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


CHowell
 Share

Recommended Posts

And if the scriptures themselves have need to reference material outside themselves, would that indicate that they are absolutely complete, or that there is more we must learn?

[Again, if Jesus preached far more than is recorded, would that indicate that the scriptures are complete if the saviour himself preached more than was in them?

/QUOTE]

What does this mean to you? John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

I see you are interpreting this to mean that Enoch went to heaven never having tasted death. Most people who say 'God took my husband' would not be referring to that. They would be referring to death. Thankfully, you have accepted additional scripture which clarifies that point.

I don't see your point.

Genesis 5 tells of those who lived X- amount or years then died, not so with Enoch.

All of those are translations after the Saviour died. Can you point to evidence of the scriptures being translated prior to this?

The Septuagint was approx. 250 B C.

The Hebrew scriptures were copied many times since first given to Moses. My point was that Jesus claimed not even a jot or tittle was in error, contrary to what I have read from some on this board.

Interesting that the NT was written in Greek and inspired by the Holy Spirit yet Hebrew scriptures were quoted in it and therefore that translation had to be perfect.

So it is possible to have a God-breathed translation from one language to another, especially if we have a promise from God that His words shall by no means pass away.

Originally Posted by Soninme

There's my confusion; I'm told Jesus words didn't pass away, rather, "the truth just needed to be restored"

Webster Online Dictionary

Restore:

1 : give back, return

2 : to put or bring back into existence or use

3 : to bring back to or put back into a former or original state : renew

4 : to put again in possession of something

That's exactly it. You have hit the nail on the head.

The purpose of a prophet is, as always, a threefold task: to teach of God and His son. Always, to call to repentence the people, to bring the people closer to God with additional revelation and prophesy.

This is very hard to swallow.

Jesus didn't say anything like His words would have to be restored "brought back into existence or use" "put back to a former state"

You only restore what is broken or lost.

I noted that you didn't respond to my question that has been asked for many pages now.

You asked me many and I have at least attempted to answer them.

I asked just the one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 402
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What was the question (18 pages later) again?

So do we have originals at all?

Ouch!!!! Good call.

Really?

Are you guys actually reading this thread?

According to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 what teaching or truth necessary for salvation, santification or instruction in righteousness is missing from the scriptures Paul was talking about? Also, if I could add 2 Peter 1:3 "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue"

Not that I expect an answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one you seem to be crappy toward? I'm sorry I'm not all eloquent with my scriptures and doctrine. That's why I leave it to others. My question was in response to you writing "The Hebrew scriptures were copied many times since first given to Moses." If my question was answered in a previous post, then I'll go back and read the thread again. I thought I was following it with interest, but I must have missed something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soninme you're still going on about this strange premise that, "The Bible is whole, complete and flawless, and there can never be anymore scripture."??

I already answered this issue in another thread. Copying and pasting it so I don't have to retype it:

There are two ways to answer the question raised about Galatians 1:8-9. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him!"

There are two ways to interpret this passage.

A.) Another Gospel = Any Revelation from Heaven. So all Scripture and Revelation has ceased.

This would be a tad depressing certainly. This and A VERY LONG LIST of passages used to support the rather strange theory that "The Bible is A Closed Record, No New Scripture Can Ever Be Added."

The one thing that really kills this theory in every case is Chronology. As we know, the Bible did not simply fall out of the sky, whole and complete. The New Testament was written over several decades time and not compiled until about 400AD. So if we can find a passage that we think says, "No more scripture allowed" then logically we must either apply that to everything or nothing -- including the New Testament itself.

If our understanding of the Galatians passage is correct and really means "No More Scripture" then anything written after this Epistle cannot be valid nor scriptural. So we would lose: First and Second Corinthians, Romans, Luke, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Hebrews, Acts, First and SEcond Timothy, Titus, Epistles of John 1 thru 3, First and Second Peter, Jude, the Revelation of John, the Gospel of John.

If Revelations 22:18-19 means "no more scripture," we would lose The Gospel of John, and probably all three epistles of John.

Now let's consider 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Though it's really stretching things to say this passage says or implies "No more scripture", it certainly is used to that end. If valid, we lose: Titus, Epistles of John 1 thru 3, First and Second Peter, Jude, the Revelation of John, the Gospel of John and all three of Johns Epistles.

