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


CHowell
 Share

Recommended Posts

wait, what?

There's a conflict with the Bible?

Is this one of those "my book's bigger than your book" threads?

No, not at all. I think we've gotten way, way, way off track actually. But the point being debated is one that is easily proven.

The claim is that the copiers and transcribers of the Old and New Testament did make mistakes and didn't always get it 100% right. What Soninme appears to be claiming is that this is nonsense and that God would never allow his Word to be corrupted and that the Bible is perfect and flawless in every way.

I do wish the facts backed up that point of view. Many centuries of debate and conflict could have been avoided if this were true. But the problem is that -- especially in the case of the New Testament -- there are many thousands of copies and fragments of the books of the Bible that simply do not match up. This means that either somebody made mistakes in transcription, or bias from their own beliefs crept in as the works were translated and transcribed. "Because I know X to be true, a better wording for this passage would be ..." We can't know which differences came from which scenario. What we do know is that thousands of significant differences between the oldest available manuscripts exist.

If God had prevented the records from being corrupted and disallowed all errors, then every single manuscript of the original works of the Old and New Testament should match up perfectly and read exactly the same. Trouble is, they just don't. The creation of the most respected translations of the Bible into English took tremendous effort and collaboration by entire teams of scholars. Why is that? Because you have to determine which copies are accurate and which ones are in error. Sometimes it's a simple matter of the vast majority of reliable manuscripts agreeing on certain wording for the passage in question. Unfortunately, there often isn't a good consensus on the wording of the ancient manuscripts for the passage in question. At that point, the scholars have to decide which manuscript seems to be the most trustworthy for that particular passage.

If you get a chance, go through the entire King James Version of the Bible and take note of the italics. Every single word that appears in Italics is where the scholars could not agree on the wording that should be accepted, and that the wording is their best guess at it. There are versions of the New International Version that weighs each verse for how many of the assembled team of scholars agree on the wording chosen. One might hypothesize that God led them to perfectly reassemble the words or some such. This too is debunked by the simple fact that contemporary translations of the Bible do not match up with each other in wording. If God created one perfect Bible, which translation is it?

As I said earlier, while it's unbelievably obvious that the Bible can hardly be expected to be 100% perfect, that does not diminish it's value in our lives. Obviously, any scholar who was in any way involved in any Biblical translation process would never claim that they got it 100% right. But it was the Bible being made available to all the world that awoke the ancient world from their deep sleep of ignorance now commonly referred to as "The Dark Ages." The Bible was the light that woke up the world from its long slumber.

The point on Biblical imperfection is being oversold. We don't approach things quite the same way Protestants do, but we place GREAT value in the Biblical record nonetheless.

The thread is stuck on a tangent debating something that any true scholar already knows the answer to: Is the Biblical record, perfect and flawless? The obvious answer is, "No, it isn't, but translators do their very best to get it right and it's correct to the best of their ability to produce." It just isn't as earth-shatteringly critical a point as it's being made out to be.

The value of the Bible and it's place within our faith would not change much at all if we could have a translation of the Bible that God certified was 100% perfect. The original question was, "How does the LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible?" The answer is very simple. For starters, properly understood there is no conflict between LDS doctrine and the Bible. But the truest answer is found in our Ninth Article of Faith:

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

All of Christendom is united in declaring that God did speak to mankind long ago. We agree 100%. What we believe is not so different after all. All other Christian religions faithfully declare that God revealed himself and his will to mankind. We just happen to know that he still does.

We have living prophets and apostles leading us. God has sent them to the world today. They are just as authoritative to the world today as the ancient apostles were when they lived. If there is a difference of opinion in translation or interpretation of a Biblical passage, we rely on the modern day prophets and apostles to lead us the right way. If some of God's teachings and commandments did not survive the long centuries since the Biblical times, or were simply not recorded, we have living apostles and prophets to restore that knowledge to us again.

The OP's real question should not have been, "How do you resolve conflicts with the Bible?" We do not believe there are any. A better question would have been, "How do you resolve perceived conflicts with the Bible?" The answer is simple. God speaks to his living apostles and prophets and those sorts of perceived conflicts are answered by the very originator of the Bible: God Himself.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 402
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In hopes of debunking the apparent notion that we do not value the Bible or completely disregard it, let me share the words of a modern Apostle of Jesus Christ, James E Talmage. This is taken from the introduction to Talmage's book, "Jesus The Christ."

