How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???

[Guest]

But here's the problem... You're accepting the living Prophets word. Why does a living Prophet have to tell you this. All believers in Christ receive the Holy Spirit and are in communion with God. Everyone is capable of direct revelation from God.

The Prophet is a man and is quite capable of making mistakes. So how can one be sure that he doesn't mistakenly misunderstand the revelation from God and pass on bad information?

The short answer, is if you believe that the Bible has mistakes in it because man wrote it, then you have to accept that this Prophet can mistakenly misunderstand the what parts of the Bible are God's word and man's word.

Even with direct Revelation from God, which we're all capable of, and can receive daily because of the Holy Spirit, we can still mistakenly misunderstand God's Revelation because we're Human and imperfect.

Do you really want to trust that you haven't or your prophet hasn't mistakenly misunderstood what parts of God's Word are God's and which part aren't. Or do you want to just accept the Bible as 100% God's word ?

Hello CHowell,

Welcome to the forum.

Translation versus Interpretation. Both can change the actual meaning of the Bible. We can both read the same exact verses of the Bible and come away with 2 completely different interpretation of what those verses mean. So which one of us is correct?

Anyway, the answer to this is diligence. Diligence to seek understanding, diligence to pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit, diligence to continually journey in the path that we believe with all our minds, all our hearts, and all our strengths is the right path to God. Diligence in humility - to know that we are human and we can err but that we know that if we find out we are in error, we are willing to repent and take up that cross and follow Him.

My favorite article in the LDS Article of Faith is this:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Without this article, I don't think I would have listened to anything the LDS has to say.

Because, somehow, I just couldn't believe that billions of people who are not LDS were not led by the Holy Spirit when a lot of them attest to spiritual experiences. A Baptist friend of mine, for intance, became Baptist because the Spirit touched him and guided him there. I was Catholic for the first 30 years of my life because that was where the Holy Spirit guided me. Did that mean that I did not recognize the voice of the Spirit correctly for 30 years? Nope. I believe that God knows exactly what I needed at that point in my life - and where the best place was for me to grow.

Therefore, when you ask the question, what is correct? My answer will always be - search for it, diligently, everyday, with humility. Let the Holy Spirit guide you.

But don't be like the shipwrecked man who wouldn't get on the boat that passed by to save him because he believes God will save him. Because, it could possibly be that God sent the boat instead.

Good luck and God bless.

[carlimac]

CHowell- don't mean to pick on you. I agree with some things you're saying, especially that last line about getting thrown out of the Synagogue. That was a great touche. But I'm still curious about how you will explain all the inconsistencies the Bible has with itself. How do you know which is God's word or which is the absolute literal truth and which isn't in that long list of inconsistencies? Why would the "inspired" writers of the Bible be led to write things that contradict and confuse? That doesn't sound like something God would do. Does He frequently change His mind and the story just to test our faith?

Just curious.

[CHowell]

But I'm still curious about how you will explain all the inconsistencies the Bible has with itself. How do you know which is God's word or which is the absolute literal truth and which isn't in that long list of inconsistencies? Why would the "inspired" writers of the Bible be led to write things that contradict and confuse? That doesn't sound like something God would do. Does He frequently change His mind and the story just to test our faith?

Just curious.

Carlimac, I think that this is an Excellent question. I personally don't believe & see any inconsistencies in the Bible. I think that sometimes our understanding and I know very well my understanding sometimes leads me to believe that their are inconsistencies, but I think at this point one needs to consider, who was the Book written to, why was it written, what is happening in the time period.

A good example is the Gospels, many people point to these and say verse for verse they're not the same. Well no they're not, does this make them inconsistent. I don't so. When one studies the Gospels we see that Matthew, Mark, Luke & John had very different audiences they were written to and for. Therefore the authors key in on what's key for their audiences. But they don't conflict each other, confliction would be if Matthew said Christ was born to a virgin, and Luke said Christ was born not to a virgin.

I would be more then happy to examine each inconsistency you see and discuss it with you.... Where would you like to start ?

[Guest]

Carlimac, I think that this is an Excellent question. I personally don't believe & see any inconsistencies in the Bible. I think that sometimes our understanding and I know very well my understanding sometimes leads me to believe that their are inconsistencies, but I think at this point one needs to consider, who was the Book written to, why was it written, what is happening in the time period.