Some make very interesting use of John 17:6-8

"6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." The approach here is to wrongly assume that Jesus is saying: "I already gave them all of my words" so it naturally follows that "There can't be anymore."

Taken literally and enforced to the fullest, this passage would cost THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT!! After all, every scrap of the New Testament was written after Christ uttered these words. If we interpret a little more loosely, then we can at least accept The Four Gospels, as they are a rehearsal of the words which Christ gave to the Apostles. But everything else is invalidated -- most especially all Pauline Epistles. Everything that makes Paul an Apostle and witness of Jesus Christ happened well after Christ spoke these fateful words. So NONE of his writings can be considered scripture, in compliance with this understanding of John 17.

B.) As "Gospel" means Good News, then we are being told to reject any other "Good News" that contradicts or tells a different story from the New Testament.

In this case, the onus is on the student of the Bible to conclusively prove that the Gospel message received by Joseph Smith was actually contradictory to the Gospel message of the New Testament. Often, this leads us to the fact that Joseph Smith rejects the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as explained at the Council of Nicaea. The problem is, teachings like the Nicean Trinity are not explicit in the New Testament, and the LDS viewpoint on the nature of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is equally valid, based on the New Testament alone. It is only by non-Biblical tradition that the Trinity came to be THE accepted description of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Any Latter Day Saint can attest that the Restored Gospel does not contradict the Original Gospel in any way. It is simply a restoration of the Gospel Message in it's entirety, including information that was lost. A person could spend years trying to pick over the New Testament to thoroughly prove that it really is or is not the same message. Old incorrect traditions interpretations or understandings are your greatest stumbling blocks. There is often a long-accepted interpretation of certain passages, yet the very idea of changing interpretations is uncomfortable to the point of impossibility. The same thing happened to the Pharasees and Jews. When Jesus of Nazareth came to them claiming to be their promised Messiah, they couldn't accept him because he did not successfully fulfill what they mistakenly believed the scriptures said about his appearance and the nature of his ministry. This DOES NOT change the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was Their Messiah and the Christ, but it did keep them from accepting him.

In my opinion, every excuse for rejecting the Restored Gospel out of hand "because the Bible says so" demonstrates a lack of faith and a lack of trust in God. It seems to become more of an excuse to run back to what is comfortable and familiar, rather than taking a step into the darkness and trusting God to lead you. If the message we have for the you is true, then it is God's work, and walking away from it is rejecting God's message for you. So ultimately it is always incumbent upon the receiver to take the matter to God and find out if our message is truly from God. There is no other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soninme, I want to answer your question about what the scripture might say that was removed.

It might say, since we can't read it, what exactly Peter is supposed to use his keys for. He was supposed to seal, or bind, things on the Earth that would then be sealed in Heaven. Things in Heaven would be sealed on Earth. He was also supposed to loose things in Heaven and Earth. What things?

Those scriptures, which are missing would probably say something about that.

Would it be necessary for our sanctification? It would if the binding, or sealing, is supposed to be us.:o

Secondly, you mentioned that a restoration was not necessary.

According to Jesus it was.

In Matthew 17:11

Jesus says that Elias will come in the future and restore all things.

'Elias' is a title meaning both preparer, and restorer.

An Elias had come, to prepare the way for Jesus, and he was killed, but Jesus said the He SHALL come (future tense) and that He, an Elias, will come again, to restore, and he did in these latter days...to restore the true church of Christ on the Earth.

Again Peter taught it in Acts 3:21. Jesus is taken away, until the time of a restitution, which means:

the restoration of property or rights previously taken away, conveyed, or surrendered.

or

restoration to the former or original state or position.

And again in Rev. 14:6 An angel brings the everlasting gospel to those on the earth, Why would he need to if they already have it? That angel has come. The gospel has been returned to the earth.

Actually, the words restoration and restitution are used quite a bit by prophets in the scriptures.

Hope that answers your questions. :)

Have a great day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Septuagint was approx. 250 B C.

The Hebrew scriptures were copied many times since first given to Moses. My point was that Jesus claimed not even a jot or tittle was in error, contrary to what I have read from some on this board.

Interesting that the NT was written in Greek and inspired by the Holy Spirit yet Hebrew scriptures were quoted in it and therefore that translation had to be perfect.

