Looking back from the other side

This weekend was General Conference for Mormons.  While they gathered at the Conference Center in Salt Lake or around their TVs and PCs, I spent part of Saturday in my new church helping do some detail cleaning that the paid weekly cleaners don't do. I pondered how my views have changed so much this year. 

I looked at a photo of a wealthy woman from the 1800s who put her money into building the church I was cleaning.  I remember seeing her photo when I first visited the church around Christmastime last year.  My LDS visiting teaching companion and I went to see the Nativity scenes on display inside and to show support for the woman we visit-taught, who attended the church and even worked there. 

I chuckle now at my viewpoint then.  I wondered why was the woman we visited attending this church? Surely any Christian church was just a poor mockery of the true gospel of Christ.  Was she perhaps offended by someone in our LDS ward? And then this woman in history, why would she fight against the tide so much that she spent her money building the church?

But on this past Saturday, I thought to myself: Thank God that I visit-taught this woman who introduced me to this happy, welcoming church. And I tipped my baseball hat to the woman in the black and white photo for making this building possible.

I can hardly believe that I was so sure of myself back in the LDS days. I spent so much time judging everything else to be less-than and didn't even recognize it.

Manuscript under scrutiny by our friend Textual Criticism

"Now British scholar pours water on 'fake' papyrus text that claimed Jesus had a wife." See the full article at the Daily Mail.

"New Testament scholar Professor Francis Watson of Durham University says the fragment, which caused an international sensation this week, is a collage of texts from the Gospel of Thomas, copied and reassembled out of order."

A Harvard Divinity professor, Dr. Karen King, brought the papyrus into the spotlight.  Scholars dated it to the fourth century AD (300s) and said it was probably from Egypt.

As soon as I saw the headlines earlier this week, I knew there would be LDS members getting excited that this was proof that Jesus had to marry to achieve godhood. But keep in mind that if the manuscript is not a forgery, it was written well after the time of Jesus and even Dr. King said it isn't reliable as a biography compared to the other sources we have.

Who really wrote the Bible?

Ever heard of the Documentary Hypothesis? I hadn't until about a month ago. My pastor handed me a book called, "The Bible with Sources Revealed." It was written by the same fellow whose "Commentary on the Torah" had been helpful to me earlier. Richard Elliott Friedman is his name and he is a well-known Biblical scholar. I read the introduction and wanted to understand it better, so I purchased a used copy of "Who Wrote the Bible?" It is Dr. Friedman's first offering to the public of his theory, published in 1987.

He did not invent the Documentary Hypothesis; it evolved in the 1700s and 1800s. People studying the Bible noticed certain trends, like some stories appearing two times with different renderings. The Creation story does this, as does the Flood. These scholars surmised that someone might have edited together documents by different authors. Other clues were the way God was called "Elohim" sometimes and "Yahweh" other times. There were other patterns, like how those who used "Elohim" don't mention the Ark and those who wrote "Yahweh" don't talk about the Tabernacle.

At first, learning about this rocked my world in a bad way. Hadn't I always heard that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible? Apparently I wasn't the only one who didn't like hearing that this might not be the case, at least not in the form as the Pentateuch exists today. As I read about the evolution of the hypothesis, I found out that people were excommunicated and put to death for suggesting such things.

But as I continued to read, I saw that Dr. Friedman did not rob me of hope. He states that the editors and authors of the Bible as it stands today put together their works from older records, either oral or written. So far as I understand it, the Documentary Hypothesis is not saying that the Bible is myth, or its writings were invented well after events, but that the Bible as it appears today is a composite. That intrigues me.

Lee Strobel believes the Bible is reliable

I love this guy.  He was an atheist journalist who became a Christian pastor.  When I began to transition to being a Christian myself I read his book "The Case for Christ."  When I found myself wondering if there really was a God, I read "The Case for a Creator."  He presents common doubts and questions and interviews scholars about them.  Each time God is revealed in the evidence.

I find myself needing a boost now and then, so I am currently reading "The Case for the Real Jesus."

I still have doubts pop up over stuff that I thought I was sure about.  The other evening I read about the apostle Paul and how his letters have information that conflicts with the story written in Acts.  That started me worrying about the reliability of the Bible all over again.  Funny when I've just been writing about how trustworthy it is.  I don't have an explanation for that discrepancy yet, but I am sure I am not the first person to wonder about it.  Turns out the world of Christian apologetics is rich in explanations and full of different denominations.  I don't have to take anyone's word for it, I can study it myself, which I both stress over and enjoy.  It used to be simple to just accept what the LDS leaders said and not question. That is the path to hell, in my mind anyway, to rely on the words of men who claim to know God's will and have His authority, but whose policies change over the decades according to culture and the economy.

It's harder to take in opposing viewpoints and sort through a lot of information.  I am sure there are Christians who are content to not dig around, but I don't want to be like that.  I want to know for myself and I want to be able to explain to others when they are hurting for answers, like Lee Strobel does.

Textual criticism

It sounds like someone is complaining about the text. It's actually the process of comparing different copies in order to discover the original wording. It's very useful for everything from folios of Shakespeare, clay tablets about Gilgamesh, to parchments and codices of the Bible.

Some of  the rules a text critic follows:

• old manuscripts tend to be closer to the source
• briefer texts are more probable than longer ones because a scribe is more likely to add an explanation than subtract unless they deleted a controversial passage
• bad grammar and ugly writing are more likely to be original
• the writer's style is like their fingerprint and so critics can see interpolations by others

Text critics often compile an "eclectic edition" using a collection of various source documents and then others can use that for their own work in translation. There is an eclectic edition of Greek New Testament texts called the Nestle-Aland that many modern Bible translators consult. It contains notes on variants in the source documents and why one reading or interpretation was chosen over another.