It is a matter of history that at or near the beginning of what has since come to be known as the Christian era, the Man Jesus, surnamed the Christ, was born in Bethlehem of Judea. The principal data of his birth, life and death are so well attested as to be reasonably indisputable; they are facts of record, and are accepted as essentially authentic by the civilized world at large. True, there are diversities of deduction based on alleged discrepancies in the records of the past as to the circumstantial details; but such differences are of strictly minor importance, for none of them nor all taken together cast a shadow of rational doubt on the historicity of the earthly existence of the Man known in literature as Jesus of Nazareth.

As to who and what He was, there are dissentions of grave moment dividing the opinions of men; and this divergence of conception and belief is most pronounced upon those matters to which the greatest importance attaches. The solemn testimonies of millions dead and of millions living unite in proclaiming Him as divine, the Son of the Living God, the Redeemer and Savior of the human race, the Eternal Judge of the souls of men, the Chosen and Anointed of the Father -- in short, the Christ. Others there are who deny His Godhood while extolling the transcendent qualities of His unparalleled and unapproachable Manhood.

To the student of history this Man among men stands first, foremost and alone, as a directing personality in the world's progression. Mankind has never produced a leader to rank with Him. Regarded solely as a history personage, He is unique. Just by the standard of human estimation, Jesus of Nazareth is supreme among men by reason of the excellence of His personal character, the simplicity, beauty, and genuine worth of His precepts, and the influence of His example and doctrines in the advancement of the race. To these distinguishing characteristics of surpassing greatness the devout Christian soul adds an attribute that far exceeds the sum of all others -- the divinity of Christ's origin and the eternal reality of His status as Lord and God.

His earthly life covered a period of thirty-three years; and of these but three were spent by Him as an acknowledged Teacher openly engaged in the activities of public ministry. He was brought to a violent death before He had attained what we now regard as the age of manhood's prime. As an individual He was personally known to but a few; and His fame as a world character became general only after His death.

Brief account of some of His words and works has been preserved to us; and this record, fragmentary and incomplete though it be, is rightly esteemed as the world's greatest treasure.

No adequate biography of Jesus as Boy and Man has been or can be written, for the sufficing reason that a fullness of data is lacking. Nevertheless, man never lived of whom more has been said and sung. None to whom is devoted a greater portion of the world's literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim is that the copiers and transcribers of the Old and New Testament did make mistakes and didn't always get it 100% right. What Soninme appears to be claiming is that this is nonsense and that God would never allow his Word to be corrupted and that the Bible is perfect and flawless in every way.

Faded you are misrepresenting my position.

I claim, along with you and others on this board, that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired. We don't have the originals. Yes the Old and New Testaments have been translated and copied into many different languages. I do acknowledge that translations aren't perfect and "copiers and transcribers" "didn't always get it 100% right".

What I also claim is if you actually examine the variations, you would wonder what all the fuss is about (What are we really debating about?) For the variations have so little impact on the meaning. And if the objective was for God to communicate meaning, these variations in the manuscripts add up to much about nothing. It's like complaining about the penmanship of the writer. From the Exposition of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy;

The verdict of the science of textual criticism that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free. Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

No, God did not speak in English but I believe that what we have available to us today is the accurate message of God's plan of salvation.

But the problem is that -- especially in the case of the New Testament -- there are many thousands of copies and fragments of the books of the Bible that simply do not match up. This means that either somebody made mistakes in transcription, or bias from their own beliefs crept in as the works were translated and transcribed. "Because I know X to be true, a better wording for this passage would be ..." We can't know which differences came from which scenario. What we do know is that thousands of significant differences between the oldest available manuscripts exist.

Surely you have examples of some of the "thousands of significant differences". A good example would be a significant doctrinal difference such as the nature of God or requirements of salvation or of the resurrection etc.

This too is debunked by the simple fact that contemporary translations of the Bible do not match up with each other in wording. If God created one perfect Bible, which translation is it?

I have a Bible with four translations side by side, The KJV, Amplified, NAS and NIV.

