Does LDS doctrine clash with the Bible?

[prisonchaplain]

I, however, am not sure what you mean by prophesy. The section on Joel does not explain the process that well (I think the section you indicate is a post-apocalyptical/millennial prophesy. Ie.. coming after the 2nd coming). Can you give me web site that might help?

Actually, Peter (Acts 2), in responding to those who accused the disciples of early-morning drunkeness (they were speaking in tongues) says, "THIS is THAT which was spoken by the prophet Joel. So, we believe the Day of Pentecost ushered in the era Joel spoke of.

I did find a site that did my work for me.

http://www.beebefirstassembly.com/files/Sermons%20-%20Series/My%20Helper%20-%20The%20Holy%20Spirit/My%20Helper%2051-The%20Gift%20Of%20Prophecy.pdf

http://www.beebefirstassembly.com/files/Sermons%20-%20Series/My%20Helper%20-%20The%20Holy%20Spirit/My%20Helper%2052-The%20Gift%20Of%20Tongues%20And%20Interpretation.pdf

[beefche]

I don't even agree with myself in those areas, but I am sincerely a follower of Jesus Christ. The two largest World religions are Isalm started by vision and an apperaring to Muhammad and Judo/Christianity that started with the Catholic Church after the Apostels. These major world religion are not considered to be cults, but there are many sects that shoot out of it that are such as JWs, Unification church, Christian Science and many others. What really gets me is that you think you have something I don't and that I need. Your view, also, of who Jesus is disturbs me greatly.

First, I commend you for following Jesus Christ as your conscience dictates. Please allow us the same as well. Why are you disturbed at our doctrine? If you have no plans on joining the LDS church, then why do you care what I believe?

Second, I don't believe that Christianity started with the Catholic Church. I believe it started with Jesus Christ. Although the Catholic Church claims to be the continuation of the church Jesus started, the "religion" of Christ started with Him--not any church.

Finally, if we agree to not try to convince you of our believes, will you agree to not try to convince us of yours? It's one thing to discuss differences, it's another to use words such as "what really gets me" and "disturbs". I have absolutely no problem with you thinking that I'm some wacked out Mormon, but please keep that opinion to yourself.

[the Ogre]

. . . What really gets me is that you think you have something I don't and that I need . . .

Do you know what is really funny? You came here. You came here to talk with us (errr . . . talk at is more likely). The Bible is an absolutely wonderful text. I think it is beautiful scripture and carries much of the Gospel of J-sus Chr-st, but just as Ram pointed out (better than I ever could) over time there have been intentional (and sometimes unintentional) changes to scripture. Because of this G-d picked Joseph Smith to be H-s prophet (I think Joseph would have been quite happy to have lived his life as a Yankee Farmer just as his forefathers and neighbors had if he had never had the faith as a young fourteen year old to pray about a question that bothered him, as well as me, quite deeply: which church is true?) to restore the gospel to its beautiful, simple form.

If you didn't like what we had to say or what we have to offer, you shouldn't have come.

[Traveler]

For the record - I do not worship the Bible or for that matter any scripture. I believe that the way, the truth and the light is in Christ - not the Bible or any other scripture. I believe the only way to avoid contradictions is through the light of Christ and the worship of him – not the Bible or any scripture. I believe the only purpose of scripture is to bring us to Christ. The reason that there are many churches is because of too much reliance and worship of scriptures and debates over meaning. Using scripture to prove or disprove others view of doctrine is the methods of Pharisees – not Christians.

We see very clearly and Jesus proves to us that following him will create controversy and disagreement with the experts in scripture – just as he created controversy with the best experts (Scribes and Pharisees) of scripture of his day. One of the main arguments against Christ by the Scribes and Pharisees is that he contradicted scripture. I would also point out that the false believers (experts in scripture) that accused Jesus, refused to consider his “deeds” but attacked him for “blasphemous” or false doctrines. Note that the definition of blasphemous is that which denigrates G-d. Jesus taught that a blasphemous tree cannot produce good loving fruit therefore he counseled his followers to consider the fruit of deeds of love to discern and not doctrine. Therefore we should look to those that are an example of truth and not to those that say they know truth. Or in other words we should look to those that give example of the love of being saved and not to those that say they are saved.

The Traveler

[TheAngelPalmoni]

Nope not one little bit :)

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by aj4u

The thief on the cross didn't get baptized, but still received eternal life.

Jesus actually told the thief he would be with him that day in "paradise." Most Christians equate heaven with paradise, but the doctrinal evidence goes against this.