So it is possible to have a God-breathed translation from one language to another, especially if we have a promise from God that His words shall by no means pass away.

Interesting is also when Bibles in different language can say something completely different and BOTH claim to be right and G-breathed!?

Why would Jesus point out errors? He had come to fulfill the old customs and from Him a new epoc would start, the old was gone, weather rigth or wrong! I dont think that even if other Cristian religions would be proved wrong that LDS would go claiming and pointing out mistakes in them. Today that is beeing done in some point but why? Because the others started it! Dont I sound like a 5 year old... but it is true. LDS would NEVER point out mistakes in an other religion IF their religion would be left alone. They would just tell the truth to the world, not critizise others. Others can do what they want ... we knwo swe are right! We really should not point out others fails just tell our truths, but this questioning of our belief brings in the pointing of others mistakes as we can not answer without pointing othres mistakes.:(

Edited by Maya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soninme you're still going on about this strange premise that, "The Bible is whole, complete and flawless, and there can never be anymore scripture."??

Faded,

While I do believe "The Bible is whole, complete and flawless" with respect to the original,

I never said "there can never be anymore scripture". God can certainly do whatever He so desires. My question is again;

According to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 what teaching or truth necessary for salvation, santification or instruction in righteousness is missing from the scriptures Paul was talking about? Also, if I could add 2 Peter 1:3 "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue"?

B.) As "Gospel" means Good News, then we are being told to reject any other "Good News" that contradicts or tells a different story from the New Testament.

I agree with you on this. I believe Galatians 1:8-9 is speaking of false teachings and along with 2 Corinthians 11:4 also a "different Jesus" and not at all saying there can be nothing new.

In this case, the onus is on the student of the Bible to conclusively prove that the Gospel message received by Joseph Smith was actually contradictory to the Gospel message of the New Testament. Often, this leads us to the fact that Joseph Smith rejects the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as explained at the Council of Nicaea. The problem is, teachings like the Nicean Trinity are not explicit in the New Testament, and the LDS viewpoint on the nature of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is equally valid, based on the New Testament alone. It is only by non-Biblical tradition that the Trinity came to be THE accepted description of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I would say the onus is on us all to be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and search the scriptures. We are warned continually in the Bible that false teachers will abound, and have been given the scriptures to expose them as such. Jesus said wide is the path to destruction and many enter through it. (Math. 7:13) We must always be on watch.

As a side note, I gave lots of scriptures in the Trinity thread that have also been ignored.

In my opinion, every excuse for rejecting the Restored Gospel out of hand "because the Bible says so" demonstrates a lack of faith and a lack of trust in God. It seems to become more of an excuse to run back to what is comfortable and familiar, rather than taking a step into the darkness and trusting God to lead you.

I don't want to take any steps "into the darkness" 1 John 1:5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soninme, I want to answer your question about what the scripture might say that was removed.

Thank you jayanna:)

It might say, since we can't read it, what exactly Peter is supposed to use his keys for. He was supposed to seal, or bind, things on the Earth that would then be sealed in Heaven. Things in Heaven would be sealed on Earth. He was also supposed to loose things in Heaven and Earth. What things?

Those scriptures, which are missing would probably say something about that.

Would it be necessary for our sanctification? It would if the binding, or sealing, is supposed to be us.

I don't see how this verse relates to 2 Tim.

Maybe this will help

What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing?

Secondly, you mentioned that a restoration was not necessary.

I think you mean this comment;

There's my confusion; I'm told Jesus words didn't pass away, rather, "the truth just needed to be restored"

That was my response to another poster.

What I meant was that Jesus said; (Luke 21:33) Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

In that context I gave the definition of "restore" and that doesn't fit with Luke 21:33. Jesus' words don't need to be restored.

Does that clarify some?

Secondly, you mentioned that a restoration was not necessary.

According to Jesus it was.

In Matthew 17:11

Jesus says that Elias will come in the future and restore all things.

'Elias' is a title meaning both preparer, and restorer.

An Elias had come, to prepare the way for Jesus, and he was killed, but Jesus said the He SHALL come (future tense) and that He, an Elias, will come again, to restore, and he did in these latter days...to restore the true church of Christ on the Earth.

Again Peter taught it in Acts 3:21. Jesus is taken away, until the time of a restitution, which means:

the restoration of property or rights previously taken away, conveyed, or surrendered.

or

restoration to the former or original state or position.

