In some of Joseph Smith Jr.'s last speeches, he mentioned a German translation of the Bible which he was fond of. E.g., he says in the King Follet discourse (emphasis added): > I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. **I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years.** ([History of the Church 6:307](https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-14)) Later on in this same speech, he says (emphasis added): > **In the German, the text bears me out the same as the revelations which I have given and taught for the last fourteen years on that subject.** I have the testimony to put in their teeth. My testimony has been true all the time. You will find it in the declaration of John the Baptist. (Reads from the German.) John says, "I baptize you with water, but when Jesus comes, who has the power (or keys), he shall administer the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost." Where is now all the sectarian world? And if this testimony is true, they are all damned as clearly as anathema can do it. I know the text is true. I call upon all you Germans who know that it is true to say, Aye. (Loud shouts of "Aye.") ([History of the Church 3:316](https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-14)) In another address shortly before he was murdered (dated May 12, 1844), he says: > **The Germans are an exalted people. The old German translators are the most nearly correct -- most honest of any of the translators; and therefore I get testimony to bear me out in the revelations that I have preached for the last fourteen years.** The old German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew translations all say it is true: they cannot be impeached, and therefore I am in good company. ([History of the Church 6:363](https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-17)) Which German translation is Joseph referring to? I am not familiar with the different translations of the Bible, having only ever read the King James Version in English. [According to Wikipedia,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_German) there are several German translations of the Bible. I am interested in this specific version which Joseph owned. Which version is he referring to and where can I get a copy?

In his article [*The Magisterium, Biblical and Pastoral Aspects*](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/magisterium-biblical-and-pastoral-aspects-3773) , Fr. John F. Wealon writes: > I know of no wiser treatment than that of the German bishops in a pastoral letter of September 22, 1967. The pastoral says: "At this point we must soberly discuss a difficult question, which in the case of many Catholics today, much more than in the past, either menaces their faith or their spontaneous confidence in the doctrinal authority of the Church. We are thinking of the fact that in the exercise of its office, the doctrinal authority of the Church can be subject to error and has in fact erred. The Church has always known that something of the sort was possible. It has stated it in its theology and developed rules for such situations. This possibility of error does not affect doctrines which are proclaimed to be held with absolute assent, by a solemn definition of the Pope or of a General Council or by the ordinary magisterium. It is also historically wrong to affirm that errors of the Church have subsequently been discovered in such dogmas. This of course is not to deny that in the case of a dogma growth in understanding is always possible and always necessary, the original sense being maintained while previous possible misunderstandings are eliminated. And of course the problem in question must not be confused with the obvious fact that there is changeable human law in the Church as well as divine and unalterable law. Changes in such human law have nothing to do with error, but simply raise the question of the opportuneness of legal dispositions at different times. As regards error and the possibility of error in non-defined doctrinal pronouncements of the Church, where in fact the degree of obligation can vary very widely, we must begin by accepting soberly and resolutely the fact that the whole of our human life in general has also to be lived simply 'according to the best of our knowledge'. We have to follow our conscience according to our lights, which cannot be justified with absolute intellectual certainty but still remain here and now the valid norms to be respected in thought and action, because for the present there is nothing better. This is something which everyone knows from his own experience. It is a truth accepted by every doctor in his diagnosis and by every statesman in his judgment of a political situation and the decisions to be taken in view of it. The Church too, in its doctrine and practice, cannot always allow itself to be faced by the dilemma of either giving an absolutely binding doctrinal decision or simply remaining silent and leaving everything to the personal opinion of the individual. To safeguard the real substance of the faith, the Church must give doctrinal instructions, which have a certain degree of obligation but not being definitions of the faith, have a certain provisional character, even to the extent of possible error. This is a risk which must be taken, since otherwise the Church would find it quite impossible to preach its faith as the decisive reality of life, to expound it and to apply it to each new situation of man. In such a case, the situation of the individual with regard to the Church is somewhat like that of a man who knows that he is bound to accept the decision of an expert, even though he knows that this is not infallible. "There is no place, at any rate, in sermons and religious instruction for opinions contrary to such provisional doctrinal pronouncements of the Church, even though in certain circumstances the faithful should have the nature and the limited scope of such provisional pronouncements explained to them... The Christian who believes he has a right to his private opinion, that he already knows what the Church will only come to grasp later, must ask himself in sober self-criticism before God and his conscience, whether he has the necessary depth and breadth of theological expertise to allow his private theory and practice to depart from the present doctrine of the ecclesiastical authorities. The case is in principle admissible. But conceit and presumption will have to answer for their willfulness before the judgment-seat of God". Where may I find the 1967 pastoral letter of these "German bishops" from which the above was extracted? Is it available in English? If not, German O.K.