My favorite though is the NKJV because I grew up with it. I also like to check the NASB. What I have noticed time and time again is that though the words are different the teaching is identical. Used together in many instances I have been helped to get a grasp of or a better understanding of the teaching. I just don't see how you say they "don't match up". Pick any 2, 3, or 12 translations and show me a verse or verses where there are significant differences such as the requirements for salvation or the nature of God or something that is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.(KJV) or; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NASb); or; So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work. (Amplified) or; so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soninme, I don't think it's worthwhile to pursue the whole point of "Biblical Inerrancy" vs "Biblical Imperfection" as it is not really the point that I wanted to make here in this thread. It simply doesn't answer the original question for this thread, "How do you resolve [perceived] conflicts with the Bible?" You're right that I have partially misunderstood your point of view to a large degree. It sounds like we agree on the essentials though --

A.) The original texts of the Bible were inspired by God.

B.) We don't have the original texts.

C.) What errors have crept in over the ages do not significantly change the overall message of the Old and New Testament.

The point is simple enough though: If the Bible and the Church seem to be in disagreement, we rely on living prophets and apostles sent to us from God. Sooner or later, it will be made clear that there is no contradiction at all. The ultimate authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not the Bible. The highest authority is God speaking through the living oracles he has appointed to this purpose. We follow the prophet first, and leave sorting out what is or isn't Biblical for later. That is the pattern God follows throughout the Biblical record. We believe God does not change and has not changed from that pattern.

You do not seem likely to change your point of view. I know I am not going to change mine. Since we're not going to convince one another, we'll have to agree to disagree. We'll have to settle for understanding one another. Ultimately, that is the entire purpose of this section of the forums: To help us understand each other even if we don't agree.

So ultimately, the question is, do you understand our point of view on this matter (Resolving conflicts with the Bible)? Do you feel that your point of view is being properly understood as it relates to how to resolve conflicts with the Bible?

Discussions on Biblical Inerrancy vs Modern Revelation, the Great Apostasy and the Restoration are worthwhile topics, but each really should have a separate thread if that's what we're discussing. I think the original question posited in this thread has been quite thoroughly answered. Am I right?

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry my mistake. I thought he was considered a prophet and thus incapable of writing falsehoods. I too think he was wrong a lot.

Yep. "A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as such", and all that.

I agree. My point was it's an easy decision when I believe the the witness contradicts and makes many errors.

When you believe. In other words, you have a preconceived notion of whether the witness should contradict himself or not, and that preconception will determine whether you will jump all over his facially contradictory statements or bend over backwards to reconcile them--or, as you do in your most recent remarks to Faded, attempt to cast all such contradictions as insignificant.

I just think our view of the scriptures should be the same as Jesus, the prophets and the apostles.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward Your holy temple,

And praise Your name

For Your lovingkindness and Your truth;

For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.

2 Timothy 3:16-17. I would quote it again but.....

That refers to the Bible only inasmuch as it accurately and completely reflects God's word and His truth. As a proof-text, it's circular logic.

There is nothing in the Bible that says "this book that you hold in your hands is an accurate and complete record of all that God has revealed and all that He ever will reveal".

It would take up a lot of time and space on this board to answer all your objections and these guys would do it much better than I and even if I did then for sure there would be more objections and more verses so it would likely be never ending. This site answers hundreds of supposed problems/contradictions from Genesis to Revelation.

For the issues I cited, the site never provides an explicit cite for any of them where the Bible itself says "this is what's happening here, and this is why there's not actually a contradiction". Instead, the site either a) dodges the issue completely (money paid to Judas), or b) tries to dress up extra-biblical arguments as biblical by mingling specially-selected verses with a healthy dose of modern interpretation and, in some cases, outright semantical games (I was particularly fond of the "no man has seen God" explanation--either God is not always the Father or God is not always Jesus).

Which reinforces what I've been saying all along: If we're willing to bring extra-Biblical sources into the equation, we can reconcile pretty much anything. But if we stick to the Bible alone, as some say we must--if the folks at CARM can't do it, can it be done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I started up a new thread. The original question has already been answer over and over and over again. What we're stuck on is Modern Revelation vs Biblical Infallibility, and it deserves it's own thread. So I started a new thread: Modern Revelation vs Biblical Infallibility.

