How other churches manage

[NickN]

I want to preface this by saying that I'm not trying to attack other religions or offend member of other religions who may be on this board, but I'm honestly trying to understand the mindset.

We are so blessed to belong to a church with living prophets and apostles leading it through revelation straight from God! Having been born in the church, its difficult for me to imagine religion without that divine leadership. Having a man stand before the church and say "thus saith the Lord" is before laying out the doctrine is a comfort no other religion even pretends to have!

Anyway, I guess my comment was really referring to what I heard recently about a large Presbyterian denomination, which apparently sent out a survey to determine its members opinions of core church doctrines. Then they changed their denomination's belief to better match up with what their members wanted to believe! I was shocked! Revelation by survey? Doctrine by democracy? How can they believe that their church is right, when their doctrines seem to originate from man, rather than God?

[NightSG]

ISTR a belief system based on the idea that, since we were all created in His image, we each inherently carry a part of His ultimate truth. Of course, we would each carry some false beliefs as well. As a result, the followers of that believed that the way to find complete truth was to poll everybody, and take the average after weeding out obviously evil beliefs.

The most obvious problems that I see:

• Some people won't respond; can you get an accurate average without their part?
• Lots of people died without leaving their part.
• There's no accurate way to know how many haven't been born yet, so you won't know if your average is even close to right until the end anyway.
• What if someone lies about their part of the truth?

Back to the OP, does this mean we could all join their church, and then vote it into the LDS Church? Sounds a lot easier than individual missionary efforts. :)

Edited February 17, 2013 by NightSG

[ploomf]

Each denomination is different, you can't really point to any one denomination and say that is what all Christians do. For instance the three pillars of the Catholic Churches authority are Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Living Magisterium, they believe that the Pope, as the successor of St Peter, is protected by the Holy Spirit from error when defining doctrines of faith or morals.

The Orthodox Church (which split from the Catholic Church over multiple issues) does not have one supreme head on earth, rather each Church is largely self governing and for matters that effect the whole of the Orthodox Church authority rests with the Ecumenical Councils or Synods which are attended by Bishops from all around the world.

Protestant churches vary in belief, with the mainline churches like Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians being more likely to use tradition and reason along with scripture when defining their beliefs. Evangelical Christians usually use sola scriptura, that is any doctrines or beliefs they have must be derived from scripture.

As for the church that sent out a poll to it's members, I guess I'd have to see exactly what it is they voted on. If they were redefining core Christians beliefs then yeah that's not good. But just because one church did it doesn't mean every Christian thinks it's a good idea to define doctrine by poll. (PS if I got any of the above wrong please some of our more knowledgeable Christian's on this board correct me, this is just what I've gleaned from my study into different Christian beliefs so far)

[Irishcolleen]

Good churches have Christ as the head of the church. Everything is done according to His will as revealed in the Bible. We are guided by the belief that God's word never changes. Because it is consistent we can use it as a guide in all things.

The problem with a church following a man or group of men is that all men are sinners, no matter what their title is. Men have opinions ( I know your church would hate to be judged by some of the opinions of your early leaders). God's word contains truth.

Yes, there are many denominations, mostly because of man's sin and opinions of leaders. By and large all Christian denominations have the same core beliefs- salvation, nature of God, etc... The rest of the differences tend to be in administration and policy. For example- Methodists are centrally governed and tend to focus on social issues while Baptists are congregationally governed and are focused on evangelism.

In our church, the pastor is hired by the congregation. Church policy is determined by the church constitution and articles of faith. If we want to know "thus sayith the Lord" we read the Bible. It is our guide in all things. We join the church only after becoming familiar with its doctrine and governance. So, the people that join are in agreement with the doctrine. Those who disagree don't stay.

If the Pastor preaches contrary to God's word he would be questioned about it. He tells us to compare his teaching with the Bible. If he preaches error and doesn't correct himself he would be fired. In a church where God's word is preached in depth, with wonderful expository teaching, people become very familiar with the whole counsel of God.