God said it

I thought to myself last night that if I believe that Jesus can be trusted, then if He quoted from the Old Testament, that adds to those writings' reliability. Yes, I know people can argue with that. It just reminded me of that phrase, "God said it, I believe it."

Here's a Quick Way to Choose a Bible Translation

Here is a very nice visual comparison of popular English Bible versions available today. The site itself from whence this image comes has details about what the chart means. For instance, the number in parentheses is the suggested grade level for reading that translation.  I see that my NIV falls into the 8th grade category. King James is at a college level. The NRSV that the pastor uses is designated tenth grade level.

The chart also notes which translations use "gender neutral language." For example, the NRSV uses "humankind" when talking about the creation in Genesis 1. Someone pointed out that applying gender to God is an old-fashioned concept. This is yet another thing for my mind to get used to thinking after all those years of calling God "Heavenly Father."

The same website mentioned above also has a graphic showing how many people were involved and what year these modern translations were finished. For example, only one person worked on The Message, my current reading Bible, and it was complete in 2002. I know from reading the preface to The Message that Eugene Peterson, the man who translated it, took ten years to finish it.

The first version of the NIV was done in 1978 and 110 people helped make it. The NRSV was done in 1989 after 30 people worked on it. You may already know that the King James Version was done in 1611, but did you know that the New King James Version was finished in 1982 after more than twice the number of original KJV scholars worked on it?

If you are looking for a new Bible or trying to decide which one to give to someone, I can tell you these things--if you don't have a bookstore that carries a large selection, try Amazon.com or ChristianBook.com because they both have book previews.  Sometimes Google Books does also. When you are trying to choose, it can get tricky because there are so many versions. My friend on the bench the other day was dead set on having the words of Christ in red and a concordance. Most translations offer a concordance, but not all have the text attributed to Jesus in red. This may be because not everyone thinks it's exactly word-for-word what He said. As I read somewhere, ancient historians were more concerned with getting the gist correct.

A person can get caught up in the politics of which translation is aimed at more liberal readers or more conservative readers. I don't know enough to worry about that yet. I have a translation by a gay college professor and I really like it. It was the second Bible I bought. In fact, I recommend having more than one version. You can achieve that by buying a parallel Bible with two or more translations in one book. I suppose that after those decades of close-mindedness I can't help but feast on the variety out there.

In the language of the people

I sat for a while on a bench with a friend who was perusing a catalog of Bibles for sale. A Mormon colleague from my office stopped to chat. As soon as she realized what kind of catalog it was I saw her reaction of rejection. I jokingly asked if she would like to get one, perhaps a newer translation, but she quickly said no, it was too modern for her.

I understand her reaction--there but for the grace of God that would be me, distrustful of the unknown, sure in my beliefs, thinking I didn't need anything more. In fact, my first Bible purchase as I left the LDS church was a King James Version. I felt safer with that.

Now that I have spent time with other versions of the Bible, I have found there are some that I enjoy very much. I have a study bible that uses the NIV, New International Version, translation. I enjoy it because it is clearly written in modern language.  Please compare:

Joshua 6, King James Version (KJV)

Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in.
2 And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour.
3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.
4 And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets.

Joshua 6, NIV (1984)

  Now Jericho was tightly shut up because of the Israelites. No one went out and no one came in.

2 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.  

3 March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days.  

4 Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams’ horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets.

I keep hearing and reading that the Lord spoke in the tongue of the common people so he would be understood. The KJV was the tongue of the common person 500 years ago. My personal opinion is that if Jesus came today I wouldn't hear him talking like Shakespeare.

Magic bullet

One by one, I am revealing to my LDS friends that I am now a Christian. I told another one yesterday. There was no drama.  I'm not certain she even flinched, at least not outwardly. We discussed some key differences between Christianity and Mormonism, such as being saved by grace or saved by grace and works. It was a civil discussion, just as I'd expect from my well-educated and kind friend.

What is breaking my heart since then is that she said she is totally content with her beliefs and content to let others believe as they want. Key word: content. Synonym: at ease, comfortable, complacent.

God gets to us when we are not content. My eyes were wedged open because of the controversy over marriage equality. When I watched the Youtube video conversion stories of the members of the Adams Road band, one pointed out that he read the Bible as a missionary to prove a Christian minister wrong and then saw the doctrinal conflicts with LDS scriptures. Another friend of mine was offended by cultural differences between the members from his home state and the ones in Utah. Each person that left Mormonism can probably tell you what took them out of the drone zone, made them consider what they'd always accepted as being unacceptable.

If you are waiting to help a Mormon open their eyes, don't be afraid if they have a trial.  Get ready to support them. It could be the magic bullet to wound them with the truth so they can heal in God's grace and love.

God has nothing to hide (The Bible is Reliable, part 3)

I mentioned before that I read, and yes, enjoyed, the Book of Mormon.  I knew all the stories, I memorized verses.  Like every good Mormon, I prayed to know if it was true. I admit I never had the "burning in the bosom" I hoped for, but I still told everyone how great the book was because I really believed it and wanted, some day, to feel it. I thought something was wrong with me, that I just didn't have enough faith yet.

LDS missionaries and members tell everyone to pray about the Book of Mormon to know if it's true.  They do not tell people to compare it to the Bible (although they do highlight the part where Jesus supposedly visits the Americas, perhaps because it copies the Sermon on the Mount and sounds Biblical).  They avoid discussions of archaeological support.  They do not advocate deep research into details. And there are no manuscripts from ancient times to use for translation comparison.

