Contradictions between The BoM and the Bible?

[rameumptom]

If the darkness was given as a sign to the inhabitants of the isles across the sea, and to those of the house of Israel, then why would the length of darkness differ in different parts of the world?

Why do you suppose they would have to be the same? When the skies darkened over Jerusalem for 3 hours, it was night time in the Americas. Just how was that to be noticed by anyone here?

The BoM suggests that the darkness they witnessed may have been caused by volcanic eruption, with soot and ash in the air diminishing the light available. The darkness was such that they could not light a fire (not something normal darkness does, but very logical when ash is choking off much of the air supply).

You are assuming that the Bible has all the complete answers for everywhere and everything. It doesn't. Psalms' discussion was based upon David's (and others who wrote the Psalms) beliefs at the time. They are not necessarily perfect or complete in their teaching, just as David wasn't perfect in his actions and thoughts. Remember that Jesus would later say concerning children, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." If they were burdened by sin, then how could heaven be filled with children picked out of a crowd?

This is the reason for the Restoration of the gospel. So many truths have been lost or destroyed over the centuries, some by willfull actions, others by mistakes. A Restoration was needed to bring back Christ's intent that is lost on many who today attempt to understand the Bible without prophetic guidance.

[rameumptom]

It concerns me because, if the Book of Mormon is true, and the Bible is true, then they will agree with each other. If a+b=c, and a+x=c, then a=x. If they do not agree, then one of them must be incorrect.

Actually, no. Your math is wrong. Let me correct it.

If a+b=c, and a+x=c then b=x.

If they do not agree, then one of them is either incorrect, OR one of them supercedes the other in information. We believe in the New Testament, no? The New Testament of Christ supercedes the Old Testament and the Mosaic Law. Jesus even says this, when he claimed that he did not come to destroy the law and prophets, but to fulfill them. I filter all of my understanding of the Old Testament through the teachings of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament. Otherwise, I would still await the Messiah, still be making burnt offerings, etc., even as the Jews do. Instead, because I have the additional revelation and scripture from Jesus and his apostles, I can understand why we no longer sacrifice animals, and why we baptize and partake of the holy supper.

So it is with continuing revelation via the Restoration. It enhances and guides us in understanding previous revelation and how to use such guidance in today's world.

So, the Old Testament is true, but is enhanced, superceded, and corrected by newer teachings in the New Testament. And the Bible is made easier to understand by the teachings in the Book of Mormon and other modern scriptures given through modern prophets.

[Dymmesdale]

Actually, no. Your math is wrong. Let me correct it.

If a+b=c, and a+x=c then b=x.

If they do not agree, then one of them is either incorrect, OR one of them supercedes the other in information. We believe in the New Testament, no? The New Testament of Christ supercedes the Old Testament and the Mosaic Law. Jesus even says this, when he claimed that he did not come to destroy the law and prophets, but to fulfill them. I filter all of my understanding of the Old Testament through the teachings of Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament. Otherwise, I would still await the Messiah, still be making burnt offerings, etc., even as the Jews do. Instead, because I have the additional revelation and scripture from Jesus and his apostles, I can understand why we no longer sacrifice animals, and why we baptize and partake of the holy supper.

So it is with continuing revelation via the Restoration. It enhances and guides us in understanding previous revelation and how to use such guidance in today's world.

So, the Old Testament is true, but is enhanced, superceded, and corrected by newer teachings in the New Testament. And the Bible is made easier to understand by the teachings in the Book of Mormon and other modern scriptures given through modern prophets.

Please forgive me for my careless algebra mistake. My point still stands though. if b=b, then b cannot equal not b.

The BoM states that the inhabitants of the New World, the descendants of Lehi, continued to follow the Law of Moses. This was before there was anything to supersede the Law. Yet, they were descendants of Manasseh. Since there were no descendants of Aaron or Levi among them, they would not have had a legitimate priesthood.

[Just_A_Guy]

The BoM states that the inhabitants of the New World, the descendants of Lehi, continued to follow the Law of Moses.

I'd say that portrays a very human ambiguity in how we like to portray ourselves versus how we actually are.

Example:

--Are you a law-abiding citizen?

--Do you ever speed?