While you have a leader that you consider the ultimate authority, you don't get to hear from him, except during conference time and in church magazines. I get to hear in depth Bible teaching every Sunday in Sunday School, Morning Service and Evening Service (more than 3 hours :) ) There is nothing like hearing the Word taught verse by verse in context every week. It is such a blessing!!! I wouldn't trade it for anything. It is so refreshing and challenging.

So while you might miss a strong central leader if you weren't a Mormon, I'd miss great preaching if I was a Mormon! One thing I have learned on this forum is that even with a prophet, Mormons still have many questions about their church's teachings. It is a joy to simply open the Bible and get an answer! But, I love Mormons an their emphasis on family and morality. Y'all would make great Baptists (just kidding! ) I am looking forward to meeting more Mormons when we move in the next year.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Irishcolleen

[selek]

IC, I was raised Baptist, and worshipped with Lutherans, Episcopals, Catholics, and Nazarenes. My maternal line has strong ties with the Salvation Army (yes, the actual congregation, not the charity).

I have profound respect for those who are trying to earnestly and genuinely seek Christ (no matter their denomination) and who are humble and receptive to his spirit.

That having been said, there are some fundamental misrerpresentations and mischaracterizations in your description of both LDS and non-LDS faith and worship.

Good churches have Christ as the head of the church.

I agree- good churches have Christ as their focus and guide. Even though all are seeking "north", however, not all have their compasses calibrated quite the same way.

• Everything is done according to His will as revealed in the Bible.
• We are guided by the belief that God's word never changes.
• Because it is consistent we can use it as a guide in all things.

These are, unfortunately, statements of faith, rather than of fact.

The simple reality is that the Bible is full of contradictions (as any reputable Biblical scholar- no matter the denomination- will affirm).

No denomination follows the scriptures with exactness or in exactly the same way.

Each is relying (to greater and lesser degree) on a good-faith interpretation of Scripture to guide them. In essence, it can be argued that each faith is following the spirit of the Law, rather than its letter.

The problem with a church following a man or group of men is that all men are sinners, no matter what their title is. Men have opinions ( I know your church would hate to be judged by some of the opinions of your early leaders). God's word contains truth.

If you are referring to the Bible, we as Latter-day Saints agree: but as any reputable scholar will admit, it also contains contradictions, errors, omissions, and erasures.

The currently accepted canon of Scripture makes explicit reference to a number of tomes that it does not now contain.

Even those who adhere to sola scriptura admit that the Bible does not contain the complete record of God's words to man.

In our church, the pastor is hired by the congregation. Church policy is determined by the church constitution and articles of faith. If we want to know "thus sayith the Lord" we read the Bible. It is our guide in all things. We join the church only after becoming familiar with its doctrine and governance. So, the people that join are in agreement with the doctrine. Those who disagree don't stay.

If the Pastor preaches contrary to God's word he would be questioned about it. He tells us to compare his teaching with the Bible. If he preaches error and doesn't correct himself he would be fired. In a church where God's word is preached in depth, with wonderful expository teaching, people become very familiar with the whole counsel of God.

A number of things stand out in your statement:

Policy is determined by the Church consitution and Articles of faith, in consulation with the Bible- rather than being dictated by it.

If the pastor preaches something contary to the word of God, he must justify himself before the elders of the Church.

Both of these speak to the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law as I phased it above.

The pastor may keep his job so long as his interpretation of the Scriptures conforms to that of the body of the Church.

How is that any different than revising the Church's constitution and articles of faith to reflect the opinion of the members?

In both cases- it is left to the body of the laity to determine what is and what is not doctrine.

While you have a leader that you consider the ultimate authority, you don't get to hear from him, except during conference time and in church magazines.

This is a blatant, almost malicious, misrepresentation, and it is offered solely in the spirit of "my dad can beat up your dad".

President Monson- as have all the prophets before him- has served for decades as a witness, apostle, and disciple of Christ. He has written many hundreds of thousands of words over the years of his service, nearly all of which are available to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

The same is true of each of his predecessors.

I get to hear in depth Bible teaching every Sunday in Sunday School, Morning Service and Evening Service (more than 3 hours :) )

Are you suggesting that we do not?

Upon what evidence do you base that opinion?

There is nothing like hearing the Word taught verse by verse in context every week. It is such a blessing!!! I wouldn't trade it for anything. It is so refreshing and challenging.