So for decades I believed God worked on the principle of blind faith.  WRONG.  God has nothing to hide.  He is perfect. He understands us, His creations.  He provides lots of evidence and His work can withstand scrutiny.

Archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon: ZERO.

Archaeological evidence for the Bible: peruse the local library, the Internet, scholarly journals, and expect to spend a long time absorbing it all.

Manuscript evidence for the Book of Mormon: only the documents Joseph Smith and his scribes wrote, along with various editions and corrections of the Book of Mormon, from the 19th and 20th centuries.

Manuscript evidence for the Bible: I've only touched on the Old Testament so far in prior posts; wait till I get to the New Testament.  LOTS.

God invites us all to research His work for ourselves.  He provides confirmation for our minds and hearts.

Acts 17:11, New Living Translation (italics mine)
And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth.

Three decades dedicated

I read an article today about a man in Israel who spent thirty years correcting 1500 errors in the Old Testament. Here's what one part of the article said:

The errors have no bearing on the Bible's stories and alter nothing in its meaning. Instead, for example, in some places the markers used to denote vowels in Hebrew are incorrect; or a letter in a word may be wrong, often the result of a centuries old transcription error. Some of the fixes are in the notations used for cantillation, the text's ritual chants.

I found that encouraging since I've been writing about the reliability of the Bible.

 

The Bible is Reliable (part 2)

In the previous post you may have seen the words "Septuagint" and "Masoretic."  The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament writings.  Jewish scholars finished it more than 100 years before Jesus was born.  There are existing fragments of Septuagint manuscripts dating back to that time.

The Masoretic text is the Old Testament in Hebrew.  Its oldest manuscripts still around today date to the 800s and 900s AD.  There aren't earlier ones because worn-out copies were destroyed.

Then there's the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to around 100BC, around a thousand years before the extant copies of the Masoretic text. Interestingly, there are few variations between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic and most are differences in spelling or word order.  This fact defeated my fear that Bible books were transmitted like the old party game of telephone.

Okay, just looking at Old Testament manuscripts, let's see what's available and then compare that to other ancient literature:

Version	Examples	Language	Date of Composition	Oldest Copy
Dead Sea Scrolls	Tanakh at Qumran	Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek(Septuagint)	c. 150 BCE – 70 CE	c. 150 BCE – 70 CE
Septuagint	Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and other earlier papyri	Greek	300–100 BCE	2nd century BCE (fragments) 4th century CE (complete)
Peshitta		Syriac		early 5th century CE
Vulgate	Codex Amiatinus	Latin		early 5th century CE early 8th century CE (complete)
Masoretic	Aleppo Codex, Leningrad Codex and other incomplete MSS	Hebrew	ca. 100 CE	10th century CE
Samaritan Pentateuch		Samaritan alphabet	200–100 BCE	Oldest extant MSS, c. 11th century CE; oldest MSS available to scholars, 16th century CE
Targum		Aramaic	500–1000 CE	5th century CE
Coptic	Crosby-Schøyen Codex, British Library MS. Oriental 7594	Coptic		3rd or 4th century CE

and let's compare to other ancient literature: 

AUTHOR	DATE written	EARLIEST manuscript available	TIME SPAN since original events/writing	NUMBER of copies available	ACCURACY between copies
Homer	ca. 850 B.C.			643	95%

Plato	ca. 380 B.C.	ca. A.D. 900	About 1,300 years	7	reconstruct
Aristotle	ca. 350 B.C.	ca. A.D. 1100	About 1,400 years	5	reconstruct
Caesar	ca. 60 B.C.	ca. A.D. 900	About 950 years	10	reconstruct

So far you may be noticing that there is a considerable variety and number of Old Testament manuscripts that date back in time fairly close to Old Testament events compared to some of the ancient literature we take for granted.

The Bible is Reliable (part 1)

One of my first worries after I realized that the Book of Mormon and the other Mormon scriptures were false was whether the Bible was something I could depend upon. I decided I did not want to be deceived again and would research it thoroughly. As a Mormon I was taught that the Bible was only believable "inasmuch as it was translated correctly." My first order of business was to obtain as many translations as possible and compare. Since I don't remember much Greek or Hebrew from school (yes, I really studied those, along with Latin, but don't ask me for lessons), I stuck to English and one Spanish version.

I read sections that were reportedly in dispute, such as Psalm 22, verse 16. The King James Version reads, "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet." A Jewish Bible reads "Dogs are all around me, a pack of villains closes in on me like a lion [at] my hands and feet."  It sounds much more Messianic in the King James Version.  But which is correct and why is there even a difference?

In written Hebrew there are no written vowels unless someone has taken the time to place marks on the text, kind of like we dot i's in English.  If I showed you this word, "rd"," you could say it was "red" or "rod" or reed," or, well, you get it.  So the difference between pierced and lion in Hebrew is a letter.  A page from the Jews for Jesus website explains it:

In Hebrew, the phrase "they have pierced" is kaaru while "like a lion" is kaari. The words are identical except that "pierced" ends with the Hebrew letter vav and "lion" with yod. Vav and yod are similar in form, and a scribe might easily have changed the text by inscribing a yod and failing to attach a vertical descending line so that it would become a vav. The evidence suggests that this may be what happened, since the Greek version of the Scriptures, known as the Septuagint, rendered in Egypt before the time of Jesus, preserves the reading of "pierced."
Unfortunately we don't have the "original text" to check whether that was a vav or a yod. What we have is the Septuagint translation which translated the Hebrew text as "pierced" and the Masoretic or standard text which has it as "like a lion."
Notice that the translation of the Hebrew is "pierced" in the Greek Septuagint which was completed in the centuries before Jesus was crucified. Therefore the charges made by some counter-missionaries, that fundamentalist Christian interpreters "twist" the meaning of the Hebrew Bible, rings hollow.