The restoration in this context is that of God's plan from the beginning; Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24 Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days. 25 You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”

Also; 2 Tim.1:9 "who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, 10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Have a great day!

Thank you.

I hope you do too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for reading, and thinking about my post. I have read yours also, and while I disagree with you, I want you to know that I can understand now why you believe what you do about the restoration. I want you to know that I love the Bible, and I love my Savior, Jesus Christ, and I know you love him too!

I have also found the Book of Mormon to be another testament of Jesus Christ, and I have learned about the same gospel that He taught to others, that were on another part of the Earth. He taught them many good things, about baptism, and sacrament, (or what some call communion), He named apostles, He healed the sick, and taught them to love and serve each other.

I know that when I read the Savior's words, they comfort me and help me to be a better disciple.

We might disagree on some of our views, but I know a fellow Christian when I read one. :)

There is so much that we have all yet to understand, I wonder sometimes, if after it is all done, we might look back from the heavens and giggle at ourselves. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded,

While I do believe "The Bible is whole, complete and flawless" with respect to the original,

I never said "there can never be anymore scripture". God can certainly do whatever He so desires. My question is again;

According to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 what teaching or truth necessary for salvation, santification or instruction in righteousness is missing from the scriptures Paul was talking about? Also, if I could add 2 Peter 1:3 "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue"?

A number of things actually -- mostly due to incomplete information. The Bible commands that we are to be baptized, but because it does not specify exactly how to baptize, many variations exist. It does say to baptize, "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" so this is pretty universally observed. But is it to be by immersion? Sprinkling? Somewhere in between? The New Testament seems pretty explicit in indicating that baptism is required in order to enter the Kingdom of God, but some modern Bible-believing religions say that it isn't. Well ... it either is or it isn't.

It says "Keep the Commandments" but it also tells us that "the Law of Moses is fulfilled." So how many of the commandments of the Old Testament are fulfilled and no longer in force? The 10 commandments -- lived on a higher level per the Sermon on the Mount -- are clearly valid and still in force. Is Tithing still in effect? What about the Priesthood passed down through the Levites and descendants of Aaron? Do they still have a role to play if they converted or did their authority cease with the "fulfillment of the law?" What about the very strict dietary laws? We can easily tell that Peter still lived them well after Christ ascended into heaven, as evidenced by him saying as much when he saw the vision of the unclean beasts and was commanded to "Kill and eat." As the vision was referencing ministering to the Gentiles, it is not at all clear whether the dietary laws are fulfilled or if they are still in force, based upon the New Testament alone. How much of the rest of the Old Testament law is no longer to be enforced?

Ephesians 4:11-14

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a cperfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

1 Corinthians 12:28

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Elsewhere, we also find bishops, priests, deacons and elders referenced. Mention is made of the Seventy called by Christ. Clearly, Paul teaches that all of these Priesthood offices exist to protect the Church of Jesus Christ from false doctrine. But what is a bishop and what are his specific duties? What about the Seventy and his specific duties? What is a priest and what is his role in the Church? What exactly is an evangelist and what is their purpose? What is an elder and how do they fit into the picture? Is a teacher a specific office or is it just referencing those who are call to teach -- like a Sunday school teacher? What was a pastor called to do in the time of Christ and the Apostles? Is it the same as what we call pastors today, or did the pastor have a completely different role? And what of prophets? Are we talking strictly of Old Testament prophets, or are we talking about new ones called in New Testament times? We know a fair bit about the Apostles, but there is uncertainty there as well. Were Apostles intended to continue on or were they limited to some pre-determined number that were destined to die out? Are living Apostles needed in order for the Body of Christ to continue to be the True Body of Christ? Well, the New Testament doesn't say. How essential are prophets, apostles, bishops, elders, pastors, evangelists, priests, teachers and deacons to our hopes for eternal salvation?

There are a great many other very important questions relevant to the salvation of humankind that are not fully explained in the New Testament. That's probably why you have more than 30,000 Christian denominations -- there's just too much room for interpretation and personal opinion.

And there are many glimmers of things that have no sufficient explanation. Baptism for the dead is mentioned. Seventh heaven is mentioned. Three degrees in the resurrection are mentioned: One of the sun, one of the moon and one of the stars. What are these things? Are we supposed to practicing and/or teaching them?