Contrary to your insinuation, we have not made such a trade.

So while you might miss a strong central leader if you weren't a Mormon, I'd miss great preaching if I was a Mormon!

In other words, you **** us for having a "strong, central leader" whilst simultaneously celebrating the fact that you can enjoy a man (or in rarer instances, a woman) stand up and expound their personal interpretation of God's law and will.

Rather than make the obligatory mote-and-beam analogy, I will simply point out that the only objective difference between your preacher and our prophet is the size of the congregation.

One thing I have learned on this forum is that even with a prophet, Mormons still have many questions about their church's teachings. It is a joy to simply open the Bible and get an answer!

Again, this is a blatant, almost malicious, misrepresentation.

We, as Latter-day Saints, are every bit as able to turn to the Scriptures for answers as you are. We simply have a larger body of material to turn to.

I am looking forward to meeting more Mormons when we move in the next year.

I expect that it will be an eye-opening experience.

[Irishcolleen]

I don't want to argue with you because that is not the point of the forum. I have attended Sacrament meeting at a Mormon church more than once and I have read the BOM, so I know what the meetings are like.

There is a systematic way to interpret the Bible. There is a huge amount of history, linguistics, etc... that support the Biblical record. I used to think there are contradictions in the Bible, but the more I study it I find there are no contradictions. If you wish to discuss these contradictions at some point we can go to another type of forum.

I did not mean to give offense. I was simply pointing out the differences I have observed. I must point out that YOU started out with a "my church is better than your church" attitude. I thought you wanted a non-mormon answer. I now assume you were really asking a rhetorical question.

BTW, our church is considering it's first ever revision to it's constitution. We are adding an amendment which we shouldn't have to, but given the times in necessary. We will be adding an amendment to make it clear that the only marriage that God designed is between a man and a woman and that our church will never perform a marriage outside of these boundaries. If we don't add this amendment our state could compel our church to perform homosexual marriages.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Irishcolleen

[selek]

I don't want to argue with you because that is not the point of the forum.

I agree- but neither am I required to sit idle while you misrepresent my religion.

I have attended Sacrament meeting at a Mormon church more than once and I have read the BOM, so I know what the meetings are like.

I've eaten corned beef hash more than once, and I've seen a chicken lay eggs- so I'm pretty sure chicken fried steak is of the devil.

Please get back to us when you resolve the logical consistencies in both your statement and mine (hint, they're the same mistake).

There is a systematic way to interpret the Bible.

Yes- and that system is predicated on a tremendous amount of faith, hope, and assumption.

It's like mathematic: If two plus two is always four, then the system works. The first time, however, that two plus two is not four, the whole system goes to hell.

Unfortunately, your systematic way to interpret the Bible rests on far more dubious foundations than be counted on the fingers of one hand.

There is a huge amount of history, linguistics, etc... that support the Biblical record.

This, too, is a statement of faith- not fact.

I used to think there are contradictions in the Bible, but the more I study it I find there are no contradictions.

In your opinion.

Reputable and learned scholars- people who have spent decades studying the Scriptures and built upon the shoulders of giants such as Thomas Aquino- disagree with your opinion.

I did not mean to give offense. I was simply pointing out the differences I have observed.

So long as you understand that your "observations" are not immutable fact, then I have no problem with this.

The moment, however, you arrogate unto yourself the authority to tell Mormons how things "really are" in their religion, we will butt heads.

I must point out that YOU started out with a "my church is better than your church" attitude. I thought you wanted a non-mormon answer. I now assume you were really asking a rhetorical question.

I have made precisely two posts in this thread (including this one).

Nowhere did a play the "my Church is better than your card"- in point of fact, I was the one who pointed out that objectively, one is no better than the other.

As such, I would appreciate it if you stuck to arguing facts, rather than faith- and stick to the things I actually said, rather than inventing accusations out of whole cloth.

Edited February 18, 2013 by selek

[Vort]

I have attended Sacrament meeting at a Mormon church more than once and I have read the BOM, so I know what the meetings are like.