A good example is the Gospels, many people point to these and say verse for verse they're not the same. Well no they're not, does this make them inconsistent. I don't so. When one studies the Gospels we see that Matthew, Mark, Luke & John had very different audiences they were written to and for. Therefore the authors key in on what's key for their audiences. But they don't conflict each other, confliction would be if Matthew said Christ was born to a virgin, and Luke said Christ was born not to a virgin.

I would be more then happy to examine each inconsistency you see and discuss it with you.... Where would you like to start ?

CHowell! You got it!

Believe it or not, that's the answer to your question about Genesis as well! You saw an inconsistency between the LDS interpretation of the text and the actual text, but we don't. Just like some people see inconsistencies between the gospels and we don't.

For example, there is no verse in Genesis that specifically says, "Adam and Eve can pro-create before the fall"... or something to that effect. It is merely the mainstream Christian interpretation of Genesis. (I sent you a PM on it). Therefore, there is no conflict between 2 Nephi 2, or Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible.

Make sense?

God bless.

[Jenamarie]

Absolutely I believe that they had no knowledge of Good & Evil before they partook of the fruit.

I think you're assuming here that they had no knowledge. Knowledge in and of it self I don't think is inheritently good or bad, of course they had knowledge, Adam walked with God, it's reasonable to assume that God was teaching Adam. Adam named the animals.

Also, i have some other questions based on the underlying/implied argument that God did not intend for the fall to happen.

I would suggest that the Scripture is 100% right on here. I don't believe for a second that God was blindsided by anything. I believe that God gave man free will and permitted Sin to happen. He allowed us to turn away from God, which was an ability and a freedom in God that we had before the great fall because it was clearly exercised in the great fall, which also stands to reason then they had the knowledge required to turn away from God. God didn't make them do it, He didn't cause the sin, but he knew before man was on the earth man would sin.

God knew man would fall. He didn't want it to happen, he didn't make it happen. The problem I have with this supposition is that it assumes that God intends for us to sin, and/or commit transgressions against him. I can't accept this.

Because God is a loving father, if you had a child and you put the child in a plastic bubble and never allow anything bad to come to then and face them. Are you really giving them free will ?

I would have to say here God is all knowing, and didn't plan for the sin but knew the sin was going to happen and therefore had a response already prepared.

No problem. Good questions.

Addressing just the bolded parts of this post.

Do you believe bad things would have happened to Adam and Eve if the Fall had not happened? Would they have been able to grow and develop into the people God intended them to be without experiencing both Good and Evil? (and not just the Good and Evil of hardships we have no control over, but also eperiencing choosing to be good, and choosing to be evil.)

Is it perhaps possible that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed there so that there would have to be a choice, some way for them to exercise their Free Will? (because without having two things to choose from there is no way to exercise Free Will) Perhaps the Fall is what allowed not only sin (or a turning away from God), but hard times to come upon them, so that they could CHOOSE God, not just because He's right there, like He was in the Garden at times, but because they KNOW what life is like without Him? The old adage comes to mind: "If you love someone, let them go. If they come back, they are yours forever; if they don't, they were never yours in the first place." By "letting us go" He can find out who really, truely loves Him.

If God knew before the Creation that Adam and Eve were going to screw up His plan, then why did He even go forward with it? Perhaps the Fall IS a part of the plan, not because He couldn't stop us, but because He knew it would be the one thing that would set us down the path to becoming who He really wants us to be, and really CHOOSING Him because we love Him and can see the difference He makes in our lives.

[CHowell]

CHowell! You got it!

Believe it or not, that's the answer to your question about Genesis as well! You saw an inconsistency between the LDS interpretation of the text and the actual text, but we don't. Just like some people see inconsistencies between the gospels and we don't.

For example, there is no verse in Genesis that specifically says, "Adam and Eve can pro-create before the fall"... or something to that effect. It is merely the mainstream Christian interpretation of Genesis. (I sent you a PM on it). Therefore, there is no conflict between 2 Nephi 2, or Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible.

Make sense?

God bless.

Here's my struggle, there's no verse in the actual text that says they couldn't pro-create either. If one were to leave it as a standing question...I could accept that. But the actual text before the Great Fall says to go out and multiply in numbers (Paraphrasing). To arrive at an interpretation that they couldn't pro-create before the Great Fall, I think one has to consult outside resources, namely I am presuming the ones you just cited. But those outside resources say something different then the actual text says.

And therefore a belief system is built on doctrine outside the Bible.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm trying to find a way to summarize the relevant issues here.

* Mormons believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, as far as it's translated correctly.

* We don't believe in Biblical innerancy, nor do we believe it contains the complete and total sum of everything God has revealed to His children.