The underlying point is that Nephi saw himself as in compliance with the fundamentals of the Law of Moses; and to the extent that he differed from it he evidently considered himself justified.

This was before there was anything to supersede the Law. Yet, they were descendants of Manasseh. Since there were no descendants of Aaron or Levi among them, they would not have had a legitimate priesthood.

You assume Lehi and his progeny did not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. And in all likelihood, you assume wrongly. See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 180-181.

[Dymmesdale]

I'd say that portrays a very human ambiguity in how we like to portray ourselves versus how we actually are.

Example:

--Are you a law-abiding citizen?

--Do you ever speed?

The underlying point is that Nephi saw himself as in compliance with the fundamentals of the Law of Moses; and to the extent that he differed from it he evidently considered himself justified.

You assume Lehi and his progeny did not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. And in all likelihood, you assume wrongly. See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 180-181.

No, I assume that Lehi and his progeny did not hold the Aaronic Priesthood, the one given by God to Aaron and his seed to serve as priests to His people. Please do not put words in my mouth.

If Nephi was in compliance with the fundamental points of the Law, then why were there multiple temples, when the Israelites were clearly instructed to have only one? Did God forsake Jerusalem as the city he chose for his Name to dwell in?

There are multiple fundamental aspects of the Law that are never once mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

# "laver" (15 times in Bible)

# "incense" (121 times in Bible)

# "ark of the covenant" (48 times in Bible)

# "sons of Aaron" (97 times in Bible)

# "mercy seat" (23 in Bible)

# "feast of tabernacles" (10 times in Bible)

# "passover" (59 times in Bible)

# "house of the LORD" (627 in Bible)

[Dymmesdale]

I don't mean to change the subject, but I want to mention something, so that I do not forget it later.

Alma 7:10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

Matthew 2:1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,"

[Maxel]

There are many Jewish faithful who adamantly oppose the idea that the Old and New Testaments don't contradict each other. It is the interpretation of the scriptures where we find 'contradictions' between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Those interpretations are often influenced by the faith we adhere to.

As for your most recent example- about Christ being born in Jerusalem- I refer you here.

Trying to 'prove' the BoM and the Bible contradict each other to Latter-day Saints just leads to argument- I flatly reject the idea that they do contradict each other. Your example of biblical terms not being found in the Book of Mormon is absurd- there are many symbols and ideas expressed in the Old Testament not found in the New Testament; are we to reject the latter for that reason? No; we are to accept the latter because of its divine origin, and the fact it is scripture.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Maxel

[cjmaldrich]

Hanhaga my friend... I'm afraid that many of the suggestions you seem to be making are not possible to reasonably understand or explain. Our finite mortal minds can't possibly comprehend the infinite immortal nature of God. We can explain what we do and we can explain things that are in the scriptures. But we absolutely cannot get into the mind of the Nephites and figure out why they had multiple tabernacles or never mentioned incense. Maybe those things aren't really necessary for our salvation.

The pretense that I think you are failing to accept is that we don't consider the Holy Bible to be the first, middle, and last ultimate authority. We have the Bible to tell us what happened, and then rely on the Book of Mormon to tell us why and how they happened. We rely on modern revelation (modern being from Joseph Smith until present) to help us figure out how these things apply to us 2000 years later.

There are a lot of things in a lot of religions that people use to justify whatever they do or don't do or believe. Please, Dymmesdale, consider these things prayerfully and with faith. Study these issues and ask God what is right and what is not right. You cannot gain an acceptable answer here. We can sit here and have a debate for weeks, quoting scriptures and quotes and Protestant and Catholic ideals at each other and it won't make a difference. There must be that confirmation from the spirit, even revelation to your soul.

Elder McConkie also said that things of the spirit cannot be explained through debate or repeating learned facts. The knowledge you say you seek only comes from revelation and personal experience.

Edited February 12, 2009 by cjmaldrich

[FunkyTown]

I don't mean to change the subject, but I want to mention something, so that I do not forget it later.

Alma 7:10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

Matthew 2:1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,"

Yep. Maxel's right. Your contradictions come from a different interpretation of the scriptures.

[Dymmesdale]

The Holy Ghost was bestowed on the Christians at the time of Pentecost.