I have a much larger sample size to draw from than do you. In my judgment, your statement "I'd miss great preaching if I was Mormon!" is ill-considered. I have never heard better preaching than I have in the LDS Church (and yes, I do have experience with the preaching of other demonimations).

There is a systematic way to interpret the Bible.

A more correct statement would be, "There are numerous systematic ways to interpret the Bible." There is no unique "way", or if there is, it is interpretation by the Spirit, not by questionable linguistic or historical sources.

I used to think there are contradictions in the Bible, but the more I study it I find there are no contradictions.

There are, of course, numerous contradictions. Did the men traveling with Saul see no man but hear a voice, as in Acts 9? Or did they see the light but not hear the voice, as in Acts 22?

I must point out that YOU started out with a "my church is better than your church" attitude. I thought you wanted a non-mormon answer. I now assume you were really asking a rhetorical question.

I believe you are confusing selek, to whom you are responding, with NickN, the thread originator.

If we don't add this amendment our state could compel our church to perform homosexual marriages.

Even given how corrupt and perverse our laws have become, I doubt that any state in the US would or could compel a church to perform homosexual "marriage". I suspect that perhaps your church fellows have misunderstood. But I could be wrong; I am certainly no lawyer.

[Irishcolleen]

Even given how corrupt and perverse our laws have become, I doubt that any state in the US would or could compel a church to perform homosexual "marriage". I suspect that perhaps your church fellows have misunderstood. But I could be wrong; I am certainly no lawyer.

The text of the law proposed in Illinois stated that if the church performed any wedding for any non-members they would be require to perform a wedding for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. It also contained wording that if the church rented or donated space to anyone (like Kiwanis, etc...) they would have to rent space to anyone- even if the group was doctrinally opposed to the church.

After weeks of phone calls and lobbying those provisions were struck. But they will be brought up again. So, please pay attention to legislation (I assume you already do). Our country is starting to take a hostile stance towards religions that have high moral standings- which would include your faith- Mormonism.

BTW Acts 9 & 22 do not contradict if you understand the Greek. The word used for hear, akouo, has two meanings- hear and understand. So the men heard the voice, but did not understand it.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Irishcolleen

[selek]

BTW Acts 9 & 22 do not contradict if you understand the Greek. The word used for hear, akouo, has two meanings- hear and understand. So the men heard the voice, but did not understand it.

So- assuming your explanation is correct, the standard English Bible does contain contradictions, was translated incorrectly, and must be interpreted in order to obtain the correct understanding.

Thank your for the admission (against interest).

Edited February 18, 2013 by selek

[Vort]

BTW Acts 9 & 22 do not contradict if you understand the Greek. The word used for hear, akouo, has two meanings- hear and understand. So the men heard the voice, but did not understand it.

Nonsense. The same word, ἀκούω, is used in each verse. In Acts 9:7, the verse says that the men could "ἀκούω" a voice, but in Acts 22:9, it says that the men could NOT "ἀκούω" the voice.

Same word, Colleen.

You can invent different meanings for the SAME WORD if you want, but the plain fact of the matter is that it is a contradiction. The men did ἀκούω the voice, or else they did not ἀκούω the voice. It is a logical impossibility that they did ἀκούω and simultaneously did not ἀκούω the voice.

I acknowledge that it is possible to use the same word in a different sense. But in that case, the text is self-contradictory, and must be understood by revelation. Which of course is the point.

[prisonchaplain]

It's very common to hear "Thus saieth the Lord," prior to hearing a prophesy spoken in my church. :-)

[Irishcolleen]

Nonsense. The same word, ἀκούω, is used in each verse. In Acts 9:7, the verse says that the men could "ἀκούω" a voice, but in Acts 22:9, it says that the men could NOT "ἀκούω" the voice.

Same word, Colleen.

You can invent different meanings for the SAME WORD if you want, but the plain fact of the matter is that it is a contradiction. The men did ἀκούω the voice, or else they did not ἀκούω the voice. It is a logical impossibility that they did ἀκούω and simultaneously did not ἀκούω the voice.

I acknowledge that it is possible to use the same word in a different sense. But in that case, the text is self-contradictory, and must be understood by revelation. Which of course is the point.