* We do believe there are other sources, besides the Bible, that are also the inspired word of God, and pack exactly the same authority and weight as the Bible.

* As we avail ourselves of these sources, the way we interpret what the Bible says, occasionally differs from how other groups of Christians interpret what the Bible says. In some ways, it differs greatly. The creation story, the nature of Deity, the nature of man, details of authority, there are many.

* Groups of Christians, usually, ain't about to budge from their understanding. Whether Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon - we'll see some very important things differently. You look at Mormons and call it "a belief system is built on doctrine outside the Bible". We look at ourselves and call it "a belief system built on continuing revelation clarifying things in an incomplete Bible".

Did I do ok? If I did, then why exactly are you here CHowell? Wanna argue? Want us to understand your perspective? Wanna understand ours? You showed up here with the follwing statement:

Basically my question boils down to this...

How does the LDS church resolve conflicts between it's beliefs and what the Bible teaches us. If one accepts the Bible as the Word of God, when teachings of the church conflict with the Bible both can't be right, therefore I am curious as to how the church reconciles it's beliefs with the Word of God. I do have quite a list of issues my research has lead me to believe is conflicting so I am willing to discuss them one by one...

That seems to be a claim that you're here to understand us. If that's true, then why all the arguing and trying to prove us wrong?

I mean, if you wanna fight, then fine - there's nothing wrong with earnestly contending for the faith. It's just not for this board. Go visit the folks at Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board if you want to argue.

If you wanna learn, then you'll have to start accepting that yeah, we really do believe and mean the things we're telling you. And you'll have to start saying "Ok, I see where you're coming from" a lot more.

So which is it? You here to learn, or to contend?

LM

[Connie]

Thank you, CHowell, for taking the time to respond to my post. I really appreciate it, and i hope you have enjoyed your time on the forum so far.

Absolutely I believe that they had no knowledge of Good & Evil before they partook of the fruit.

Excellent! Then we agree!

I think you're assuming here that they had no knowledge. Knowledge in and of it self I don't think is inheritently good or bad, of course they had knowledge, Adam walked with God, it's reasonable to assume that God was teaching Adam. Adam named the animals.

No, actually what i’m assuming is that they had no knowledge of good or evil. They did not know what was good or what was evil. They did not know how to do good nor how to do evil. In other words, they were not self aware. I’m sure you are right and they were learning things from God. Without self awareness or a knowledge of what is good and what is evil I don’t think they had a complete understanding of what they were being taught.

Do you see how many assumptions one has to make because the Bible is not always crystal clear. I just did it; as did you in the above paragraph. How do we know whose assumptions are more correct? (By the way, i do agree with your assumption here. My point is simply that one has to make assumptions when it comes to the Bible. Things are not always clearly stated.)

I would suggest that the Scripture is 100% right on here. I don't believe for a second that God was blindsided by anything. I believe that God gave man free will and permitted Sin to happen. He allowed us to turn away from God, which was an ability and a freedom in God that we had before the great fall because it was clearly exercised in the great fall, which also stands to reason then they had the knowledge required to turn away from God. God didn't make them do it, He didn't cause the sin, but he knew before man was on the earth man would sin.

I agree absolutely with this paragraph. Beautifully stated! So, if God gave us free will and knew we would sin, then it stands to reason that he planned on it thus providing a way back through our Savior.

God knew man would fall. He didn't want it to happen, he didn't make it happen. The problem I have with this supposition is that it assumes that God intends for us to sin, and/or commit transgressions against him. I can't accept this.

Okay, that didn’t really answer the question, but I’ll address it anyway. I believe he did want it to happen. If not, why did he plant that tree there in the first place? Why? If he did not want it to happen, why? I don’t think this assumes God intends for us to sin at all. What it assumes is that he knows human nature or, as you stated in your excellent paragraph above, he knew that man would sin. Therefore, it was part of the plan and he graciously allowed us a way to return through the Savior.

Because God is a loving father, if you had a child and you put the child in a plastic bubble and never allow anything bad to come to then and face them. Are you really giving them free will?

Ahh, interesting. So we have free will. God wants us to have free will. So again, if God did not want Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit why did he permit the serpent into the garden where he knew what would happen? Knowing (as God knows everything) that Eve would not be strong enough to resist that temptation, why did he allow the serpent to be there if he did not want them to eat the fruit? I believe he did want them to eat the fruit because he knew that was how they could grow in their free will.