It seems to me that in the States if you are a Christian but not a Catholic, you're automatically thrown into the huge (and negatively viewed) pot that is Protestantism. I have many (Catholic) relatives there, some of whom are very strictly religious, and I would like to avoid confusion with the radically different and incompatible branches of Protestantism that they might be thinking of when I try to explain my beliefs. In Germany we call it "Evangelisch-Lutherisch" (translated , albeit incorrectly as shown below: "Evangelical Lutheran") - apparently, the equivalent on the English Wikipedia is Lutheranism . "Evangelisch"s make up around 24.3% of the German population, many of whom are Lutherans (there are 2.4% more Roman Catholics). The translated German Wikipedia page on Protestantism sums up the translation issues that arise: > "Evangelisch" *[no translation]* must be distinguished from the term "Evangelikal" *[evangelical]* which emerged in the 20th century, especially when translated into or from other languages. In English-speaking countries, the terms "Protestantism" and "Protestant" are indispensable, since "evangelical" can mean "Evangelikal" in addition to "Evangelisch", especially in North America. Also, there is no English equivalent for the adjective "reformatorisch" *[no translation, branch of "Evangelisch" church that is incompatible with Lutheranism and strongly attached to the bible as gods word -> f.e. Calvinism]* The adjective "reformed" means "reformiert" *[not "reformatorisch"]* and is used, for example, in designations for certain churches, such as the Dutch Reformed Church. The historical term "evangelical" originated in the environment of Puritanism in England. *[Which Lutherans have nothing to do with]* (notes added in angular brackets) How can I best convey what I believe in? Should I just say I'm Lutheran? Should I explain the similarities and differences with Catholicism instead?

How common is income tax diversion to Catholic Churches in the world? In the USA, we usually just contribute according to our means or desires, nothing is automatic and our contributions are certainly not tied to our ability to receive the sacraments. > If an individual is registered as a Catholic in Germany, 8-9% of their income tax goes to the Church. The only way they can stop paying the tax is to make an official declaration renouncing their membership. They are no longer allowed to receive the sacraments or a Catholic burial. > > https://www.ncregister.com/cna/survey-one-in-three-catholics-in-germany-thinking-of-leaving-church Seems like this information ought to be highlighted in the [Taxation in Germany wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany) but it is [mentioned here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax) . Whose idea was this and how does it square with canon law? Is there still a collection taken at Mass in Germany? Does it drive people away from the Church by giving them a financial incentive to leave the faith or do they find it a convenient way to give?

I was reading an [interesting article](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/pastor-of-luther-s-church-synodal-path-is-the-wrong-path) on the National Catholic Register where the pastor at Martin Luther's church in Wittenburg said he thought that people who disagree with the Catholic Church and fundamentally want to change her, or democratize her, should just become Protestants instead. Owing to the citation that Catholics are leaving the faith in droves in Germany over the [last few years](https://www.ncregister.com/cna/survey-one-in-three-catholics-in-germany-thinking-of-leaving-church) what reasons or justifications do Bishops and Cardinals give for continuing as Catholics instead of just leaving with their congregations?