I would say it is insufficient to claim that "Because the Bible doesn't say anything else about it, it just isn't important." That would seem quite foolish.

I'm glad we are in agreement that God can reveal more scriptures if and when he sees fit to do so. We affirm that he has done exactly that, but you already know that.

As a side note, I gave lots of scriptures in the Trinity thread that have also been ignored.

I think the Trinity is an issue that has been beaten to death with no end to the debate in sight. I think people tend to get tired of debating it, since it's all been said before. In the end, what Latter Day Saints believe is not so very different from what Nicene Trinitarian Christians believe. We all believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. We all believe that they are three separate and distinct persons. We all agree that the three of them are "One Eternal God without End." We only disagree on how they are "One" and we disagree on the nature of God the Father. We believe he is a being of both body and spirit. Trinitarians generally hold that he is spirit only.

You probably won't get anyone to bite on yet another Trinity topic. I think most people are just sick and tired of the debate.

I don't want to take any steps "into the darkness

LOL, poor choice of words I suppose. But my point is valid. When you minister to an atheist, you seek to get him to reach out towards something that he has thoroughly denied exists. Only by reaching out to God can he experience and know for a fact that God is very real.

So I leave it to you to decide. What would you call what you are asking of said hypothetical atheist? It is the same concept that I'm referring to.

God Bless,

Faded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Again, if Jesus preached far more than is recorded, would that indicate that the scriptures are complete if the saviour himself preached more than was in them?

This is very hard to swallow.

Jesus didn't say anything like His words would have to be restored "brought back into existence or use" "put back to a former state"

You only restore what is broken or lost.

Ah! I see. You're Catholic. I apologize. You do have a fairly strong position, with the Universal Church. Clearly, you would have to be Catholic if you feel His words didn't need to be brought back to its original meaning, as you would be part of the Catholic church.

I wish you well, then, as that's the only tenable conclusion based on what you've said.

But based on your single, original question you're asking me to answer 'How does the LDS church resolve conflicts with the bible?'

I answer this: It doesn't have to. There are no conflicts between the LDS church and the bible.

Edited by FunkyTown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded,

While I do believe "The Bible is whole, complete and flawless" with respect to the original,

I never said "there can never be anymore scripture". God can certainly do whatever He so desires. My question is again;

According to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 what teaching or truth necessary for salvation, santification or instruction in righteousness is missing from the scriptures Paul was talking about? Also, if I could add 2 Peter 1:3 "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue"?

.

I actually answered your question a few pages back. Issues are indirectly brought up in the Bible that are not clearly explained, therefore, we see a variety of interpretations/interpolations of the Bible. Baptism vs no baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands, Priesthood of believers vs priesthood authority, TULIP vs free will, private interpretation of scripture vs interpretation by living prophets, salvation by grace alone vs salvation requiring works, etc.

Each of these is an issue that is bound closely with salvation and sanctification. Either we have free will or we are predestined. Either baptism by water (immersion, sprinkling, etc is another issue) is required, or it isn't.

Now you may call these all interpretations of man. But what good is the Bible, if a dozen people can read the same book and disagree on key tenets of salvation?

Whether Mormons are Christian all depends on one's reading of the Bible.

For this exact reason, we need modern prophets and apostles to explain God's will to us. Otherwise, what we get is a bunch of Bible translations and versions with everyone spiritually dying by a thousand cuts of heresy.

If Mormons will be damned for their interpretation, why aren't all Protestant and evangelicals also damned for breaking away from the original Catholic Church? You see the problem? The Bible cannot save us. It can only be a help to guide us in good paths. But because the Bible is often unclear, incomplete, contradictory, or even wrong on some issues, we have thousands of interpretations.

Can God allow salvation to all those groups, or even some of those groups, and not be a God of confusion? And if he limits salvation to a certain few, such as in Calvinism, then how can we be responsible for what we do, when God could easily have saved all of us? God becomes the demon-monster in Calvinism, because he teaches several paths to salvation in the Bible, but can then condemn people for following one of those paths. A believer in Christ is not necessarily saved, if God has not chosen that person for salvation. And if God has predetermined that a person would go down a wrong path to destruction, the person has no free will to repent and believe. God is therefore neither just nor merciful.