Somewhere I read that this one word doesn't change the meaning of the Psalm and I agree.  In the end, what does a lion do?  It pierces with its sharp teeth.

For the director of music. To the tune of “The Doe of the Morning.” A psalm of David.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
    Why are you so far from saving me,
    so far from the words of my groaning?
My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
    by night, but I find no rest.

Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
    you are the praise of Israel.
In you our ancestors put their trust;
    they trusted and you delivered them.
They cried to you and were saved;
    in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

But I am a worm, not a human being;
    I am scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
    they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
“He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
    “let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
    since he delights in him.”

Yet you brought me out of the womb;
    you made me feel secure on my mother’s breast.
From birth I was cast on you;
    from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Do not be far from me,
    for trouble is near
    and there is no one to help.

Many bulls surround me;
    strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Roaring lions that tear their prey
    open their mouths wide against me.
I am poured out like water,
    and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
    it has melted within me.
My mouth is dried up like a potsherd,
    and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
    you lay me in the dust of death.
Dogs surround me,
    a pack of villains encircles me;
    they pierce my hands and my feet.
All my bones are on display;
    people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my clothes among them
    and cast lots for my garment.

But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
    You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
Deliver me from the sword,
    my precious life from the power of the dogs.
Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
    save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

I will declare your name to my people;
    in the assembly I will praise you.
You who fear the Lord, praise him!
    All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him,
    all you descendants of Israel!
For he has not despised or scorned
    the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
    but has listened to his cry for help.

From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
    before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.
The poor will eat and be satisfied;
    those who seek the Lord will praise him—
    may your hearts live forever!
All the ends of the earth
    will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
    will bow down before him,
for dominion belongs to the Lord
    and he rules over the nations.

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
    all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
    those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve him;
    future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness,
    declaring to a people yet unborn:
    He has done it!

Today's New International Version (TNIV) © Copyright 2001, 2005 by Biblica

Anthem

I found the music that the new organist played on the day I joined the United Church of Christ: it's the finale of the First Symphony by Louis Vierne. It seems to tell the path God has led me along. I can hear the dark parts, the challenges, and the hope and faith and love all along the way. Wow! When he played it I thought the church building was launching into space! I recommend hearing it LOUD.

Ode to Joy

I've never been one to cry much.  But something has happened to me over the past few months.  I get teary-eyed over butterflies and all sorts of little things.  I suspect it has something to do with the Holy Spirit waking up my heart.

And today a friend in Europe sent me this video of part of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony and I had to hastily dry my eyes to see the end. I imagined it as part of the soundtrack of the Lord's Second Coming.  Wouldn't it be great if we all joined together to praise Him?

In case you didn't already know, Ludwig van Beethoven wrote this when he was completely deaf.  The choir sings "Ode to Joy," a poem by Friedrich Schiller. Here are parts of it:

Do you fall down, you millions?
Do you sense the creator, world?
Seek him above the starry canopy,
Above the stars he must live.

and

Endure courageously, millions!

Endure for the better world!

There above the starry canopy

A great God will reward.

 

 

Another soul saved by the Bible

Max Lucado made me cry

and laugh and rejoice as I read his book, "He Chose the Nails."  One of the first things to get to me was a poem in the first chapter, and I will just quote the last stanza:

Why give a flower fragrance? Why give food its taste? 

                            Could it be

                         he loves to see

                            the look upon your face?

The book goes on to describe how the way Jesus died was much more than just the minimum required.  I still have a while before I finish reading it. I had only ever read one children's book he wrote.  I can see now Mr. Lucado is a force for good when it comes to grownup books too.

 

 

 

                     

Where did Jesus pay for our sins?

Sunday school answers--

If you're a Mormon: the garden of Gethsemane.

If you're a Christian: the cross.

In the Bible Dictionary at the end of the King James Version of the Bible printed by the LDS church is the following phrase listed under "Atonement" as it refers to Jesus:

"...the shedding of his blood in the garden of Gethsemane..."

I remembered this from all my years of hearing it and I double-checked with two long-time LDS friends to see if they would also give the same response when I asked them, "Where did Jesus pay for our sins?" Their response was the same.

Why the garden and not the cross?  Perhaps because Joseph Smith, in his revision of the Bible, changed a verse in Luke.

King James Version of Luke 22:44: "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

Joseph Smith Version of Luke 22:44 as seen in the footnotes: "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and he sweat as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

I put in the italics--it seems to be that Joseph Smith was saying Jesus sweat blood where the original text indicated that it was like unto, or similar to, blood.  I looked at every translation I own.  Nowhere else does it say it was actual blood.  But generations of LDS prophets and leaders, even up to the present day in General Conference, have spoken about Jesus' suffering in the garden and call that the payment for human sins.  They also expand on it, saying he took on humanity's infirmities, sickness, pain, etc.  (See the manual called "Gospel Principles," chapter 11, "The Life of Christ.") To be fair, some LDS authorities do state that the time on the cross was part of the sacrifice for sins (see James Talmage, "Jesus the Christ"). 

Even if Jesus did end up sweating blood, this is not a sufficient sacrifice for sins, according to the Old Testament Law of Moses.  The animals sacrificed to God then were not just bled a little and set free.  They were killed.  And those sacrifices were a foreshadowing of Jesus.


What's interesting is that Gethsemane, by name, is only mentioned once in Matthew and once in Mark, and appears in the same context of it being the place where Jesus went to pray on the night he was arrested.  In Luke the place is only named as the Mount of Olives.  (The name Gethsemane comes from Aramaic for "oil press.")  If it was such an important place where Christ saved us, then why did the original apostles and disciples repeatedly call attention to the cross?  Paul teaches about it several times in the epistles.  Jesus himself in Matthew 10 and 16 (and Mark 8 and 10, and Luke 9 and 14) refers to the cross.


Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that Jesus "Christ died for our sins," not that he prayed and suffered and sweat blood for them in the garden. Death is the ultimate penalty of sin.


What came to mind for me was someone awaiting the death penalty in prison.  That person might kneel in their cell and pray and suffer, knowing that they are facing death, but that does not "pay" for their sins.  Only death in the electric chair "pays" the price. 


For an excellent article, see "Calvary or Gethsemane?" by the Mormonism Research Ministry.

We have liftoff!

I found a team: the United Church of Christ. I was affirmed as a member today during the service.  As the pastor pointed out, I've had some transitions lately.  I choose Ruth 1:16 as my scripture: "And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God." (KJV)  It speaks to my desire to follow the true God, to join with this people in the body of Christ.

I also chose the Statement of Faith because it says it all:

We believe in God, the Eternal Spirit, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father, and to his deeds we testify:
He calls the worlds into being, creates man in his own image and sets before him the ways of life and death.
He seeks in holy love to save all people from aimlessness and sin.
He judges men and nations by his righteous will declared through prophets and apostles.
In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Lord,he has come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the world to himself.
He bestows upon us his Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races.
He calls us into his church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be his servants in the service of men, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share in Christ's baptism and eat at his table, to join him in his passion and victory.
He promises to all who trust him forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, his presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in his kingdom which has no end.
Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto him.
Amen.

Why did I chose this church?  One: they welcome everyone.  Two: their logo reminds us that God is still speaking. Three: they have a goal of being a unifying force among the churches of Christianity.  And four: they are very proactive in social justice.

I'm excited to see where this road goes as I travel Home.

I like the superlatives of Christianity

Like "reckless abandon" and "extravagant welcome"!

If you have some more to add please leave me a comment.

How I arrived at where I am

No, this is not a post about the myth of the Mormon Pre-existence.  Someone just asked me how I converted to Christ.  I wrote a long reply and then decided to put it here too in case anyone else would like to know:

I was a teenage convert to Mormonism, so I believe my family is heaving a sigh of relief that I finally woke up. Most of them are church-goers in the South.  So far I've only revealed my change to a few staunch LDS friends (besides the few who weren't members or active members).  So far no one has shunned me.  I know that a couple are profoundly shocked because I was an active Mormon for most of my life, having served a mission, married in the temple, etc.  One did such a double-take I really thought she'd pass out on me.  Another active member of Mormon pioneer ancestry took it so well she actually joked with me over my change of underwear.

How did my change happen? I started reading the Bible.

Little wedges of doubt had started when the LDS church worked so hard against marriage equality in California.  I have a female cousin who has had a wife for years.  I can't imagine asking her to give up her spouse and yet my former church wanted me to give time and money to fight against people just like her.  I couldn't find anything in any of the LDS scriptures where Jesus spoke directly against homosexuals, so I started researching in the Bible too.  I saw that people could argue both sides, but again Jesus never rejected anyone and never made one plain statement about gay people.  I couldn't believe His "true church" ought to actively use politics to persecute people.

Time passed and I decided to read the Bible cover to cover.  I'd never done it although I'd read some selections for Sunday School and for other classes.  I had read the other "standard works" of the LDS church multiple times.  They seemed easier to comprehend.  No offense to the King James Version, but it was hard for me to understand, and it's the version the church uses.  (And you may be aware that the church says they believe in the Bible "insofar as it is translated correctly."  So using the Bible as you talk to members may be hard since a lot don't trust it anyway.)

I started with Genesis and compared the creation story in it to the one in the Book of Abraham.  Then I got online (thank Heaven for the Internet) and researched the Book of Abraham.  I'd never had a reason to doubt it before, so when I saw a link to a scholarly site assessing its validity, I went there.  Oops. Suddenly I had BIG questions.  I stayed up all that night reading page after page about the church, the "prophets," and its "scriptures."  The sites were done by former members or Christian ministries and weren't what I expected when it came to "anti-Mormon" literature.

I missed church that Sunday morning after my all-night vigil, and all the Sundays after that.  I never went back.  I couldn't because it would be dishonest.  I was and still am sad to not see the people I care about each week. I asked to have my name removed and here I am, a free agent looking for a team.

Soon I passed through a few difficult days where I really wondered if there even was a God.  I had spent decades of my life making most of my decisions based on a lie.  But at the close of that first night of research I told God out loud that I was going to act on the belief that He was there even though I wasn't sure how to talk to him or if anything I had learned was true.

I started right in on getting different translations of the Bible and gathering lots of books written by Christians.  My doubts about God's existence finally stopped when I read Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator."  Now I am reading all the way in Judges and coming to appreciate more and more God's love and genius.

In closing, I think I only once spoke to a Christian outside Temple Square.  I remember feeling sorry that they were missing out on the Book of Mormon. Now I shake my head at the arrogance I had then.  I wish I had listened sooner.  On the other hand, I pray that my former faithfulness to the LDS church will help me inspire current members to come to the real Savior, Jesus, and trust Him, not in all those works they always feel they have to do to be worthy.

It's not in the observance

Wow, I just had a breakthrough.  I've been concerned about where to attend church.  Remember my Mormon background and its emphasis on proper authority and rituals done in a certain way.  I've researched baptism because I was worried about the differences between Christian churches in the way it is performed.  I had it in my mind that there should be a "right" way.  I just finished reading the five books of Moses and it was very plain to me that God could state explicit details over how to do things and I've been frustrated because there are no such details given in the New Testament.  Then today the Holy Spirit showed me why.  It's not the Law that matters now, it's the heart.  Exact observance of rituals doesn't save anyone.  And putting that kind of control and power in the hands of one "authorized" group is a recipe for disaster.