I think it's only appropriate to limit this thread to just discussing the original question, "How does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints resolve perceived conflicts with the Bible?" If the answer to that question is not yet abundantly clear, then what isn't clear about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was it ever part of the 66?

What "Scriptural Authority" would you say he was using when speaking of the phoenix?

Who do you believe Paul was talking to in 2 Tim 3:16-17 and did that message do him/them any good?

Interesting that you ask "when was it ever part of the 66"?

If you know about the history of the canon of the Holy Bible, you will know that 1 Clement was not ever part of the 66 books of the Bible. However, you are forgetting that prior to the canon of the 66 books, there were considered up to 80+ books that were included in the Bible as canonical books.

The earliest extant list of documents recognised as New Testament scriptures is the Muratorian Fragment dating from the end of the Second century. It reflects what the church at Rome at that time considered to be New Testament Scriptures. The list consisted of:

4 Gospels and Acts

Paul's letters all 13 of them

Jude

1 and 2 John

Apocalypse of John

Apocalypse of Peter

They rejected the Shepherd of Hermas and Gnostic writings.

Tertullian, a Christian writer around 200 AD gives the following list of what he considers to be New Testament Scriptures:

4 Gospels and Acts

13 Pauline Epistles

1 Peter

1 John

Apocalypse of John

Jude

He makes no mention of James, 2 Peter or 3 John. He does mention Hebrews which he thought worthy to be included among the apostolic writings. Tertullian thought it might have been the work of Barnabas. He mentions the Shepherd of Hermas and rejects it as not being apostolic.

Origen, a biblical scholar of the early part of the third century, distinguishes undisputed New Testament documents from those over which there is disagreement among the churches. The undisputed ones, according to Origen, are:

4 Gospels and Acts

The Pauline Epistles

1 Peter

1 John

Apocalypse

Disputed scriptures are:

Hebrews

2 Peter

2 and 3 John

James

Jude

Origen admitted that Hebrews often circulated with the Pauline letters, but he believes that it was written by another hand. AS for who its author might have been, Origen declares that God alone knows. Origen also mentions the Didache, the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas as spiritual works, valued among the churches, but not, in his opinion, of the same weight as the apostolic writings.

Eusebius in the early fourth century was asked by the Emperor Constantine to prepare 50 Bibles for the churches of his new capital city, Constantinople. In preparation, Eusebius produced three lists of books. In the first he included all those writings which were universally accepted among the churches as Scripture. This list consisted of:

4 Gospels and Acts

The Epistles of Paul and Hebrews

1 Peter

1 John

Apocalypse

Notwithstanding his inclusion of Hebrews in this list, Eusebius expressed personal doubts about the authority of this letter. The second list consisted of those writings which were accepted by the majority of the churches. This list was made up of:

James

Jude

2 Peter

2 and 3 John

The third list consisted of works generally regarded as spurious and included:

The Acts of Paul

The Shepherd of Hermas

The Apocalypse of Peter

The Gospel of Thomas

When we look at the scripture where the Apostle Paul talks to Timothy about Scripture, we understand and know that Paul was referring to the Old Testament. This could be both the Hebrew and Septuagint.

One also will discover that the earliest known New Testament document is 1 and 2 Thessalonians, dating to about 50 AD. This predates the earliest known written gospel of Mark (approximately 70 AD).

So, the burden of proof is on you to provide reasonable evidence that Paul was referring to 66 Books that would not be canonized until several centuries after he wrote to Timothy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was it ever part of the 66?

What "Scriptural Authority" would you say he was using when speaking of the phoenix?

Who do you believe Paul was talking to in 2 Tim 3:16-17 and did that message do him/them any good?

.

Gotta love them "scholars" :rolleyes:

Are you a Polytheist?

Does "sons of God" HAVE to mean literal children, or is it possible, even just a little, that it could mean "sons by creation" (made)? Which could also be rendered "sons of Adam" or "sons of Israel".

Did Jesus believe in multiple gods?

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.' 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

I'm gonna stick with Jesus:)

Sure, if you want to stand by that. But then, you have to reasonable answer as to how 12 tribes of Israel mathematically are able to be established with 70 Nations.