And this brings up another interesting point. In order to have free will, we have to be allowed to face evil. So the first evil to face in the garden of Eden was the serpent. But Eve did not recognize the serpent as evil. Again, how could she with no knowledge of good or evil? Eve didn’t know the serpent was evil until after she had partaken of the fruit, and then all the sudden “the serpent beguiled me,” she figures it out. So in order to truly face evil and exercise our free will to return to God, a knowledge of good and evil was necessary. I believe God knew all this and wanted it to happen for our growth, so we could face evil and exercise our free will to accept Christ and return to Him. This is also where the idea of transgression versus sin comes into the picture. Sin requires a knowledge of good and evil. Transgression does not. Hence, Eve was transgressing the law rather than actually sinning.

I would have to say here God is all knowing, and didn't plan for the sin but knew the sin was going to happen and therefore had a response already prepared.

I’m not sure I follow. So he didn’t plan for the sin but he knew it would happen and had a response prepared. Isn’t that the definition of a plan especially when you know something will happen and have prepared for it? Could you clarify? Because it just sounded like you said he didn’t plan but he did plan.

Regards.

[Elgama]

Here's my struggle, there's no verse in the actual text that says they couldn't pro-create either. If one were to leave it as a standing question...I could accept that. But the actual text before the Great Fall says to go out and multiply in numbers (Paraphrasing). To arrive at an interpretation that they couldn't pro-create before the Great Fall, I think one has to consult outside resources, namely I am presuming the ones you just cited. But those outside resources say something different then the actual text says.

And therefore a belief system is built on doctrine outside the Bible.

But thats the thing its not an inconsistency its a clarification of what is in the Bible. The doctrine we believe isn't outside of the Bible the Bible is the foundation. After 18 years as a Latter Day Saint I see my faith in the Bible. I actually attended a Lent History of the Bible course recently, it was the first time I had studied the Bible without the Book of Mormon and modern revelation in about 16 years, and wow it was like being naked in public. It makes a lot less sense without what we have.

A Christian friend gave me a scripture to prevent me going to the Temple in Hebrews far from have the effect he expected, he got a thank you for helping me understand the temple in greater depth.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Elgama

[carlimac]

Carlimac, I think that this is an Excellent question. I personally don't believe & see any inconsistencies in the Bible. I think that sometimes our understanding and I know very well my understanding sometimes leads me to believe that their are inconsistencies, but I think at this point one needs to consider, who was the Book written to, why was it written, what is happening in the time period.

A good example is the Gospels, many people point to these and say verse for verse they're not the same. Well no they're not, does this make them inconsistent. I don't so. When one studies the Gospels we see that Matthew, Mark, Luke & John had very different audiences they were written to and for. Therefore the authors key in on what's key for their audiences. But they don't conflict each other, confliction would be if Matthew said Christ was born to a virgin, and Luke said Christ was born not to a virgin.

I would be more then happy to examine each inconsistency you see and discuss it with you.... Where would you like to start ?

Well, how about we start with the example I gave earlier of no man seeing God and yet Moses spoke with him face to face?

And then the grace/faith/works problem. That's a real stickler!

Ephesians 2:8-9 vs. James 2:14-24 Which is it? Works or no works?

Some of them on that list are just a matter of timing and semantics. As in the 4 gospels, they are different accounts from different witnesses that don't really affect doctrine. But there are some, like the faith/grace/works problem that are buggers. If you can sufficiently explain all of those (there are 700 or so) and still prove that every word of the Bible is the word of God and that there are no inconsistencies, you'll be able to do what most Bible scholars and leaders of Christian churches can't seem to do.

My point of hitting the Bible inconsistencies so hard is simply to point out again that the word of God is contained in the Bible but not every word in the Bible is in the form God wanted it to be. It has been changed and distorted over many thousands of years.

Next- we believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, that he spoke with Him, that he saw Him and was given special powers and authority and keys from God to do important things during his relatively short time on earth. One of those important tasks was to clarify parts of the Bible that are confusing. Here is an explanation of what the Joseph Smith Translation is all about -

LDS.org - Liahona Article - Joseph Smith Translation

So in order to believe that Joseph Smith corrected and restored parts of the Bible, you would first need to believe that he was truly a prophet called of God... the founder of God's most correct and restored church on the earth in the last few centuries. And that is the crux, the most critical aspect of our beliefs (in my opinion).

Joseph Smith (through the power and authority and inspiration from God) also restored doctrines, that had been changed or lost, but that are necessary for salvation. If you don't pray and receive a personal witness that this is true- a burning in your heart, then you'll never be able to understand the presentations of certain stories or doctrines that we as Mormons believe but that seem different from the Bible. You can and probably will argue till you're blue in the face. And Mormons will very confidently say "but we believe differently". And it might make you agitated and frustrated. But there you have it.