First, Jesus was dead for three days, after which he first saw Mary Magdalene and told her not to touch him, "for I have not yet ascended to my Father." If that is the case, Jesus was not in heaven for those three days, and so the thief could not have been with him in heaven, enjoying eternal life.

Second, the scriptures and early Christian teaching shows that Jesus went to Sheol, the place for dead people. The Gospel of Nicodemus tells about Jesus going to there and releasing the souls (including Adam, Moses, etc) from death. This is obviously the place Jesus was referencing when telling the thief where they would both be that day.

Peter also discusses what Jesus did among the dead, by preaching the gospel to them: 1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Pet 4:6. Modern prophets teach that this thief would then have to be baptized by proxy to fulfill what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Otherwise, Jesus' mandate for baptism of water and Spirit that he gave to Nicodemus would be meaningless.

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be aborn of bwater and of the cSpirit, he cannot denter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

So, once again, we've used scriptures to show where your limited understanding requires some adjustment. Will you actually look at this and discuss it, or will you run off to your next trolling question?

[aj4u]

You're a Congregationalist!!!

Oh my, That explains a lot. Congregationalist attacks on Mormons are of the most cliched type. Wonderful. This is so good to know.

BTW: Not "all" Chr-stians agree; some Chr-stians agree. If all Chr-stians agreed, then everyone would be a Congregationalist.

I am not sure what you mean by this, and what are congregationalist attacks like? I didn't say I was a congregationalist; I said my major doctrine world view does not go against the congregation of churches in general. That means, if you can understand me, you can understand what you consider to be an abomination to the Lord in the way of us Christians who are not Mormons in all the churches world-wide. Instead of feeling attacked maybe you could see it it as an opportunity to learn and share your faith.

[the Ogre]

. . . you can understand what you consider to be an abomination to the Lord in the way of us Christians who are not Mormons in all the churches world-wide . . .

Oh, my eyes well up with tears (actually it is a reaction to mowing the lawn earlier). I wonder how you contrived this "abomination" thing? Hilarious. I love it. You are not a congregationalist, you are a comedian of smashing watermelons, whoopee-cushions, and squirting daisies.

Oh, my . . . (sniffle).

[aj4u]

Jesus actually told the thief he would be with him that day in "paradise." Most Christians equate heaven with paradise, but the doctrinal evidence goes against this.

First, Jesus was dead for three days, after which he first saw Mary Magdalene and told her not to touch him, "for I have not yet ascended to my Father." If that is the case, Jesus was not in heaven for those three days, and so the thief could not have been with him in heaven, enjoying eternal life.

Second, the scriptures and early Christian teaching shows that Jesus went to Sheol, the place for dead people. The Gospel of Nicodemus tells about Jesus going to there and releasing the souls (including Adam, Moses, etc) from death. This is obviously the place Jesus was referencing when telling the thief where they would both be that day.

Peter also discusses what Jesus did among the dead, by preaching the gospel to them: 1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Pet 4:6. Modern prophets teach that this thief would then have to be baptized by proxy to fulfill what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Otherwise, Jesus' mandate for baptism of water and Spirit that he gave to Nicodemus would be meaningless.

So, once again, we've used scriptures to show where your limited understanding requires some adjustment. Will you actually look at this and discuss it, or will you run off to your next trolling question?

Yes, I would like to discuss it, but your last commment wasn't necessary! I'll try to get back to this. There was another post that caught my eye first about contradictions in the Bible about Jesus, James and Paul's view on eternal life by grace that are not contradictions at all. I believe you posted that. Let me start with that. By the way, I started this thread the last time I checked; therefore, there has been no trolling going on here.

[the Ogre]

. . . there has been no trolling going on here.

Trolls start threads all the time. You just didn't know how to do it. John had to teach you.

[rameumptom]

I am not sure what you mean by this, and what are congregationalist attacks like? I didn't say I was a congregationalist; I said my major doctrine world view does not go against the congregation of churches in general. That means, if you can understand me, you can understand what you consider to be an abomination to the Lord in the way of us Christians who are not Mormons in all the churches world-wide. Instead of feeling attacked maybe you could see it it as an opportunity to learn and share your faith.

Except that your own words are exclusionary: "who are not Mormons." LDS believe that all Christians ARE Christians and will be saved in heaven. That is very inclusive of all. Do you believe that, or do you have exceptions for those Christians who are not lock-step in line with you, such as, say, Mormons?