Meaning, you would have to reconcile Deuteronomy 32:8-9 where it reads that when the Most High had set the bounds of the Nations according to the Sons of Israel, that you have to compute how 12 goes into 70 when the Tables of Nations lists 70 Nations.

Let us do the math here:

70 nations divide by 12 sons of Israel = 5.8333333333333333333333333333333

This is not possible, mathematically.

The table of Nations is listed in Genesis 10, and come from the three sons of Noah - Ham, Shem, and Jepeth.

So, unless the author of Genesis is lying, or there is a contradiction between Deuteronomy 32:8-9, or there was a significant change in the passage and that the literal translation is that the Most High divided the 70 nations according the Sons of God, and Jacob is YHWH's Portion (which by the way, is exactly what Deuteronomy 32:8-9 states and you also have to reconcile as to how God would divide 70 nations by 12 sons of Israel, when Israel was not even listed as part of the 70 Nations, and YHWH inheriting Jacob as his nation).

So, I actually will trust scholars who have established empirical proof than you who claim that Deuteronomy 32:8-9 was not changed by monothestic jewish monks when they wrote the Masoretic Text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STS' understanding of Deuteronomy 32:8-9and Genesis 10 is correct. Bible scholars are almost completely in agreement with the translation that the correct reading is that El Elyon (God Most High) divided the nations of the earth (70 of them) among his divine sons (not sons of Israel). The choice portion went to Yahweh, which was Israel/Jacob, which did not yet exist, and Yahweh would develop through his relationship with his own divine son, Abram. In accepting Abram as the beginning of His nation, he gave him a name change to Abraham. Essentially, Yahweh gave his two H's to Abram and Sara, making them his divine children. Name changes were always expected when God adopted a human. So, Yahweh also makes a special covenant with Jacob, changing his name to Israel, the actual beginning of the nation of Israel.

I go into detail on this on my blog: Joel's Monastery: Lesson 7, the Abrahamic Covenant

and you can find it on this forum also at: http://www.lds.net/forums/old-testament/30158-lesson-7-abrahamic-covenant.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I was recently introduced to the Mormon church through a good friend of mine recently. Not knowing that they were Mormon's my wife to be and I were invited to church with them. Having grown up in the CM&A and planning on planting a new church roots in the local Bapist church I was always willing to goto church with someone.

After the church service my wife to be and I were totally shocked. At what we had just heard, that being said...I attempted to keep an open mind and not knowing much I started to do some research on the Mormon and LDS churches. As I learned more I became quite troubled.... 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...

well probably most of the conflicts don't exist in the bible but rather how it's intrepreted by various groups and/or a lot of time what other groups think the LDS believe and what they actually believe don't match up. Also LDS don't believe that the Bible contains the totality of God's word nor do they believe that it it was transmitted perfectly through the years, and so some errencies because of man have crept in, but for muchg of it, it is good and reliable.

Therefore lets start with the first one in Genesis. How can the Mormon church believe that if Adam & Eve hadn't sinned and committed the first sin, and therefore the fall of man kind we wouldn't be here today ? When that's CLEARLY not what the Bible teaches ?

They weren't taught that disobeying God was a sin. The KJV doesn't say it was a sin but a transgression, and LDS believe that transgression and sin are not exactly the same. Nor is the way that A&E were told not to take of the fruit make it wrong or an evil thing.

THe only theing that is clear in the bible is that they were commanded not to because it would kill them. In other sources that are not in the bible, god also tells them further after the command, but they are free to choose either.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Since God put man in the garden to tend it and provide for them and gave them dominion over the whole earth and God also met with Adam daily, I'm sure God was conversing with Adam about how to do things, what was good and true, and leading Adam in foundational truths. So Adam was in the process of only learning good. Adam had knowledge of good. It was his disbelief of what God told him that was the issue, that Adam and Eve chose to disbelieve God.

God also said, 'Hear Him', regarding the Lord. If Jesus is our Lord we should be actively be His disciples and learn of Him and from Him.

Also remember that Jesus affirmed that we need to believe the words of Moses, and the Scriptures of Jesus day was the Septuigent (pretty much the same we have in our KJV OT)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the KJV Bible is based upon the Masoretic text, not the Septuagint. Studies show that most translations of the OT books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls use the Masoretic as well, but there are exceptions.