Luke 24:49 "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father unto you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

Acts 2:1-4 " 1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. "

Yet the Book of Mormon claims that people received the gift of the Holy Ghost as early as 545 B.C.

2 Nephi 31:12-13 "And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father agive the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, bfollow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel."

During Jesus' ministry He spoke of His church as something in the future.

Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

However, the Book of Mormon claims the Christian church was established as early as 147 B.C.

Mosiah 18:17 "And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward."

[Dymmesdale]

Hanhaga my friend... I'm afraid that many of the suggestions you seem to be making are not possible to reasonably understand or explain. Our finite mortal minds can't possibly comprehend the infinite immortal nature of God. We can explain what we do and we can explain things that are in the scriptures. But we absolutely cannot get into the mind of the Nephites and figure out why they had multiple tabernacles or never mentioned incense. Maybe those things aren't really necessary for our salvation.

The pretense that I think you are failing to accept is that we don't consider the Holy Bible to be the first, middle, and last ultimate authority. We have the Bible to tell us what happened, and then rely on the Book of Mormon to tell us why and how they happened. We rely on modern revelation (modern being from Joseph Smith until present) to help us figure out how these things apply to us 2000 years later.

There are a lot of things in a lot of religions that people use to justify whatever they do or don't do or believe. Please, Dymmesdale, consider these things prayerfully and with faith. Study these issues and ask God what is right and what is not right. You cannot gain an acceptable answer here. We can sit here and have a debate for weeks, quoting scriptures and quotes and Protestant and Catholic ideals at each other and it won't make a difference. There must be that confirmation from the spirit, even revelation to your soul.

Elder McConkie also said that things of the spirit cannot be explained through debate or repeating learned facts. The knowledge you say you seek only comes from revelation and personal experience.

I have prayed about and studied these things. I also believe that a burning in my bosom is more likely to be indigestion than divine assurance.

1 Timothy 4:1 “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils”

1 John 4:1 “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

I try not to put my trust in feelings, as they can easily change.

[Sergg]

God chose Jerusalem as his the place where his name should dwell. 1 kings 11:36 "And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there."

.

What a religious text says, and what its actual praxis is, are two diferent things. It is a fact that jews built a Temple (waaaaaayyyyyy before christ) near Egypt in Alexandria: google it. So you should be rather asking the jews how is it possible that they (knowing that verse better than you*) make sense of their historical change in practices.

[Maxel]

A response to your earlier question in another thread.

If Joseph Smith was a prophet, ordained of God, and his translation of the golden plates came from an angel of the Lord, and he claimed that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth” (History of the Church of JC of LDS, Vol. 4, p. 461), then one would tend to think that it is a pretty solid book. Why, then, have there been 4,000 changes between the original 1830 version, and the version we have today? Why is revision necessary, if it was translated directly by the voice of God, in 1830, and the King James Bible, which LDS tend to believe is the most accurate, or most correctly translated, was published in 1611?

I will not go into the many contradictions between the BoM and the Bible; that is something for another thread. I only humbly ask what the reasons are for the numerous revisions to the original version translated directly from the golden plates.

Not a bad question. The answer lies in the nature of the changes, and what Joseph Smith really said when the BoM was the 'most correct of any book on earth'.

His full quote reads “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.” (BM Publication History). He was obviously not speaking about typographical or grammatical perfection, but about the doctrine found therein being the 'most perfect' of any book on the Earth- including the Bible. To better understand the statement 'most perfect', it is important to note that the Book of Mormon is seen to include the fullness of the Gospel of Christ that the Bible has lost either through mistranslation or misinterpretation throughout the centuries (more information here).

Most of the changes were typographical and grammatical in nature, and none of them influenced the doctrine found therein. I am immensely curious; what's your sources for these claims? You don't have to link it (in fact, please don't if it's an anti-Mormon website) but I am curious, as all these claims are ones advanced by anti-Mormons who don't realize these issues have been addressed- years and years ago.

EDIT: I fear you have to be frequenting anti-Mormon websites to find all these arguments- that, or you're an accomplished Book of Mormon and biblical scholar. If the former is true, please be aware that those websites don't care about accuracy or fairness at all. Many arguments they level against Mormonism and the Book of Mormon have also been leveled against the Bible itself, and no one in the scholarly community has reached a true consensus.