[rameumptom]

Oh, my eyes well up with tears (actually it is a reaction to mowing the lawn earlier). I wonder how you contrived this "abomination" thing? Hilarious. I love it. You are not a congregationalist, you are a comedian of smashing watermelons, whoopee-cushions, and squirting daisies.

Oh, my . . . (sniffle).

Is it Gallagher in drag???

[rameumptom]

Yes, I would like to discuss it, but your last commment wasn't necessary! I'll try to get back to this. There was another post that caught my eye first about contradictions in the Bible about Jesus, James and Paul's view on eternal life by grace that are not contradictions at all. I believe you posted that. Let me start with that. By the way, I started this thread the last time I checked; therefore, there has been no trolling going on here.

I agree there is no contradiction between them, at least not for Mormons. Why? Because we understand that we are saved by grace, and then we are judged for our works to determine which level of heaven we shall obtain.

Otherwise, you have the problem of explaining how James can say "faith without works is dead" and have Paul exclaim we are saved "without works". Nothing a traditional Christian has attempted to share with me in the past has explained this dichotomy as well as LDS doctrine. And that is why there are differences among the traditional Christian churches regarding this. Some insist that works are necessary, others think they are abominable, while others try to find a middle ground. Your insistence that traditional Christians are united just does not ring true. Do you believe Roman Catholics are Christian or not? If they are, why did you leave them, when their religion is just as good for saving in Christ as any other? If they are not, then where does your religion get the inspiration and authority to explain the Bible's teachings?

Edited May 27, 2009 by rameumptom

[aj4u]

Ram: WHAAAAATTTTT????? This is the biggest load of baloney I've read in a long time. Which Bible scholars "know" what you claim? I've given many instances of doctrinal errors, not just translation errors. There ARE contradictions. How does Jesus and James insisting we obey God's commandments to be saved NOT contradict Paul's statement that we are saved by grace only????

If this were a contradiction, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Jesus and James never said our works apart from God’s grace and our faith would save us. James said, "Show me your faith without works, and I'll show my faith by my works" If someone just says they have faith and God's grace and there are no works, that means they really don't have faith. That is all he was trying to say. If someone has God's grace in operation, works will come naturally as a result of their faith. It is sought of like a tree that is rooted and grounded in Christ. It due season fruit will appear. On the other hand, if we are putting trust in following the commands covenants baptism tithing and all other ordinances, then we have falling from God's grace and go about to establish a righteousness of our own. This what Paul taught. He was directly chosen by Jesus to share God's heart on the matter. That is why Paul said you did run well who bewitched you to follow the law as a means of salvation? Don't get me wrong. Good works are good, but it is the enemy to what is best. That is not the good we do for the Lord; it is the good that the Lord does through us by His grace and our faith in God's word through the Bible, but we must turn from anything that clashes with God's word from the Holy Scripture or we have been had by Satan big, big, big time. What we are discussing here is a matter of spiritual life and death. I have been transparent with you. Other Christians may hold back some punches, but I don’t. Those Christians might have more wisdom then me for holding back. I cannot judge, but they don’t disagree with the message I share because they know it is the heart of the gospel.

"SRam: Once again you take the scriptures out of context. If you really believe one false prophecy makes a person a false prophet, then you have just condemned Jesus Christ to being a false prophet! He prophesied several times in the gospels that the 2nd coming would be in his generation, clarifying it by stating that there would be some in that generation who would not taste of death before it happened. Guess what? It didn't happen. Unless you go through severe theological gymnastics to explain it away, it didn't happen. And if you have to jump through such hoops to understand the Bible, then what good was God in making a perfect book so confusing

Yes, there are prophets. But there was also THE prophet. Just read the Bible, you'll see that is so. There was a school of the prophets, but they all followed Elijah, and later Elisha, for example. Miriam and Aaron were prophets, but they were chastised by God for trying to make themselves equal to Moses' authority. See a pattern? Or are you still trying to force the Bible to fit into your view??

I am not forcing or taking anythhing out ot context. I speak the truth in love. If a prophet, just once says something that doesn't come to pass, he is not to be taken seriously. God says so. It doesn't getting any higher in authority than that. Jesus didn't give a false prophecy. If he did, He wouldn't be God!

Ram: Jesus also stated we were to keep the commandments and repent if we wished to be saved. Do you believe that, or just hang onto Paul's words? John and Paul taught of true prophets in the future. Who are you going to dispute? Jesus also warned about false Christs. Does that mean there will not be a true Christ return for the 2nd Coming? You see how your logic is leading down strange paths? Jesus wasn't trying to teach us that it is immpossible for us to keep the commandments; but with god all things are possible by God's grace through faith. You are not understanding Jesus' teaching or Paul's. It is so dangerous to have a problem with Paul message from Jesus. That alone can lead to major deception in our lives.