BTW, the current issue of Biblical Archaeological Review has an article on Ugarit. They give some interesting examples of several of the Biblical writers referencing ancient Ugaritic myths and stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

All is I can say is Wow!!!! There has been so much picking and prodding on both ends of the spectrum. It's these kinds of encounters that are defeating the whole purpose for us all, and that's to have a personal relationship with our Father above by LOVING Him with all of our Hearts, Minds, Souls, and Strength!!!!!! By doing this, regardless of personal beliefs, we are able to reciprocate His Love for His children(We Are All God's Children), to any brother or sister that crosses our paths!!!!

I have four beautiful children who practice the Mormon faith, and although I have yet to convert(I have read the BOM in it's entirety and going to read it again), I can most certainly put aside My differences on what the most Important thing is, to ensure my children have a personal relationship with Our Heavenly Father, that Jesus Christ is Our Savior, and the Holy Spirit is upon us all!!!!

What I see is once again humans having Their view of Faith in hopes that it allows them to Draw closer to the Father above!!!! After all, I know that I will have to be JUDGED by the one and only JUDGE, our Heavenly Father, when that time comes!!!!! Are you ready, I know I am!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 14:23,24; "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words, and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me."

.

Jesus gave hundreds of teachings, and each has important lessons in our discipleship to Him. We are not to be hearers only, but doers of His word. Surely Jesus came to manifest the righteousness and truth of God so that we have reason and hope in our faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Micah 6:7,8 we are told:

"Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,

Ten thousand rivers of oil?

Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,

The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

He has shown you, O man, what is good;

And what does the LORD require of you

But to do justly,

To love mercy,

And to walk humbly with your God?"

Surely Jesus came to show us exactly what these things mean: to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God and our fellow man.

We can have emotional love towards the Lord, but we also need to show our love by our actions of keeping His words - after all, love is a verb:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, about 99% of cases where LDS theology is accused of "contradicting the Bible" it actually isn't contradicting the Bible at all. The only contradiction comes when certain long-accepted Christian tratitions are rejected by LDS theology. Those tradtions we reject are usually based upon, "What the Bible clearly implies" (according to accepted traditional Chritian theology) but doesn't actually specifically say.

Nowhere does the Bible actually say, that Adam and Eve were fully capable of procreation prior to the fall nor does it say that they weren't. The fact of the matter is that the Bible doesn't clearly say one way or another.

Similarly, nowhere does the Bible say that the Bible is the complete and perfect word of God and that no further scripture/revelation would ever be possible/necessary. But the accepted general practice among your more traditional Christian faiths is to use "the word" or "the word of God" and "the Bible" interchangeably. So if a passage says, "the word is complete" or "the word is perfect" or anything like that, the more traditonal thinking Christian just assumes that the passage is referring to the Bible and saying it is "perfect," "complete," etc.

But in order to unequivocably say what most traditional Christians insist that it already says, there would need to be a passage that says something very much like this: "The Bible is perfect, flawless and complete, providing humankind with everything God intends for us to know. No further written scripture is necessary, nor is it possible."

No such passage actually exists, nor does the word "Bible" appear anywhere in the Bible.

Again, the vast majority of contradictions happen when the Latter Day Saints reject beliefs Christianity had always assumed the Bible was "implying" but that the Bible didn't specifically teach/state/say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an old thread but the question is often asked. My first response would be that differences are in interpretation. Traditional Christianity's understanding of the bible comes from tradition in great part. I use Trinitarianism as an example. There is nothing in the bible that says God the Father, Christ and The Holy Ghost are one amalgamated God. In fact the bible is quite specific in saying they are three distinct beings. The Garden of Eden story comes from latter day revelation. As I recall there is some early Jewish writing on that subject too.

Latter day revelation may be hard for some people to reconcile with given many are taught that the bible is complete, perfect and all that God wants us to know. Clearly that is not the case however. The bible is not perfect and it is not always clear. It leaves much open to interpretation. The recent notion that God is sovereign and therefore everything in the bible is all there is seems to mock God. Using that premise would mean everything that has happened in historic Christianity is God's doing because he had control. On the face of it, the sovereignty argument would make sin impossible. In my opinion that type of thinking is what makes some people hate God for "allowing" awful things to happen.