Edited August 10, 2010 by carlimac

[Connie]

Continuing on in my questions of how and what the LDS church believes compared to what the Bible teaches us.

Again I found this on the Mormon.org website.

“Will I go to heaven?”

Yes! God will judge all men fairly and reward them appropriately with a place within His kingdom

This is very troubling to me.

1. What is meant by this ?

2. Can people have higher places in heaven ?

3. How is it thought that God determines this ?

The Bible teaches that men will all be judged fairly and no man can be saved by works so that nobody can boast about their status in Heaven.

Even if one would argue that the Bible is misinterpreted or changed or whatever. Knowing how evil and wicked, and self serving man kind is. Surely if we changed the Bible for our own motivations. One would have thought to leave this in so that I can know that I have to do works to improve my standing in the Kingdom of heaven. This seems like a big one to me. Yet nowhere am I instructed to do works, (This next part is important). TO IMPROVE my standing in the Kingdom. We are told that we should do works in service to Christ because we LOVE God and God's children. But not to earn ourselves a reward in heaven.

Here are some links to our beliefs on Heaven and Hell. If you have any questions, please do ask.

LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Kingdoms of Glory

LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Hell

You may also be interested in something i said on another thread. Let me know what you think.

"We are saved by grace through faith (Ephesian 2:8). And "faith, if it hath not works, is dead." (James 2:17) So if our faith is dead without works and we are saved by grace through faith, then works are a pretty important part of being saved by grace; wouldn't you say? Seems logical."

Regards.

[rameumptom]

One of the beliefs you get from a Restoration Church, is that ancient teachings that were once lost or changed, are restored. Christ restored the Jewish Church to its original belief system that had been corrupted over the centuries. The Jews tried using scripture to disprove him, but found out that his interpretation of scripture was better than theirs.

Each time a prophet has shown up in a wicked world, that world has tried to use scripture to defend their current status, rather than repent and believe in the restored teachings. It isn't that all the teachings in the Bible are wrong, but that many are incomplete. Both the Book of Mormon and history prove that many things have been lost or changed from the Bible, giving us a good, but incomplete guide. This is why God has sent prophets in the past to correct the misunderstandings, and it is why he sent the prophet Joseph Smith and other prophets in our day.

If we are to reject Joseph Smith because of new teachings God revealed through him, must we not also reject Jesus Christ for doing the same thing in his day? Personally, I see a pattern established by Jesus and the ancient prophets, and I have no problem with God continuing that pattern in our day.

[rameumptom]

Here are some links to our beliefs on Heaven and Hell. If you have any questions, please do ask.

LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Kingdoms of Glory

LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Hell

Regards.

Also, in 1 Corinthians 12:1-4, we see that Paul teaches of three heavens (a "third heaven."). While some Christians insist he is only speaking of heaven, earth and hell; there are various early Jewish and Christian writings that clearly show they believed in multiple levels of heaven:

Ascension of Isaiah

The Apocalypse of Paul -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Also, Christ himself taught "in my Father's house are many mansions...." which tells us there is more than one place available.

This is just one more example of the need for a Restoration. The Bible does mention levels of heaven, but centuries of theologians wrestling with the Bible has lost many of the original beliefs found scattered in the Bible itself.

[CHowell]

If we are to reject Joseph Smith because of new teachings God revealed through him, must we not also reject Jesus Christ for doing the same thing in his day? Personally, I see a pattern established by Jesus and the ancient prophets, and I have no problem with God continuing that pattern in our day.

This is an excellent question. Before I can give this an honest answer. I suppose I need more information about how the LDS church views who Jesus Christ is and what his purpose in the world was ?

[GDKT]

This is an excellent question. Before I can give this an honest answer. I suppose I need more information about how the LDS church views who Jesus Christ is and what his purpose in the world was ?

Jesus' purposes were many, but above all, his coming to this Earth was necessary to effect the atonement, thus redeeming mankind of physical death and allowing them to overcome spiritual death.

Alma 34:9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

[Connie]

This is an excellent question. Before I can give this an honest answer. I suppose I need more information about how the LDS church views who Jesus Christ is and what his purpose in the world was ?