[cjmaldrich]

I have prayed about and studied these things. I also believe that a burning in my bosom is more likely to be indigestion than divine assurance.

1 Timothy 4:1 “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils”

1 John 4:1 “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

I try not to put my trust in feelings, as they can easily change.

Sir, how do you determine what is true and what is not? Obviously you must have received some sort of witness as to the truthfulness of the Bible and of Jesus Christ or you wouldn't be here quoting scripture. The burning in your bosom may or may not be literal heartburn. For me, it's unlike anything I've ever felt. It's the same feeling when I realize a truth from the Bible as it is from the Book of Mormon or a prophet of God.

Whatever means you use to determine truth can only come by the spirit. You are entirely right not to trust simply your feelings, hence the appeal for you to study and ponder and pray. Apply that same truth-revealing spiritual revelation that you have received about the Bible. If you gain a witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon, then it is of God. If you don't gain a witness of the truth, then it obviously is not.

I have had a strong and undeniable witness. I have questioned, pondered, prayed, and studied everything as I was very skeptical of the church in my earlier years. I can tell you that it is all true. But like I said, I can't convince you of the truth by my words on a website. That convincing power comes only by the spirit, however you receive that witness. Use your faith, trust in the Lord.

[Justice]

Second,

2 Nephi 2:22-25 " 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

This occurs BEFORE his command not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:17).

The first one is kinda tricky. The Book of Mormon is in harmony with the Bible's teachings. But, it'll be harder to show you.

Number 2, however, is easy.

You just proved there must be opposition in all things.

2 Nephi 2:

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

God did give them a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth before the Fall, or to continue "life." The problem was they didn't know how to do it. This was the great contadiction, or opposition, to not eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge how to fulfill the first commandment only came by breaking the second commandment.

So, the Book of Mormon should add to your understanding of Adam and Eve, in that they could not have children, or keep the first commandment, until they knew how. So, if they did not know how to have children, how could they have had children?

Notice it was only forbidden for them to partake of the fruit of the tree of life AFTER they gained the knowledge of good and evil. They had to have time to repent, and to fullfil the first commandment.

[Maxel]

I have prayed about and studied these things. I also believe that a burning in my bosom is more likely to be indigestion than divine assurance.

1 Timothy 4:1 “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils”

1 John 4:1 “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

I try not to put my trust in feelings, as they can easily change.

There's a core difference between the normal physical feelings of indigestion, etc. and the type of 'burning in the bosom' that comes as a witness from the Holy Ghost.

Luke 24:15-16, 32

15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

...

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

The fact that there are evil spirits does not excuse us of finding the correct spirit and following it- however said spirit would manifest itself.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Maxel
Changed it to reflect Christian behavior more perfectly

[Moksha]

Psalm 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

Sounds like the Psalm writer was feeling rather cynical that day. Perhaps he had been reading Thomas Hobbes or even watching the evening news.

As far as contradictions go, what say you to the idea that such contradictions add up to a mystery and as such prove that it is all so true?

[Dymmesdale]

Notice it was only forbidden for them to partake of the fruit of the tree of life AFTER they gained the knowledge of good and evil. They had to have time to repent, and to fullfil the first commandment.

Not being able to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life was the result of the sin of eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The commandment not to eat of the latter put Adam and Eve between a rock and a hard place, having already received the commandment to multiply. I think the scriptures I have referred to previously indicate that that is not something God would do.

He will never cause us to sin.

By giving contradictory commandments, he caused Adam and Eve to sin.

The commandments are contradictory only if it was impossible for them to procreate without sinning first.

According to you, God essentially told them "I want you to do this, but in order to do it, you have to sin first."

That pretty much boils down to "I want you to sin."

[Dymmesdale]

EDIT: I fear you have to be frequenting anti-Mormon websites to find all these arguments- that, or you're an accomplished Book of Mormon and biblical scholar. If the former is true, please be aware that those websites don't care about accuracy or fairness at all. Many arguments they level against Mormonism and the Book of Mormon have also been leveled against the Bible itself, and no one in the scholarly community has reached a true consensus.