Let's be clear. God is in charge but he gave man the ability to make mistakes and be wrong. That includes the ability to pick and choose what to believe. Mankind's ability to choose allowed the dominant religious authority of the day to decide what was holy scripture and to pass correct as well as incorrect ideas on to others. There are multiple reasons why this happened but it boils down to God allowing it because he knew all would be set right in the end. Mankind is here on earth learn and grow. If God interfered by correcting our mistakes before we made them, we would not have the freedom to decide for ourselves. If we understood everything with perfect clarity we would be less inclined to seek God. We would become people with little faith who knew a lot about the workings of the universe, even God's nature, but a diminished personal relationship with Him. Even now, with the little we know, many people think of God as the butler whose job is to fix things for us when we get into trouble - a kind of 911 service. Mormons believe there is much more to our relationship with Him than that.

Edited by jlf9999
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people don't think for themselves because they are mentally lazy and it's easier to side with those you like or respect than to forge the pathway to return to the truth when most would rather hear what makes them feel comfortable - it's human nature. But Jesus wants us to become all we were created to be. Jesus never taught a feel good doctrine. His message divides spiritual light from spiritual darkness - that's the nature of what He taught.

Jesus said if we don't believe Moses, we can't believe Him either. One has to be firmly based on what Jesus taught if they belong to Him. He came to call everyone to repent and do the will of God because the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Those who are of God will hear Him and follow Him. That 'Prophet' spoken of by Moses and Peter (Acts 3:22,23) is the Living Prophet, Jesus Christ. So the issue is to abide in His teachings given to the disciples when preaching the message of God in His earthly ministry, as well as the further revelation from heaven about those things which are outlined there.

Have you carefully considered if you are abiding in everything He taught?

One Disciple to Another

If you do what He said you will be His disciple indeed. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. It's the same for everyone - His words are true, and He gave those original disciples the eternally extant words of the Father to His children. Those who are His will hear, those who are not His cannot accept them or do them. Those of the light will come to the light that they may see their deeds are done in God. Those not of the Father will not come to the light of His word because they can't face the fact of their darkness, but will seek their own kind to follow.

Jesus said His words were imperishable by any means. Do you believe Him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditional Christianity's understanding of the bible comes from tradition in great part. I use Trinitarianism as an example. There is nothing in the bible that says God the Father, Christ and The Holy Ghost are one amalgamated God.

Hello jlf9999

What does "amalgamated God" mean to you?

I haven't heard that term before.

In fact the bible is quite specific in saying they are three distinct beings.

Chapter and verse please.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Holy Trinity definition is one God of the three parts separate, indistinguishable and unknowable such as the Trinitarian notion of God's nature. Trinitarians have amalgamated or combined three separate beings into a single unfathomable God. LDS theology teaches that the three, God the Father, His son Jesus Christ and The Holy Ghost are just as the bible says they are: different and separate beings. Our theology teaches us that we are the literal children of God the Father and lived with Him in pre-mortal life and had an intimate relationship with Him just as we do with our earthly parents. Jesus Christ is our elder brother, the first born in pre-mortality as well as the only begotten or earthly-born son of God the Father.

The nature of God, Christ, The Holy Ghost and who humans are in reality is a study in itself and is quite interesting. However it is often considered a bit beyond Mormonism 101 or even 102. It gets into what eternal life is and more. I would be glad to expound a bit on it if you like. It is a fascinating study and not often discussed very extensively outside of LDS circles.

Edited by jlf9999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Holy Trinity definition is one God of the three parts separate,

jlf9999

The Holy Trinity does not define God as three parts but as three distinct Persons in one Divine Nature.

Trinitarians have amalgamated or combined three separate beings into a single unfathomable God

Trinitarians believe there is only one Being of God (Duet 6:4) Included in the doctrine of the Trinity is the teaching that there exists in all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and unchangeable (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). God is not three entities, nor three beings. God is a trinity of Persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three persons.(Matt. 28:19)

LDS theology teaches that the three, God the Father, His son Jesus Christ and The Holy Ghost are just as the bible says they are: different and separate beings.