It's the heart that matters.  No one but God can judge our hearts.  He protected us from "unrighteous dominion" by denying us an earthly priesthood ruling class and He made only Himself responsible for judging us.  We can just focus on worshipping Him and keeping our hearts right with Him.  How awesome is that!

Do vs Be

I just found this blog post comparing an article in the Ensign to the Bible. (The Ensign is the official magazine of the Mormon church.  The article in the Ensign was a talk (kind of like a sermon) given by the current Mormon prophet, Thomas Monson, in the April 2012 General Conference of the church.)

Look close to the bottom of the post.  It's the classic viewpoint of the church, the one that has every Mormon wondering if they'll really be good enough to make it to heaven after all.  Monson said "Such blessings are earned through a lifetime of striving, seeking, repenting, and finally succeeding.”  The blog's author contrasts this with what the Bible says, "“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”  (Ephesians 2:8-9) 

I liked the author's statement earlier in the post that the command to "be perfect" is not a process, but a result of justification, of being born again.  Again, it is a gift because of grace. Humans are not capable of being perfect by ourselves.  When I was an active member of the LDS church, I remember worrying sometimes that I just wasn't doing enough to make it to the "celestial kingdom," the Mormon's idea of a highest level of heaven.  I might have been paying a full tithe but I wasn't volunteering to take time off work and go work for free at the cannery or donating a big enough fast offering.  I did genealogy, but only sporadically.  I didn't make it to the temple every week. As a Mormon, there's always more to do. 

The more I read the Bible now, the more I see what a tremendous difference between the Word of God and the words of the LDS church.  I was easily fooled into following what church leaders said because I never really read the Bible--not with the love and respect I have for it now.  And like Jesus said, His yoke is easy and his burden is light.

Someone to talk to

I've been reading a delightful and insightful book called "Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus" by Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg.  (If you want to know more, see their site.)  They suggest getting a haver, or friend. The way they described it made me think of  study partners as seen in the movie, Yentl. Like for the scriptural discussions and debate.  I like this idea and have prayed for someone to be my study partner now. I had a friend like this once, but she moved away and started a family years ago.  Our contact is infrequent now.  But when we saw each other every day, we almost always had insights to share with one another.  We prayed together, we had many enlightened moments, and it was very uplifting to have a friend like that.

At present, I am surrounded by members of the LDS church.  There is a world of doctrinal difference between us now.  Since I am still feeling like a child learning Christianity, I would feel safer with a haver/haverah who is Christian.  The church I have visited a few times does not have a regular study group.  There are other churches around, so perhaps it is up to me to seek out a place.  I am reluctant for one reason: one of the first issues that caused me shame about being LDS was their stand toward gays and lesbians and transgender people.  Remember the Prop 8 mess in California?  I felt inside that Jesus would not reject or punish someone who wanted a relationship with someone of the same gender.  I am uncertain which others of the handful of churches in this area are welcoming and I don't want to get invested in one that is close-minded.  (For a well-reasoned presentation on Christianity and homosexuality, see http://matthewvines.tumblr.com/ )

While I look for a study friend, I found myself talking to God this morning as I read the first chapter of Acts in an interlinear Greek-English New Testament.  And I figured He could be my haver for now, the best one anyone could have.

Wow

The more I read "My Utmost for His Highest," the more I am sure Oswald Chambers was inspired.  His words enlighten me and open my eyes and heart to a deeper meaning of the Bible.

Like today's devotional:

Careful infidelity

Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body what ye shall put on. Matthew 6:25.

Jesus sums up commonsense carefulness in a disciple as infidelity. If we have received the Spirit of God, He will press through and say—‘Now where does God come in in this relationship, in this mapped-out holiday, in these new books?’ He always presses the point until we learn to make Him our first consideration. Whenever we put other things first, there is confusion.

“Take no thought . . .”—don’t take the pressure of forethought upon yourself. It is not only wrong to worry, it is infidelity, because worrying means that we do not think that God can look after the practical details of our lives, and it is never anything else that worries us. Have you ever noticed what Jesus said would choke the word He puts in? The devil? No, the cares of this world. It is the little worries always. I will not trust where I cannot see, that is where infidelity begins. The only cure for infidelity is obedience to the Spirit.

The great word of Jesus to His disciples is abandon.

Chambers, Oswald: My Utmost for His Highest : Selections for the Year. Grand Rapids, MI : Discovery House Publishers, 1993, c1935, S. May 23

Which then led me to find the parable of the sower in Matthew:   

  

²² He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

The Holy Bible : King James Version. electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. Bellingham WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. Mt 13:22

And my breakthrough was that indeed the little worries can wedge themselves between me and God and cause me to end up far away from Him.  And this is entirely the right illumination I needed today since dark clouds of little worries were moving in yesterday, even interrupting my sleep last night.

God really does take care of the details.

Just the facts, ma'am

Last night I learned of the existence of Karaite Jews. I was fascinated by them and dug around the Internet to learn about them.  They only accept the Old Testament as it stands and do not accept rabbinic commentary. They want to interpret and understand the scriptures for themselves.  I can really respect this. I am using lots of reference materials as I study the Bible and I am trying to understand it for myself and not just accept something because it's tradition or because someone with a title said it was so.

Quoteable

I heard a sermon posted online by the Reverend Daniel Haas of the Provo United Community Church of Christ.  It's titled "Enfolded by Love." In it he said,

"There is no such thing as an individual Christian."