This is one major problem with seeking all spiritual information from just the Bible. It cannot answer the question of TULIP, because it does not address it directly. And when the Bible teaches a variety of concepts regarding predestination AND free will, then we have a clear conflict that modern Christianity still struggles with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I answer this: It doesn't have to. There are no conflicts between the LDS church and the bible.

Indeed, it's like many a protesters placard with a scripture verse on it. The hold it up at General Conference certain that it delivers a blow against my faith and beliefs but I'm left reading it, nodding, and thinking, "I completely agree with that scripture." Sometimes I am even amused that from my perspective the scripture 'denounces' them not me. Of course everyone is convinced they are reading the plain text and everyone who disagrees with them is engaging in interpretation.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah! I see. You're Catholic. I apologize. You do have a fairly strong position, with the Universal Church. Clearly, you would have to be Catholic if you feel His words didn't need to be brought back to its original meaning, as you would be part of the Catholic church.

His profile does say Protestant. Just sayin.

But based on your single, original question you're asking me to answer 'How does the LDS church resolve conflicts with the bible?'

I answer this: It doesn't have to. There are no conflicts between the LDS church and the bible.

Agreed, and this is ultimately the answer to the original question. The only conflict is when one interpretation is pitted against another interpretation.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 Timothy3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

What's missing?

A number of things actually -- mostly due to incomplete information.

There are a great many other very important questions relevant to the salvation of humankind that are not fully explained in the New Testament.

And there are many glimmers of things that have no sufficient explanation.

But what good is the Bible, if a dozen people can read the same book and disagree on key tenets of salvation?

But because the Bible is often unclear, incomplete, contradictory, or even wrong on some issues, we have thousands of interpretations.

This is one major problem with seeking all spiritual information from just the Bible.

I finally got my answer:lol:

Here's my dilemma;

Should I believe what the Bible says or should I believe those whom I have quoted?

2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 Timothy3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

What's missing?

I finally got my answer:lol:

Here's my dilemma;

Should I believe what the Bible says or should I believe those whom I have quoted?

2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Sonimne, we are going in circles with this. You keep on quoting Peter who was the prophet in HIS time and we keep on telling you that we have a prophet for OUR time. The scriptures between Peter and Pres. Monson are quite different than what Peter referred to as the scriptures so that the destruction mentioned in 2 Peter 3:16, for us LDS folks apply to the Catholic Church and all her protestant offspring, whereas for the Catholic folks, 2 Peter 3:16 apply to the LDS Church.

You can't really resolve the 2. We are LDS. That's what we believe. There is no conflict for us. And you can't convince us that the Book of Mormon is NOT part of the Scriptures that Peter/Jesus is talking about, so we will have to leave it at that.

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ. If the Book of Mormon would have said, Jesus Christ is not Messiah, then yeah, I can see how that is a big problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 Timothy3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

What's missing?

What is missing is a correct definition of the term , "scripture". In Paul's day, the canon was completely open. There was no Old or New Testament. There were just books and letters being copied and passed around. There were more writings considered "scripture" in Paul's day than what we have now. However, St Jerome whittled the list down to the few books we now consider "scripture."

The Dead Sea Scrolls show that there were probably hundreds of inspired books of scripture that we do not have in the Bible. As I've studied these, I find much truth that is "able to make [me] wise for salvation" and "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction..." and etc. It is, therefore, scripture. Just because the Jews and Christians of later times did not canonize the Dead Sea Scrolls' writings does not mean they are not scripture.

In Paul's view, scripture does not end. There was to be a continual guidance from inspired apostles and prophets, who could clarify past statements and give specific instructions for the day in which the people lived.

While the story of Noah's ark is instructive and inspirational, it could not help Moses in giving the 10 Commandments at Mt Sinai. There needed to be new scripture. And while the Mosaic Law was inspired and needed for the Jews in its time, yet there was newer scripture needed to update and prepare the people for Christ and a new era of doctrine.

It has been 2 millennia since the Bible was written. Since then, the world has gone through immense changes. Nations have arisen and disappeared. Technologies have taken man to the moon, sent satellites to the edge of the solar system, and allowed us to peer back to the edge of the Big Bang. Issues and struggles that were unknown 2000 years ago cannot be easily answered by a book that did not anticipate them. Two people can read the same Bible and get a completely different answer to the modern dilemma. Some insist that the Bible condemns homosexuality, while others show that God is Love and so he accepts mankind in their human condition. The modern Christian belief of salvation by grace alone requires that any gay man who proclaims in belief in Christ will be saved, and therefore is not under sin. This is what tens of millions believe who read, study, and live by the teachings of the Bible as scripture.