Do you have a biblical reference?

Also, if you would, what are your thoughts on Isaiah 43:10 and Isa. 44:6 and 8.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soninme

Matt. 3:16-17; Acts 7:55-56; John 17:9-11, 20-21; John 8:18; John 14:28; Mark 14:32-39; John 5:32-37; Mark 14:32-39; Luke 22:40-46; John 17:21-22.

There is no passage in the bible that defines God's nature the way the Trinitarians do. Trinitarianism is a tradition - a man made notion. In each of the passages selected above, the separate nature of God from Christ and The Holy Ghost is spoken of. I think if you research the subject you will find that Trinitarianism came about by decree some three or four centuries after Christ died. It was never taught by the apostles or the Savior and was not a first century Christian teaching. However it was the thinking of the Greek philosophers of the later times that became part of the dominant religious authorities's attempt to bring about a more cohesive Roman empire and create a church everyone could agree with. It was a political compromise.

I am sorry I can't provide you with the names of more authorities off the top of my head but I think you will find the subject an interesting read. I think Ehrman wrote something about it in Misquoting Jesus as did Davies in The Early Christian Church. There was a late 19th century or early 20th century German scholar whom I can't name that wrote extensively on the subject. I am sure there are others. If memory serves me correctly, these scholars quote early Christian writers extensively. It is through the writings of these early church fathers that we have the history of the Christian church and more specifically for this discussion, how Trinitarianism came to be. If it is important to you I will do some research.

Edited by jlf9999
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In each of the passages selected above, the separate nature of God from Christ and The Holy Ghost is spoken of.

jlf9999

Thank you for taking the time to responed.

The verses you quoted are ones that I would say show the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be separate Persons but the Bible states for sure there is only one God.

Your thoughts on Isa. 43:10 and 44:6,8.

For me these, and others, show there to be only one, and only ever one, single Being Who is God

What do these verses mean to you?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trinitarians believe there is only one Being of God (Duet 6:4) Included in the doctrine of the Trinity is the teaching that there exists in all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and unchangeable (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). God is not three entities, nor three beings. God is a trinity of Persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three persons.(Matt. 28:19)

How are you defining "entity" to say that God is three Persons but not three Entities?

Also, you state that God is numerically one. Numerically one what? Essence? What is the definition of essence? Trinitarians believe that the Father is a distinct Person from the Son and the Spirit, the Son is a distinct Person from the Father and the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son. So, they are not each other. If they are numerically three distinct Persons (to contrast it with modalism), then God is numerically one what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soninme

Exodus 15:11, Psalms 82:1 and Psalms 86:8 suggest there are other interpretations that must be considered in such a discussion. Essentially, when taken in context, God is telling Israel to stop worshiping false gods and worship just Him. I refer you to Is. 41:29; Is. 42:8; Is. 43:10,12,24; Is. 44:8,9,10,17,19; Is. 45:9,12,16,20,22.

The point often made in traditional Christian circles is that there is but one God. Mormons agree on that point too however traditionalists don't go to the next step and ask what is meant by gods small G. In LDS theology, God with a capital G means God the Father of which there is but one. However, in the other quotations of scripture where gods with a small G is part of the subject, we believe the writer is referring to other exalted beings. They are those who share in the full inheritance of Jesus Christ. They have attained a position on the right hand of God along side Christ yet are subordinate to God the Father. The part of the related discussion not mentioned many times and which is woefully misunderstood, is the difference between salvation and exaltation.

Edited by jlf9999
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exodus 15:11, Psalms 82:1 and Psalms 86:8 suggest there are other interpretations that must be considered in such a discussion.

Agreed, I believe one should consider all the Bible has to say on a subject.

Essentially, when taken in context, God is telling Israel to stop worshiping false gods and worship just Him. I refer you to Is. 41:29; Is. 42:8; Is. 43:10,12,24; Is. 44:8,9,10,17,19; Is. 45:9,12,16,20,22.

Isaiah 44:6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

7And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.

8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

In LDS theology, God with a capital G means God the Father of which there is but one.

Then are you saying that the Isaiah passages quoted are refering to God the Father only?

Thanks

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