I really liked that--I may not currently belong to a specific church but I am not alone. Jesus watches over all his flock.

A turn of phrase out of phase?

In Numbers, chapter 3, of the New Jerusalem Bible I read this:

(verse 3) Such were the names of Aaron's sons, priests anointed and invested with the powers of the priesthood.

Scratching my head because of the last part of the verse, I did comparisons with several other translations.  I didn't see anywhere else that mentioned "powers of the priesthood."  The other Bibles had something similar to the King James Version below:

3 These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests which were anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office. 

Having just left a church that boasts the only "priesthood authority" on the Earth, I am sensitive to such assertions.  Is it possible that the translators of the NJB were trying to support the Roman Catholic Church's claim to priesthood?

I looked in the notes of the ArtScroll Tanach, Stone edition (a Jewish Bible).  Due to copyright, I can't quote them word-for-word.  In summary, the note for Numbers, chapter 6, verse 27, said priests (Kohanim) have no power in themselves to give blessings, they only serve as a channel or pipeline for God.


 

Neapolitan, for when you really just can't choose

As a child, I used to eat the chocolate first, then the strawberry, then the vanilla last.  When I visit an ice cream shop now as an adult I often order a mix like chocolate fudge with a scoop of bubblegum.  It's the same way for me with Bible translations: I can't choose yet, I want to try them all.

Go here for a page with a chart comparing modern English versions and other interesting facts, like how many people worked on the translations.

I have found that for general reading, I really enjoy The Message. When I come across something I want to explore, I open other translations and compare.  It's fun!  Some great resources for Bible comparison online are

http://www.biblegateway.com/

http://www.biblestudytools.com/

What does it mean?

I've been learning vocabulary used in the Christian world.

Communion or Eucharist: the Lord's Supper, also known as "the sacrament" in the LDS church

Exegesis: Greek for "lead out of," an explanation or interpretation, especially of the Bible

Indwelling: having the Holy Spirit living within us

Intercession: praying for others

Minister: Latin for "servant;" someone who is ordained as clergy

Ordination: recognizing and confirming that someone is called to the ministry, has been trained and authorized to teach and perform services like weddings and funerals. (The LDS church teaches that ordination imparts special authority and power from God and their ordained clergy are not trained in theological seminaries.)

Nicene Creed:  We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen

Pastor: "shepherd," a title for clergy, like a minister

Trinity: one God who exists as three persons (I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this after decades of the LDS doctrine of the "Godhead." It blows my mind that I can pray to Jesus too.)

Witness: give testimony of Christ

Who did what to whom and why?

I hit a conundrum in Exodus, chapter 4. Moses and God had just been talking at the burning bush.  Moses got his instructions on freeing the people of Israel and was headed back to Egypt. When I read verses 24-26 I wondered what happened. If God wanted to kill Moses, he'd had plenty of chances already. And if Moses needed to circumcise his sons, why didn't God bring that up already? I read the same verses in every version of the Bible I had on hand to try to understand. I later found out that I'm not the only one confused. Turns out there's even a Wikipedia entry about it.

I originally read it in The Message:

^24-26 On the journey back, as they camped for the night, God met Moses and would have killed him but Zipporah took a flint knife and cut off her son's foreskin, and touched Moses' member with it. She said, "Oh! You're a bridegroom of blood to me!" Then God let him go. She used the phrase "bridegroom of blood" because of the circumcision.  1

The King James version reads:

²⁴ And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.

²⁵ Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

²⁶ So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

The New Revised Standard Version says:

24 On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him. ²⁵But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, ‘Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!’ ²⁶So he let him alone. It was then she said, ‘A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.’ 2

A search on the Internet led me to an interesting article written by Ronald B. Allen about "The Bloody Bridgegroom." He summarizes other scholars' ideas on the verses and then gives his own interpretation.  He says God held Moses in a death grip because Moses had failed to circumcise his son and circumcision was a requirement of the covenant with the people of Israel. But God gave Moses a chance to redeem himself. Moses' wife, Zipporah came to the rescue, although she seemed angry at having to do it herself. 3

I found another interpretation in "Commentary on the Torah" by Richard Elliott Friedman. He translates verse 24 with "he asked to kill him" and says it is possible Moses was asking God to kill him instead of sending him to Egypt. Mr. Friedman states there were other prophets who said they preferred death to being prophets. 4

It was actually enlightening for me to see that there is a lively debate over some Bible passages. I've enjoyed using resources available to me to compare ideas.

1 "Scripture taken from The Message. Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group." 

2 ‘New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicized Edition, copyright 1989, 1995, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.’ 

3 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 153 (July-September 1996): 259-69
Copyright © 1996 by Dallas Theological Seminary.

4 HarperCollins, Apr 15, 2003

Devoting time

Imagine that you are suddenly forced to question your deepest beliefs, your lifestyle, and your relationships. That happened to me not very long ago. When I uncovered the multitude of lies that had been so carefully packaged and presented to me as shiny clean truths, I felt even my faith in God's existence waver. If there wasn't a "true church" and if all my major life decisions for the past twenty-seven years had been based on a lie, could there even be a God?

I wanted to give God a chance so I kept reading the Bible. I borrowed books about Christianity from the library.  I found out that former US president Jimmy Carter had released a book called "Through the Year with Jimmy Carter."  It is a daily devotional--according to Wikipedia, a publication that provides a "specific spiritual reading for each calendar day."

I had a free sample of the book sent to my e-reader and found that I really liked it.  Each day started with a scripture from the Bible, then an experience Jimmy Carter had that related to the verse(s), then a simple prayer regarding the theme. The sample was over three weeks long. I wrote each day in a journal about what I learned and thought and felt. The prayer part felt a little pagan to me at first.  It was someone else's prayer.  Using "You" to address God was really strange to see.  But in time I relaxed and read the prayers anyway.  I tried to say them with real intent and feeling.