This is why scripture is an on-going thing. Moses had the teachings of Noah, but still required new revelation. Isaiah had the Mosaic Law, but the people still required new revelation and scripture. Jesus and the apostles had the writings of all the former prophets of God, yet they restored ancient truths and established new doctrine for their day.

This is the pattern of God.

When scholars and biblicists argue over the Comma Johanneum: is it interpolation into the scriptures, or is it evidence of the Trinity? Then we have a major need for modern prophets to clarify with new scripture just what connotes the Trinity/Godhead.

So, your quoting Paul regarding the importance of scripture is well taken by us here. However, you are too narrowly focused on what the term "scripture" means. Ancient Christians accepted much more than the few books we have today. And they believed they would receive more revelation and scripture as the Lord saw it needed to give them more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 Timothy3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

You bring that passage up a lot. What do you presume that it is telling you? It clearly is telling you something that I'm simply not getting.

A brief analysis of this passage, when it was given and so forth, yields this information.

1.) The New Testament was not completely written yet when Paul wrote this, nor was it complied nor was it canonized yet.

2.) An honest analysis of this passage leads you to understand "the Scriptures" being referenced being the Old Testament. Properly understood, the entire Old Testament is what this passage says it is.

What's missing?

Enough is clearly missing to make the current "Body of Christ" a mass of arguments, dissensions, disagreement and general chaos -- in complete contradiction to how the Body of Christ of the New Testament was described. So clearly the Bible all by itself does not have sufficient information to create the Church of Jesus Christ that existed in the days of the Apostles. It provides great insights into what that Church looked like and how it functioned, but all attempts to recreate it from the Bible alone have been unsuccessful. Why? Because too much is left to speculation without concrete facts. More importantly, recreating The Church of Jesus Christ perfectly requires nothing less than direct revelation from God and a renewing of the Apostolic authority that neither Catholicism nor Protestantism can legitimately lay claim to.

And of course, at the point when Paul wrote that passage, about 1/3 of the New Testament was missing -- since it hadn't been written yet. So as of this writing to Timothy, there was quite of bit of scripture that certainly was missing.

I finally got my answer:lol:

Here's my dilemma;

Should I believe what the Bible says or should I believe those whom I have quoted?

2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Once again, I completely agree with the scripture. I'm not sure what you're getting out of it that I'm not seeing.

I would entirely agree that many New Testament passages are twisted and turned to suit the reader's whims and fancies. Many passages are understood to mean things that they logically couldn't have possibly have been intended to mean. A lot of reading into them happens. The readers frequently fail to keep New Testament writers' words in context of who they are speaking to and what the circumstances are.

The pertinent question is this: Who is correctly understanding the passages and who is twisting them to mean something they were never intended to mean, and how do you tell the difference?

Catholicism referenced "Casting your pearls before swine" as a basis for withholding the Bible from the world for several centuries. I would say that qualifies as misusing and abusing the text of the New Testament. And yet, they probably didn't think they were doing any such thing at the time. This provides an excellent example of incorrect interpretation of a passage of scripture that lasted many, many centuries. So we cannot use age of the interpretation to validate it's correctness. So again, how do we tell who is correctly interpreting and who is twisting the passages of Scripture in directions it was never meant to go?

Look at the chaotic mess that so many people call "The Body of Christ." You could hardly make a better argument for God sending somebody like Moses, Abraham or Noah to the world today. It is clear that this disunified Christendom was and is in need of guidance and direction. There is hardly a denomination that is not in disagreement within itself about many core teachings of Christ, what they mean and how they are to be understood. It seems perfectly logical for God to send Apostles and Prophets once more to straighten out these centuries old conflicts and to establish once and for all what God's messengers truly intended and taught to us all those centuries ago. And as Rameumptom correctly points out, it is God's way to send his LIVING messengers into the world. He always did it that way in the Old Testament times. He did it that way in the New Testament times. God never changes, he's said so many times. So what makes modern Christianity exempt from the need of guidance by living prophets and apostles? How are they so different?

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share