, than the 66 books of the Bible, the completed

canon of Scripture. [But, the Bible does not say that!]

2 Peter 3:2 tells us that if we want to know God's Word,

then we are to look nowhere other than to the "words whichwere spoken before by the holy prophets [O. T. Scripture],

and of the commandments of us the apostles of the Lord

and Saviour [N.T. Scripture]."

God's Word [sic] provides us with all we need to be built

up in the faith and to do God's will and work - God gave no

additional revelation once the Bible was completed. Theinspired writings of the apostles, circulated among the

churches and later canonized, were perfect and complete

(Lk. 1: 1-4; 1 Cor. 14:37; Eph. 3:1-7; 1 Thess. 2:13; Rev.

22:18, 19).

The internal evidence of the Word of God states without

equivocation that believers today have a final authority -

God's Written Word. [But the Bible does not say that!]

Since the completion of the canon of Scripture, no

additional divine revelation has come through any "latter

day prophets," charismatic dreamers, cult authorities or the


51/75

tradition/Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, as

Pope John Paul II has reinforced in a recent encyclical.

With the passing of the original disciples of the Lord JesusChrist (the apostles who penned the 27 books of the New

Testament) [Some NT writers were NOT Apostles!, for

example, Luke and Mark], the partial revelation ceased and

"that which is perfect"-the Written Word of the Living

God-was come. "That which is in part" was done away (1

Cor. 13:8-12).

With the passing of the apostles and the subsequentcompletion of the canon, no more revelation came from

God. It is essential, therefore, that we earnestly contend for

the faith "once delivered" (past tense) and against any

attempt to claim an authority for faith and practice other

than God's Word, the 66 books of the Bible.

Remember, Timothy's household did not have the "originalautographs," but the copies they had were designated by

God as "the holy scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:14, 15). Likewise,

Paul commended the Ephesian elders to the "word of his

grace, which is able to build you up..." (Acts 20:27, 32).

We can have confidence today that we have a Bible that is

the holy Word of God in the Authorized (King James)

Version.

A problem developed, however, with the 20th century's

proliferation of new Bible versions. It became necessary to

study the history of the English Bible and the Greek text


52/75

which had been used down through the centuries and

compare that text with the claims of the "higher critics"

who championed the minority text upon which the new

versions are based.

After careful study of the subject, the FEA concluded that

the Textus Receptus, the underlying text upon which the

Authorized King James Version is based, is the

providentially preserved Greek text. The Textus Receptus

was derived from the majority family of manuscripts used

in the Greek-speaking church down through the centuries.

This text was the divinely preserved text - an accuraterendition of the very originals (miraculously inspired by the

Holy Spirit) written by the apostles, and, in the Hebrew

tongue, by the Old Testament prophets. The Masoretic text

of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New

Testament are, in reality, the divinely preserved texts of the

divinely inspired original writings. [Apparently God has

miraculously preserved no fewer that 2400 variants ofMarks Gospel!]

But now, another problem has arisen within the last few

decades. An element of those who were strong defenders

of the inerrancy and veracity of the Authorized Version,

used and blessed by God in the English-speaking world for

well over 300 years, began to advance the idea that the KJV

English translation is superior to the Greek and Hebrew

texts and that the King James translators were themselves

inspired by the Holy Spirit in producing their translation.


53/75

As a result of this proposal, they claim that the English

King James translation has been miraculously inspired just

as the original autographs themselves were inspired. This

false teaching even assumed the newly ascribed authority tocorrect the underlying Greek and Hebrew text from which

it was translated.

What we have by this proposed phenomenon is what is

often known as "double inspiration" - the original writings

of the prophets and the apostles consist of the first

"inspiration," and the second work of "inspiration"

occurred when the King James translators produced theEnglish Authorized Version in 1611. Certainly the King

James translators were the best scholars ever assembled to

produce a translation that we can hold up today as our

authoritative, trustworthy translation; but were those

esteemed translators "inspired" in the biblical sense?

Absolutely not!

We cannot accept this conjecture, for the- concept of a

superior English text or of "double inspiration" completely

denies what the Bible Itself teaches about its own initial

inspiration by the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit

and its promised preservation through each successive

generation.