I did a quick google search about specific contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, because the only ones I could think of off the top of my head were actually based in the D&C, PoGP, and other LDS documents. I was curious to see which ones came directly from the BoM. I did not take these sites at face value, and I did my best to look up the relevant passages myself and to use my own discretion in choosing which ones to mention. I do not do so out of spite or a desire to argue, I want to know what Mormons make of them. Perhaps I am at fault in that I enjoy a good intellectual debate, and if I have offended anyone, I humbly ask forgiveness.

[Just_A_Guy]

No, I assume that Lehi and his progeny did not hold the Aaronic Priesthood, the one given by God to Aaron and his seed to serve as priests to His people. Please do not put words in my mouth.

If you're trying to find contradictions within Mormonism, you need to have an elementary understanding of Mormonism. If you had an elementary understanding of Mormonism, you'd realize that (per Mormon doctrine) there is no problem with a priest after the order of Melchizedek officiating in any of the ordinances of the Levitical (aka "Aaronic") Priesthood, regardless of his lineage.

According to you, God essentially told them "I want you to do this, but in order to do it, you have to sin first."

That's only if you postulate that the commandment to not partake of the fruit was going to be a permanent injunction. Mormon doctrine is not at all clear on that point, and there is some authority (which I won't be citing in this context) suggesting strongly that quite the opposite is true.

EDIT: On rereading this, I see that my tone is a little more prickly than it should be. If you find it offensive, please accept my apologies.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Justice]

Dym, I can show you contradictions the Bible has with itself.

That's really not the point.

The point is the Bible is the word of God.

The point is the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

Any and all contradictions are because of man, not God.

But, the Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, atoned for the sins of the world, was resurrected, and is the ONLY way to return to God.

No contradiction.

The only difference is it was written by people who lived in a different place.

[Justice]

The commandments are contradictory only if it was impossible for them to procreate without sinning first.

No, because they DID fullfil the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

They were told NOT TO eat of the fruit. They made a choice.

They were not in direct violation of God's law concerning the first commandment because they did not have the knowledge of HOW. Part of God's judgement is based on your understanding. This is why we believe we are not accountable at birth.

They had an eternity to multiply and replenish the earth. As I said, it was a sin of omission, not commission, so they did not break that law. It was Eve's drive to keep the first commandment that led her to partake of the fruit.

It was impossible for them to procreate before eating the fruit, but God did not set a time frame in which to obey the commandment. I'm assuming you understand the difference between sins of omission and sins of commission?

[Just_A_Guy]

It was Eve's drive to keep the first commandment that led her to partake of the fruit.

I'm not sure. The PoGP does show that she later realized, in retrospect, that what she had done was a necessary thing. But isn't Paul very clear that Eve was, in fact, deceived at the time she partook?

[Dymmesdale]

If you're trying to find contradictions within Mormonism, you need to have an elementary understanding of Mormonism. If you had an elementary understanding of Mormonism, you'd realize that (per Mormon doctrine) there is no problem with a priest after the order of Melchizedek officiating in any of the ordinances of the Levitical (aka "Aaronic") Priesthood, regardless of his lineage.

That's only if you postulate that the commandment to not partake of the fruit was going to be a permanent injunction. Mormon doctrine is not at all clear on that point, and there is some authority (which I won't be citing in this context) suggesting strongly that quite the opposite is true.

EDIT: On rereading this, I see that my tone is a little more prickly than it should be. If you find it offensive, please accept my apologies.

I do possess an elementary understanding of the tenets of Mormonism, but I must admit that I don't know much about the Melchizedek priesthood. Please feel free to give me the cliff's notes version, or I could look it up some other time.

Are you saying that it was a temporary commandment? At some point in the future, it would have been ok to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge?

[Hemidakota]

In Moroni it seems to indicate that we are not touched by sin until we actually commit some discrete sin, but the psalm seems to say that we are sinful from birth.

Knowing the outcome of King David, I would go with Prophet Moroni since David was clearly wrong. We are not BORN INTO SIN nor any children are accounted for until that year of accountability. Now, one man is hell awaiting for judgment and the other is already resurrected. Hmm...which is right?

As I read the other misinterpreted references, I won't bother since this may cause a SPARK that would be hard to put out.