I had always admired Jimmy Carter for his humanitarian work and that was what drew me to his devotional. I later discovered Oswald Chambers and his work, "My Utmost for His Highest."  No prayers here, just a verse and a mini-sermon each day.  It has been very powerful to read--Mr. Chambers pulls no punches.

The idea of a daily devotional started out strange to me but I have found it to be very useful, inspirational, and motivational to read the experiences and thoughts of other Christians.  I look forward to it each day.  It helps me learn Christian doctrine. It helps me feel less alone.

I highly recommend giving a daily devotional book or calendar to any ex-Mormon to whom you give a Bible. 

"wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see"

In January 1604, the recently-crowned King James the First of England called a meeting of clergy.  Leaders of the Church of England and Puritans who wanted to reform church procedures met with the king.  At the time there were two popular competing versions of the Bible: the Bishop's Bible, read in Church services, and the Geneva Bible, liked by Puritans and disliked by the king because its margin notes were anti-monarchy.  A Puritan leader at the 1604 meeting called for a new translation of the Bible and the king agreed.

Close to fifty scholars began work on the new translation.  They divided into teams for Old and New Testaments, and the Apocrypha.  They had fifteen rules to follow.  One rule was to alter the Bishop's Bible as little as possible.  Another allowed them to use other translations (like the Geneva Bible or Tyndale's work) if they agreed better with the text. Margin notes were only allowed for explanation of Greek and Hebrew terms.

The Bible was published in 1611 but revisions continued until 1769, which edition came to be the "authorized" version used today.  If you would like to see what the original King James Bible looked like, go to http://www.kingjamesbibletrust.org/the-king-james-bible/digitized-kjv-of-1611/

For many years the only copy of the King James Bible that I owned was "copyright 1979, the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, printed by permission of the Crown's patentee, Cambridge University Press."  The front page explained that it was the "Authorized King James Version with explanatory notes and cross references to the standard works of the church..."  It came with copious footnotes and chapter headings, a section of maps with gazetteer, a Bible Dictionary, Topical Guide, and an appendix with the Joseph Smith Translation.  It did not include any books considered part of the Apocrypha.

Today I own a Scofield Study Bible, my first Bible purchase after deciding to leave the LDS church.  My trust in the Mormon scriptures was gone and I was feeling lost.  I wanted to read the Bible but I had no idea which Bible translation to turn to, so I stuck with what I knew: the King James Version.  I didn't have any Christian friends to consult but Scofield's reference Bible came highly praised on Amazon.com.  I previewed its contents online (since I live in a place where this item is not stocked in any local bookstore).  Scofield's reference Bible provides cross references of Bible themes and commentary and I figured I could use all the help I could get as I transitioned to being a Christian.  I wanted to explore this new world and wasn't sure how much of what I had learned was true or accepted opinion in the Christian world.

Once it arrived I examined it. The King James language is familiar, and having lots of notes on the pages feels comfortable.  The words of Jesus are printed in red, which was different and I liked that.  I love the supplemental materials in the back: the index to themes, the dictionary of proper names, the subject index, and the concordance.  There are maps too. This Bible is a little library in itself.

On the downside, I saw that the commentary reads very authoritatively.  As a Mormon, I used to heed authority ("the words of the living prophet") and put aside doubts that would have to be explained in the next life. I was a little skeptical and wary of these notes in the Scofield Bible, but figured I could read them and research the ideas in other sources.  I would want a new Christian like me to explore the world of Christianity and not just accept something because it is scholarly or sounds definitive.  I did find the cross-references and additional notes helpful and interesting. On the whole, I would still recommend this as a good transition Bible for an ex-Mormon, as a good replacement for the LDS version.

Why this blog?

An energetic young Mormon missionary recently wrote home and said "the Bible is sooo 2000 years ago. Let's talk about the Book of Mormon, huh?"

I felt sad when I saw that. That had also been my opinion when I was an active member of the Mormon church (aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or LDS). For me, the Bible was a thick and mysterious tome, difficult to understand. I had only read small parts of it, usually in conjunction with a Sunday School class. A lot more of my attention and study was on the Book of Mormon, and I read that cover to cover multiple times.  Most of my friends in the church seemed to feel the same, preferring it over the Bible.  The LDS church leadership itself constantly urges the members to read and share the Book of Mormon; missionaries give away free copies to anyone and everyone.  On its introduction page, the founder of the church, the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Meanwhile, the church, in its Articles of Faith, number 8, says "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly..."  This tends to give the impression that the Bible is not trustworthy.  Joseph Smith himself made corrections to the King James Version and the church put his notes and changes in footnotes and an appendix in the back of their standard church Bible.

Speaking of this standard LDS Bible, it's the Authorized King James Version without Apocrypha.  The church publishes it themselves and includes study helps like maps, a Bible Dictionary, and a topical guide. In all my decades of Sunday meetings and weekly activities, I only ever once saw someone bring a different Bible to church--a person who wasn't a member and was being taught by the missionaries. 


I feel sorry for my former brothers and sisters of the LDS church and I wanted to do something to help them see that the Bible is relevant and useful today.  The idea for "Bibles for Mormons" came with this vision:
I want to see Mormons reading, respecting, and recommending the Bible.

To that end I plan to post about different translations and versions of the Bible, Biblical history and archeology, and study helps.  I plan to give Bibles to LDS friends and write about those experiences.  I want to share my own thoughts as I read the Bible.  And I hope to encourage readers to present Bibles to their Mormon friends and family.