Ram: If love, peace, and joy are not feelings, what are they? Thoughts? Chemical reactions in the body? Wikipedia describes love like this:

Hmmmm. I guess either love IS an emotion, or everyone else in the world besides you is wrong.

Love is not an emotion it is an action. Emotions can accompany the action but they don't always. As I mentioned, it is written: "The just shall live by faith" not by feelings or emotions. Feeling make a good servant but a very poor leader.

Edited May 27, 2009 by aj4u

[the Ogre]

If this were a contradiction, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Well you don't (regarding LDS doctrine clashing with the Bible . . . you still haven't even tried to prove that to anyone on this thread).

Jesus and James never said our works apart from God’s grace and our faith would save us. James said, "Show me your faith without works, and I'll show my faith by my works" If someone just says they have faith and God's grace and there are no works, that means they really don't have faith. That is all he was trying to say. If someone has God's grace in operation, works will come naturally as a result of their faith. It is sought of like a tree that is rooted and grounded in Christ. It due season fruit will appear. On the other hand, if we are putting trust in following the commands covenants baptism tithing and all other ordinances, then we have falling from God's grace and go about to establish a righteousness of our own. This what Paul taught.

I am fine with this (reserving the right to change my mind) except you refused to provide citation for your quotes (maybe even which translation of the bible you are using). Tsk tsk tsk.

My question for you is: where does it say in LDS doctrine that we deny salvation by grace or the grace of G-d? I want to see that.

I have been transparent with you.

Your only transparency has been animosity. I am waiting for your Chr-stian charity.

Don't hold back. We have been honest with you about the "troll" label. I think you should be just as honest.

Edited May 27, 2009 by the Ogre

[Justice]

Love is not an emotion it is an action. Emotions can accompany the action but they don't always.

This is not true. Love is a noun, not a verb.

You are trying to explain charity. Charity, or the pure love of Christ, is love in action.

They are different.

For God so loved the world.

This is great! This is awesome that God loves us!

that He gave His Only Begotten Son

This is more than love. Love exists without action, and in it's purest form should lead one to charity, or actions motivated by love. But, God gave us something because He loves us. That He gave is charity.

[bytebear]

Has anyone else read "How wide the Divide?" It is by far the best book to understand the differences (and similarities) between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. Both men are consumate scholars of impeicible credentials. Each topic is divided into three parts, the Evangelical view, the LDS view, and the common view (co-written by both authors). In it, I discovered that both views on all of these so-called controversies are actually very similar if not the same. PC and AJ, I would particularly love to hear your opinion of the book (assuming you have or will read it) as you are the Evangelcial representatives here.

[Bluejay]

Hi, A.J.

Thanks for your response.

This is not a question.

It fits my definition of "question."

-----

If anyone is ignorant of the Satan's devices, he or she is sure to be deceived by it. Do you agree?

Do you consider yourself ignorant of Satan's devices?

If not, what is the problem?

-----

I will submit to the authority of the Bible, and I will learn from whatever clarifies and confirms what is written. If, however, something clashes with it, red flags go up for me and don't you think it should? That was a question

In logical debate, there is a term for this: it's called "confirmation bias." Basically, it means that you've picked an authority, and have refused to believe anything that disagrees with that authority. This is not a valid means for discovering truth, it is only a valid means of finding what else agrees with your particular authority.

See, there is a danger in appealing to a specific authority: you have already suggested that Satan can mimic an angel of God. Thus, you have no assurance that the authority to which you are appealing is not the work of Satan. If the Bible is the work of Satan, then your red flags are only telling you that the Book of Mormon contradicts the falsehoods of Satan.

That is why it is important to obtain external verification for your proposed model of truth. To us Mormons, the Book of Mormon is the external verification of the truth of the Bible. Where there are seeming contradictions between our two witnesses, a third witness---the Doctrine and Covenants, a modern prophet. etc.---will provide us with a tie-breaking vote.

Thus, we have safeguards against being led astray by Satan.

And we need them.

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .My question for you is: where does it say in LDS doctrine that we deny salvation by grace or the grace of G-d? I want to see that. . .

Yes, Exactly:D

And I would also like to ask what makes him think that we do not pay tithing, get baptized, enter into covenants and other ordinances because we know we are saved?