Here are some links that may help:

LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Jesus Christ

LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Atonement of Jesus Christ

[Guest]

We just had this lesson 3 Sundays ago... I really like the way it was presented in that lesson:

Justice versus Mercy

Suppose there is a man who owes the King $1M. The King is a just man, therefore, he expects the man to pay him $1M otherwise, he will have to be cast out of the kingdom. Unfortunately, the man is weak and can only pay $500,000. The man tries his very, very best but he just can't atone for his weakness.

The King wants to give the man mercy and let him stay in his Kingdom, but with mercy, there is no justice.

The King's son, the Prince, then goes to his father and asks him if he can pay off the man's debt. The King see the genius of the plan and allows it. The Prince then goes to the man and draws out a contract for the man to follow certain rules for him to continue to try to overcome his weaknesses and pay the King $500,000. The Prince then gives the King $500,000 from his own coffers to atone for the rest of the man's debt. The King then, gives mercy to the man while at the same time maintains justice.

In this story, the King is God, the Prince is Jesus Christ, the man is... well, us.

[Hemidakota]

CH, page 9 [ ] now, did everyone answer your questions?

[john doe]

But here's the problem... You're accepting the living Prophets word. Why does a living Prophet have to tell you this. All believers in Christ receive the Holy Spirit and are in communion with God. Everyone is capable of direct revelation from God.

You're painting yourself into a corner here. Do you really want to be in the corner?

The Prophet is a man and is quite capable of making mistakes. So how can one be sure that he doesn't mistakenly misunderstand the revelation from God and pass on bad information?

Moses was a man. How do you know he didn't misunderstand what God told him to write? How do you know that the men who translated his writings, and those of the other prophets in other languages, did so with perfect clarity into each language? You are aware that many times languages don't exactly match up word for word, don't you? Meanings get lost or scrambled. Claiming inerrancy in the processes over 6,000 years is more than just a little silly.

The short answer, is if you believe that the Bible has mistakes in it because man wrote it, then you have to accept that this Prophet can mistakenly misunderstand the what parts of the Bible are God's word and man's word.

Let me ask you this: did Elijah misunderstand the scriptures? How did the people of his time know that he was speaking God's truths? Did everyone believe him? Did everyone believe Moses or Abraham? Why not? How do you know they completely understood what God told them? How do you know?

Even with direct Revelation from God, which we're all capable of, and can receive daily because of the Holy Spirit, we can still mistakenly misunderstand God's Revelation because we're Human and imperfect.

Do you really want to trust that you haven't or your prophet hasn't mistakenly misunderstood what parts of God's Word are God's and which part aren't. Or do you want to just accept the Bible as 100% God's word ?

I prefer to say that I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. I know and accept that there are errors in it, they have crept into it over thousands of years. That does not mean I have to throw it out wholesale. As we study it and employ the aid of translators who have read the early transcripts to gain a better insight of the early intents of the meanings of the writings, we gain a better understanding of the whole of it, and we gain a better sense of the original intent of the authors.

[UrbanFool]

For the record, President Monson doesn't sit around all day making proclamations about what the Bible verses mean this month. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, and that is the majority of it. I feel like other people think we have a lunatic at the head of the church telling us to do weird things like eat the head off a live chicken in order to receive God's blessing. That's just not so.

You might check out videos of our last conference. My favorite talk was "You Are My Hands" by Dieter F. Uchtdorf who is 2nd counselor to President Monson.

180th Annual General Conference, April 2010 (A link would be helpful)

Edited August 12, 2010 by UrbanFool

[jayanna]

Oh, CH I sincerely hope you find the answers to your questions! That talk mentioned above is a really fantastic one about us, and the guidance we receive from a prophet. REALLY you should read it. :)

I would like to point out that in the beginning of this thread that you mentioned the Bible was 98.6% translated directly from the Greek....hhhmmmmm well, maybe that is not the direction I want to take really.

I would simply like to share with you that I have a testimony of the Bible, and that many times when I have felt confused or alone or in sadness, I have turned to the Lord, my Savior, my Redeemer, the only begotten of the Father, and he has answered me through the beautiful words I have found there.

I would also like to share with you my testimony of the Book of Mormon, which is the same gospel taught to a people on the other side of the world, much like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul addressed different people differently according to how they could understand it. I have read the Book of Mormon several times, and find it brings me closer to being like my Savior each time. I have prayed, just as I pray over the Bible. I have received answers in the same way.

If the Book of Mormon were from the other team, why would it testify of the Bible? Why would the apostles and prophets in there admonish us to study the Bible? I testify to you that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach us about Jesus Christ. If it speaks of Him, then it is of Him.