No, the English-speaking world is not the sole proprietor of

the Word of God. Other nations and languages can also

boast an accurate, trustworthy translation of the Word of

God from the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew

Masoretic text.


54/75

It is the conviction of the FEA that the Authorized Version

should be the standard and final authority for the English

speaking world for two reasons: First, because it is basedon the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, and

second, because it, is an accurate, literal (formal, word-for-

word) translation of the aforementioned Greek and Hebrew

texts (that is, the translation of the text is literal, as much as

is possible of any translation from one language to

another).

We must reject the teaching of those who claim the KJV isfull of errors, [Even when these can be clearly and

unequivocally demonstrated?] yet we must also reject the

teaching of those "KJV-only" proponents who claim that

the KJV is in itself inspired and superior to the underlying

Hebrew and Greek texts. Notice the following timely

words by Pastor M. H. Reynolds, Jr., which accurately sum

up the Biblical position regarding inspiration andpreservation:

We are sometimes accused of believing in "double

inspiration" or "continuing revelation," i.e., that the King

James translators were divinely inspired in the same way as

were the original human writers of the books of the Bible.

Not so! The use of these terms amounts to a dishonest

misrepresentation of what we believe. The miracle of

inspiration applies only to the initial giving of the Word of

God to the writers of the autographs (all of which are no

longer in existence). But we also believe that the Bible

Itself teaches and the history of manuscript evidence


55/75

supports the contention that the miracle of initial inspiration

extends to the divinely superintended preservation of a pure

text to this day. We have, therefore, an inspired Bible

today in the sense that it is the accurate translation of thetext once and finally inspired by God and recorded in the

"original autographs," the majority text used down through

the centuries in the Greek church. Be wary of any

opponent of the KJV who contrives impressive sounding

buzz words to misrepresent what the defenders of the

Authorized Version actually believe.

From the FEA publication Modern Bibles-the Dark Secretby Pastor Moorman, wonderfully used of God to defend the

Authorized Version and to debunk the credibility of the

other versions, the concluding paragraph reads:

It is not impossible that in the providence of Godanother universally accepted standard translation could be

produced. However, given the lateness of the hour, thelack of spiritual scholarship, and the fact that our language

no longer has the depth and vitality it once had, this seemsmost unlikely. All indications point to the KJV as the Bible

God would have His people use in these last days before

the Second Coming of Christ.

The Old Testament Scriptures were to accomplish one

central purpose-to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke

24:25-27). The same is true of the New Testament as well

(John 16:14). Those who undermine the authority and

accuracy of the Authorized Version only cause God's

people to lack a confidence in His Message and the


56/75

impeccability of Christ and His finished Work. This

certainly does not advance the purpose of God-to glorify

His dear Son and to cause His children to have absolute

confidence in His final and complete Revelation. PraiseGod, He has given to us His Word, and we have before us

in the English language the Authorized King James Bible, a

literal, accurate translation of the very words God breathed

in His Revelation to man. [Marion H. Reynolds, Jr. and

Dennis W. Costella 2000 Fundamental Evangelistic

Association]

This now, according to the logic of Mr Slick ofCARMS.org is what ALL non-Mormon Christians actually

believe. Yeah, right, Mtr Slick!

Book of Mormon

The [B]ook of Mormon is more correct than the Bible,(History of the Church, 4:461).

Readers are to note that this statement is not made in The

History of The Church, 4:461, nor in any other Mormon

writing. It is the conclusion of Mr Slick! Note the

following abstract from an article by Monte Nyman, a

Latter-day Saint.

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the mostcorrect of any book on earth, and the keystone of our

religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by


57/75

its precepts, than by any other book. (History of the

Church, 4:461.)

The most correct of any book on earth was a boldstatement to make in Joseph Smiths day, let alone in our

day of sophisticated publication. The statement is stillapplicable, for the Lord has never rescinded it nor cast

doubt upon it.

An analysis of the statement reveals important principlesthat are significant to readers of the Book of Mormon and

especially to members of the Church. Its correctness mustbe attributed to the Lords hand operative in itstranslation, an event that was, as Isaiah described it, a

marvelous work and a wonder. (Isa. 29:1314.)