Did I word that right:confused:

Well any ways, What does he know anyways:p

Bro. Rudick

[pam]

My understanding of Mormon doctrine is that "paradise" is that part of the Spirit World where the righteous are at rest, whereas the unrighteous and those waiting for proxy baptism will be in "spirit prison". I suppose Smith was saying that Jesus meant that both he (Jesus) and this man (the thief) would be together in the Spirit World, but in different parts of it.

[Pause while I scan the last paragraph. OK...I think it makes sense.]

But if that is true, what was Jesus' purpose in saying it? I always took it (the original translation) to mean that the man's faith - even after his life of crime - would be rewarded in heaven. Smith's interpretation muddies the water somewhat.

But if Joseph Smith is correct and that it was translated incorrectly, Christ never used the word Paradise.

Paradise is used in different ways in the Bible. First of all it designates a place in the spirit world for those who have been baptized and have remained faithful.

The second use is in Luke's account as we already talked about. But that could have very well been mistranslated per Joseph Smith.

The word paradise is also in Corinthians where we think it refers to the celestial kingdom. In one our articles of faith (10th) it uses the word paradisiacal describing the earth's glory in the millenium.

[aj4u]

Well you don't (regarding LDS doctrine clashing with the Bible . . . you still haven't even tried to prove that to anyone on this thread).

I am fine with this (reserving the right to change my mind) except you refused to provide citation for your quotes (maybe even which translation of the bible you are using). Tsk tsk tsk.

My question for you is: where does it say in LDS doctrine that we deny salvation by grace or the grace of G-d? I want to see that.

Your only transparency has been animosity. I am waiting for your Chr-stian charity.

Don't hold back. We have been honest with you about the "troll" label. I think you should be just as honest.

Since you seem to represent a few others sentiments, I think the best Christian charity I can show is to stop posting for a while. Because I have been studying, and I have even more questions of historical anachronisms and contradictions in LDS doctrine that will only perpetuate the on going situation. Apparently, since I appear to be mark a troll in your eyes, it doesn't matter how good my points are they will not be considered without animosity and skepticism; so, there is no point. I feel like I am judge for the very same thing you do. You see all of what us Christians (Non-Mormons) believe and churches we attend as an abomination to the Lord, but you don’t come out with it; yet deep in your heart it is what you believe. I am one of the few that come out with it calling a spade a spade by letting you know that is what you believe and that is deception. I would rather you come out with it explicitly instead of hating me for being truthful to you. I say hate because there is no love in name calling and judging someone whose intentions are to bring you the only truth I know. It is my job and mission in life to do what I do. So let God now judge between us, and those who share your sentiments. There have been some Mormons on this thread that have shown love toward me. Nevertheless, I wish you to be blessed with the knowledge of truth even as I pray for myself in this. I will post again in the near future Lord willing. Edited May 28, 2009 by aj4u

[aj4u]

PS if anyone is interested in sharing more with me, I'll take PMs, but for now I am done posting!

[john doe]

Hey AJ, you don't need to leave, just find a topic and stay on it long enough to have a meaningful discussion. I do advise you to stay away from the anti-LDS material on the internet, it is fraught with lies and inaccuracies. If you truly want to know what LDS believe, try asking us instead of going to those who hate us for information.

PS. Your're not afraid to address Justice's baptism question are you?

[pam]

You see all of what us Christians (Non-Mormons) believe and churches we attend as an abomination to the Lord,

I don't think anyone here has said that at all. We believe a lot of Church' have truth. We just don't believe they have the full truth. That's a huge difference. If you are taking that to mean we think they are abominations..you are totally misinterpreting.

[aj4u]

Hey AJ, you don't need to leave, just find a topic and stay on it long enough to have a meaningful discussion. I do advise you to stay away from the anti-LDS material on the internet, it is fraught with lies and inaccuracies. If you truly want to know what LDS believe, try asking us instead of going to those who hate us for information.

PS. Your're not afraid to address Justice's baptism question are you?

That is kind of you John I appreciate it. You see I don't mind being baited. I have not look at material for the third time on the internet against Mormonism, but I am being tempted to peak. Seriously, I wouldn't even be interest in seeing anything from people that hate Mormons. I am not afraid of the baptism questions I have answered them several times, but I'll be happy to repeat it. I can try to stay on topic, If I go off topic, please, understand that it is a blunder of the mind and not of the heart. Please understand I really think I need to take a break not just for the sake of others for me as well.

But I do have another question to take my break with in 3 Nephi 8:9,10,14 and 9:4,5,6,8 where cities and inhabitants were down under the waters. Are there archeological evidence for these? if not, Why?