An investigator asked me once, "I know that the people in your church do good things...but I don't know why. Do they do it because they are afraid of Hell? Do they do it because they want a big reward?"

I really thought for a minute and told her. "I do good things because I want to show my Savior that I love Him back." I know a lot of us talk about a big mansion in the sky or the celestial kingdom, which is spoken of in the New Testament. But, I think you should know that when we are walking the walk of what we preach, we really love each other, and care for each other the way the Savior, Jesus Christ, would care for us if He were phyiscally here.

CH I would gently admonish you to get a copy of the Book of Mormon, in the footnotes at the bottom of each page you will find references to the Bible...follow those references side by side with the Bible...that's how I did it/ still do it. As you read each page and follow these references, you will see how we understand both books to teach the same gospel. Pray before and during your study.

I sincerely hope you find the answers you seek. I really think you have a close relationship with your Heavenly Father, and you should read, study the two, and converse with Him about its truth.

[Soninme]

Moses was a man. How do you know he didn't misunderstand what God told him to write? How do you know that the men who translated his writings, and those of the other prophets in other languages, did so with perfect clarity into each language? You are aware that many times languages don't exactly match up word for word, don't you? Meanings get lost or scrambled. Claiming inerrancy in the processes over 6,000 years is more than just a little silly.

Because Jesus Himself quoted from the writings of not only Moses but also many others.(Luke 24:44) (Math 5:17)

I believe that there is sufficient evidence that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. The Scriptures themselves testify, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16). If they contain error then one must call it God-inspired error. This is totally incompatible with the nature of God as revealed in the Bible. Titus 1:2 “God cannot lie”. John 17:17 "Thy word is truth."

The testimony of Scripture is clear. God used fallible men to receive and record His infallible Word so that it would reach us, correct and without error. Sounds difficult? With God it's not. As He said "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?"(Jeremiah 32:27)

The apostle Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is inspired of God." And Paul told the Thessalonians, "For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the Word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

The Bible ends with this warning, "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18, 19).

The entire Bible is inspired, not just certain parts!

Inspiration extends not only to all parts of the Bible; it extends to the very words, "which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words" (1 Corinthians 2:13)

No one manuscript or translation is inspired, only the original. However, for all intents and purposes, they are virtually inspired since, with today's great number of manuscripts available for scrutiny, the science of textual criticism can render us an adequate representation. Therefore, we can be assured that when we read the Bible we are reading the inspired Word of God.

I like this thought;

Charles Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, wrote, "The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. Therefore:

"1. It could not be invention of good men or angels, for they neither would or could make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying, 'Thus saith the Lord,’ when it was their own invention.

"2. It could not be the invention of bad men or devils, for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity.

"3 Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by divine inspiration."

From author Josh McDowell;

The evidence that the very words of the Bible are God-given may be briefly summarized as follows:

• This is the claim of the classical text (2 Timothy 3:16).

• It is the emphatic testimony of Paul that he spoke in "Words ... taught by the Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:13).

• It is evident from the repeated formula, "It is written."

• Jesus said that which was written in the whole Old Testament spoke of Him (Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Hebrews 10:7).

•The New Testament constantly equates the Word of God with the Scripture (writings of the Old Testament (cf. Matthew 21:42; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 3:16).

•Jesus indicated that not even the smallest part of a Hebrew word or letter could be broken (Matthew 5:18).

•The New Testament refers to the written record as the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12).

• Occasionally the writers were even told to "diminish not a word" (Jeremiah 26:2, AV). John even pronounced an anathema upon all who would add to or subtract from the "words of the prophecy of this book" (Revelation 22:18, 19.

This is what Jesus believed about the scriptures.

So should we.

My 2 cents.

The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

[rameumptom]

This is an excellent question. Before I can give this an honest answer. I suppose I need more information about how the LDS church views who Jesus Christ is and what his purpose in the world was ?

We believe Jesus Christ to be the Only Begotten Son of Heavenly Father. He came to earth to atone and redeem mankind from both physical and spiritual death. He began his sufferings in Gethsemane and ended them upon the Cross. He resurrected on the third day. He then established his Church by organizing the apostles and giving them the mandate to go forth preaching the gospel and baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Christ will return for a Second Coming, wherein he will put down his enemies, and then reign on earth through the Millennium.

Perhaps the best way to understand and appreciate our (LDS) faith in Christ our Savior, is to read the Book of Mormon. It definitely clarifies our belief in the Son of God.