There is irrefutable evidence to show both the correctnessof the translation and the Lords hand in it. The Three

Witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and MartinHarris, bore record that the voice of God declared unto

them that the book had been translated by his power. Theirtestimony still appears at the front of each copy of the Book

of Mormon. Furthermore, in a June 1829 revelation given

to the three men through the Prophet, the Lord confirmedthat Joseph had translated all that he had been

commanded to do and that it was a true translation. (SeeD&C 17:6.)

However, the most correct book implies that it may not

be absolutely correct, and in light of the Lordsdeclaration, this may seem contradictory. But herein lies


58/75

another significant principle: if there be any errors, they

should not be attributed to the translation.

An example from the Book of Mormon itself supports this principle. The prophet Moroni concluded his fathers

record by excusing the errors, if there were any, to the faults of men (see Morm. 8:17) and to the necessity of

writing in what was termed reformed Egyptian rather thanin Hebrew (see Morm. 9:3233).

Therefore, the qualification on the absolute correctness of

the Book of Mormon may be imposed because of languagelimitation.

A second example in the Book of Mormon of mansinability to record the principles of the gospel perfectly is

found in 3 Nephi 19:3134 [3 Ne. 19:3134]. Here theSaviors prayer to the Father was described as being one

that could not be spoken or written by man. Yet the prayerwas heard and understood by the Nephites as their hearts

were opened.

It seems logical, then, that the correctness of the Book of

Mormon was not limited so much by the translationprocess as by the inadequacy of present languages.

Joseph Smith taught that the Savior would adapt his

language to the capacity of a little child (see History of theChurch, 3:383), and undoubtedly he had to adapt the

language of the Book of Mormon to our linguistic capacity.


59/75

Until the time arrives when the Lord will restore a pure

language to fill the earth with sacred knowledge, the Bookof Mormon represents the gospel teachings in the most

correct form available to man. Furthermore, the book actsas a catalyst in obtaining even greater understanding of

the gospel. As a person studies the written text with realintent, the power of the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth

of what he reads.

The Prophet Josephs declaration of the Book of Mormonas the keystone of our religion underlines its importance

in uniting the Church. As the keystone holds the rest of the stones in place, so the Book of Mormon upholds theprinciples and ordinances of the gospel. (See History of the

Church, 2:52.)

Jewish scribes have known for more than a thousand years

that the Bible is not a perfect book, but has some textual

difficulties, and many Christian scholars readily admit thesame. While Latter-day Saints hold to a qualification as to

the correctness of the Bible as we have it today, they

embrace it as the word of God, but cannot embrace any of

the errors it is shown to contain. The Mormon position is

that when the original monographs were made they were

perfect, but that over time and in the course of manual

transmission by imperfect scribes making copies of copies

of copies, etc, errors crept in accidentally, and other

changes were made by redactors and haggadists that altered

what was originally written. Nevertheless, the Mormon

position is that it is inspired of God except where is holds

errors. No Bible believer should be put to the necessity of


60/75

believing that God requires them to embrace the obvious

errors as inspired, forGod is not the author of confusion.

Devil, the

The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the

morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).

According to the Holy Bible, God the Father is the father of

spirits. Lucifer, the Devil, or Satan as he is variously

called, is a personage of spirit, and therefore, was created by the God that created all spirits. [see Hebrews 12:9]

Mormons reject the notion that Satan was created by a

demi-god.

One Christian, Cris Coleman, speaks for all Christians, that

is if one Mormon speaks for all Mormons as Slick insists.

Of the origin of Satan he closely parallels Latter-day Saintbelief that:

Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all

born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon

Doctrine, p. 163).

This is what Cris Coleman says:

[W]e have to go back before the physical creation of theearth, for that is where we first meet the one we call Satan,

otherwise known as Lucifer, or the Devil.


61/75

Theres a curious verse in the epistle of Jude (KJV) that

refers to the first estate. Nothing further is mentioned,nor is there any other reference to it in the entire Bible.

Even so, I think we can make some assumptions regardingthis verse.

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left

their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlastingchains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

(Jude 6).

Assumption one: While the first estate is not commonknowledge among us today, it may have

Documents

CARM.org misrepresents MORMONISM - AND HOW!