I have just came about a 10 years old photo of my aunt's burial ceremony that took place in June 2009 in one of the German churches (in a small city close to Oldenburg). Unfortunately, relation both with my aunt and her living family was/is very weak, so I can't even say, if she was Christian or Protestant and thus, in which church following photo was taken? Does anyone know what are these numbers printed on the wall in the right part of the photograph? My first and only guess was that these are song numbers that will be sing during the ceremony. But then, what are those additional numbers (or actually some kind of value ranges)? And why to print song numbers permanently on the wall, if they keep to changed (depending on ceremony, day of year etc.) and thus should rather be displayed using some non-permanent way. Like a display etc.

I'm a church organist in a Catholic church in Southern Spain, and due to large numbers of German tourists, we have both German-language and Spanish-language services. The words to the Spanish Gloria and Sanctus are always the same, but the words for the German Glorias and Sanctuses vary (if they're not the standardized ones, they are called Lied); but my priest considers this variation of the text practiced by German churches to be decadent / a corruption of the true text, and so we always do the same Gloria and Sanctus for the German-language services. For example, Sanctus words that are OK (Gotteslob 193, old 481): > Heilig, heilig, heilig Gott, Herr aller Mächte. Erfüllt sind Himmel und Erde von seiner Herrlichkeit. Hosanna in der Höhe. Gebenedeit sei, der da kommt im Namen des Herrn. Hosanna, hosanna in der Höhe. and that are not OK (Gotteslob 196, old 491): > Heilig, heilig, heilig Herr, Gott der Mächte Erd und Himmel sind deiner Ehre voll. Hosianna in der Höhe. Hochgelobt sei, der da kommt im Namen des Herren. Hosianna in der Höhe. Both slightly different from what's listed on Wikipedia as the official Catholic text : > Heilig, heilig, heilig, Gott, Herr aller Mächte und Gewalten. Erfüllt sind Himmel und Erde von deiner Herrlichkeit. Hosanna in der Höhe. Hochgelobt sei, der da kommt im Namen des Herrn. Hosanna in der Höhe Could anyone help me understand why that is, and what are the two different philosophies apparently present in the German Catholic and Spanish Catholic churches?

Positive Christianity was a movement in Nazi Germany. It advanced interpreting Jesus as an active organiser, preacher and fighter against institutionalised Judaism. I was wondering if anyone still follows this interpretation? The Wikipedia page suggests that it went into decline and suggests that some adherent groups still exist. However, the links don't really lead anywhere.

In some movies the priest says the following phrase during a wedding: "Whoever is against this marriage should speak now or be silent forever". Does this tradition exist in the Catholic church (especially in German-speaking parts of Europe)?

The 400th anniversary of Luther posting his 95 Theses was October 31, 1917. At this point, Germany was suffering heavy losses in World War I, and the war would continue until November 11th of the following year. Were celebrations for the 400th anniversary held in Germany during World War I?

I know that Switzerland and southern Germany was the birthplace of anabaptism, did it come from Ulrich Zwingli? Or was there another more influential person out of the reformation that encouraged anabaptism? Modern anabaptist churches (to my knowledge) are all descendents of German Brethren churches. Where would that put Switzerland?

I know very little about the German Lutheran church and what set them appart from the religion I've been raised in, Swiss Reformed. However, my understanding is that they are closer to Catholics, and they are sort of hybrid catholic-reformed. For example, they decorate their churches while we reformed don't. I'm more interested in the differences in practice, as what are the religious traditions, rather than the theoretical aspect of what Luther and Calvin respectively thought was right. I ask this because religion is often taught from one's mother, and my great-great-great-grandmother immigrated from Germany and was a German Lutheran; does it makes me a subconscious German Lutheran? How easy would it have been for her to convert from German Lutheran faith to Swiss Reformed faith?

I want to know if Protestant churches and chapels in Germany have crucifixes with Jesus depicted on them, or just empty crosses. Correct me if I am mistaken, because I am ignorant of christian theology and practice: a cross is not an object of worship, and is preferred by many Protestants because it is not an "idol", whereas a crucifix is considered by many Protestants to be an idol, and is therefore objectionable. I am asking all this because someone wishes to visit a Protestant church/chapel in Southern Germany (Karlsbad), but objects to the presence of "idols".