The Bible is the word of God. It is the foundation of all Christianity. That said, we also realize it has gone through thousands of renditions throughout the years. While Paul may have called the inspired writing "God Breathed" he was not necessarily saying this of the Bible, which would not be compiled for centuries after his death. Even with its flaws, we are amazed at how well the Bible has been preserved over the years.

But just as the teachings of Noah were insufficient for those living in Moses' day, and the teachings of Moses were insufficient for those living in Christ's day; there is still much more that God desires to share with mankind in our day. God wants to prepare the world for the 2nd Coming of Christ, and to do so requires modern prophets to prepare the way. John the Baptist, a prophet, was sent to prepare the way for Jesus' coming in mortality, even though there was a 400 year gap between Malachi and John. So important was it for God to prepare the way, that he sent a prophet.

And so important is the 2nd Coming, that God has sent prophets in our day to prepare us again. Yes, much of the truth is before us in the Bible. But many things occur today that are not found in the Bible, or are not clearly defined. We have thousands of Christian churches that differ on even basic concepts, such as baptism, abortion, homosexuality, etc. The Bible does not clearly discuss drugs, gangs, democracy, Marxism, Hitler, etc.

It wasn't long ago that some Christians (such as the Southern Baptists) justified black slavery through their interpretation of the Bible (and, no Soninme, this was NOT God's will, nor God-inspired error). And today, some either condemn or justify homosexual relationships through their interpretation of the Bible.

Just as Jesus clarified the scriptures for the Jews of his day, we need living prophets to clarify and redefine the scriptures today, in light of God's understanding.

[Connie]

Hello Soninme. It is very nice to meet you, and i hope you are having a great day. :)

Because Jesus Himself quoted from the writings of not only Moses but also many others.(Luke 24:44) (Math 5:17)

I believe that there is sufficient evidence that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. The Scriptures themselves testify, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16). If they contain error then one must call it God-inspired error. This is totally incompatible with the nature of God as revealed in the Bible. Titus 1:2 “God cannot lie”. John 17:17 "Thy word is truth."

The testimony of Scripture is clear. God used fallible men to receive and record His infallible Word so that it would reach us, correct and without error. Sounds difficult? With God it's not. As He said "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?"(Jeremiah 32:27)

The apostle Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is inspired of God." And Paul told the Thessalonians, "For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the Word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

The Bible ends with this warning, "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18, 19).

The entire Bible is inspired, not just certain parts!

Inspiration extends not only to all parts of the Bible; it extends to the very words, "which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words" (1 Corinthians 2:13)

No one manuscript or translation is inspired, only the original. However, for all intents and purposes, they are virtually inspired since, with today's great number of manuscripts available for scrutiny, the science of textual criticism can render us an adequate representation. Therefore, we can be assured that when we read the Bible we are reading the inspired Word of God.

I like this thought;

Charles Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, wrote, "The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. Therefore:

"1. It could not be invention of good men or angels, for they neither would or could make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying, 'Thus saith the Lord,’ when it was their own invention.

"2. It could not be the invention of bad men or devils, for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity.

"3 Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by divine inspiration."

From author Josh McDowell;

The evidence that the very words of the Bible are God-given may be briefly summarized as follows:

• This is the claim of the classical text (2 Timothy 3:16).

• It is the emphatic testimony of Paul that he spoke in "Words ... taught by the Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:13).

• It is evident from the repeated formula, "It is written."

• Jesus said that which was written in the whole Old Testament spoke of Him (Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Hebrews 10:7).

•The New Testament constantly equates the Word of God with the Scripture (writings of the Old Testament (cf. Matthew 21:42; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 3:16).

•Jesus indicated that not even the smallest part of a Hebrew word or letter could be broken (Matthew 5:18).

•The New Testament refers to the written record as the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12).

• Occasionally the writers were even told to "diminish not a word" (Jeremiah 26:2, AV). John even pronounced an anathema upon all who would add to or subtract from the "words of the prophecy of this book" (Revelation 22:18, 19.

This is what Jesus believed about the scriptures.

So should we.

My 2 cents.

The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

You may be interested in reading these:

Bible/"Adding to" or "taking away from" - FAIRMormon

1st frame

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Inerrant.pdf

There are more if these aren't enough. :)

Pax Vobiscum

[Guest]

The Bible ends with this warning, "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18, 19).

The entire Bible is inspired, not just certain parts!

No, the bible does not end with this warning, the Book of Revelations end in that warning.

But, you're right, the entire Bible is inspired.

Because the Bible is so inspired, you have thousands of different churches claiming to follow the same Bible carrying different doctrines. Discuss.