" Lexicon Results

Strong's G191 - akouō

ἀκούω

Transliteration

akouō

Pronunciation

ä-kü'-ō (Key)

Part of Speech

verb

Root Word (Etymology)

A root

TDNT Reference

1:216,34

Vines

View Entry

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf

2) to hear

b) to attend to, consider what is or has been said

c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said

3) to hear something

a) to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence

b) to get by hearing learn

c) a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn

d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher

e) to comprehend, to understand"

It can be understood in context. Instead of looking at verses in isolation the Bible needs to be interpreted as a whole.

[Irishcolleen]

So- assuming your explanation is correct, the standard English Bible does contain contradictions, was translated incorrectly, and must be interpreted in order to obtain the correct understanding.

Thank your for the admission (against interest).

There are problems with any translation, especially in English as we are missing verb tenses contained in the original languages. Some translators added or changed wording for clarity. That is why it is important to go to the original languages, see how verses were translated from early manuscripts, to look at grammar, and study scripture in the context of the Bible as a whole. There are more proof texts for the Bible than there are any other book. All translations say the same thing, using different words. There is no doctrinal difference arising from different wordings. Now, paraphases, like The Message Bible, etc... are another story altogether. One should run from a paraphrase version. In short, we shouldn't be lazy in our Bible study.

[selek]

There are problems with any translation

An admission and reality which utterly destroys the notion of sola scriptura, and concedes that your earlier argument was bunkum.

With this admission, you are conceding that your "ultimate authority"- the cornerstone of your denomination- is cracked and flawed.

It is a flat admission that the Bible does not- as you have asserted- contain ALL God's truth for his children.

Some translators added or changed wording for clarity.

Were a faithful LDS to state exactly the same thing- we would be accused of "attacking" the Bible.

This reality, of course, is the heart of the LDS belief that the Bible IS the word of God, "as far as it is translated correctly."

Why is it that a self-proclaimed evangelical can state this, but a faithful LDS cannot?

That is why it is important to go to the original languages, see how verses were translated from early manuscripts, to look at grammar, and study scripture in the context of the Bible as a whole.

And yet a look at "the Bible as a whole" clearly reveals that there are things missing.

No matter which version or edition or compilation you are using, EACH of them contains contradictions, errors, omissions, and additions.

Yes, one can- as you have suggested- attempt to harmonize those variations into a coherent whole- but that, by definition, is an opinion- a "best guess".

There are more proof texts for the Bible than there are any other book.

Given previous experience, I suspect I will be saying this a lot (unfortunately, it happens to be true): This is a statement of FAITH, nor FACT.

There are indeed many extant manuscript fragments- but not a single original text can be found. The oldest New Testament fragments date to about 100 AD- a full generation after the Savior and his original apostles lived and died.

All translations say the same thing, using different words.

This does not qualify even as a statement of faith- it is instead wishful thinking and perhaps a petulant foot-stomp to boot.

There is no doctrinal difference arising from different wordings.

Horse feathers. Christianity is replete- even rife- with doctrinal contradictions cherished and preserved by Christians who in each case claim the Bible as their ultimate authority.

Now, paraphases, like The Message Bible, etc... are another story altogether. One should run from a paraphrase version. In short, we shouldn't be lazy in our Bible study.

I agree with this final statement.

[Irishcolleen]

An admission and reality which utterly destroys the notion of sola scriptura, and concedes that your earlier argument was bunkum.

With this admission, you are conceding that your "ultimate authority"- the cornerstone of your denomination- is cracked and flawed.

It is a flat admission that the Bible does not- as you have asserted- contain ALL God's truth for his children.

Were a faithful LDS to state exactly the same thing- we would be accused of "attacking" the Bible.

This reality, of course, is the heart of the LDS belief that the Bible IS the word of God, "as far as it is translated correctly."

Why is it that a self-proclaimed evangelical can state this, but a faithful LDS cannot?

And yet a look at "the Bible as a whole" clearly reveals that there are things missing.

No matter which version or edition or compilation you are using, EACH of them contains contradictions, errors, omissions, and additions.

Yes, one can- as you have suggested- attempt to harmonize those variations into a coherent whole- but that, by definition, is an opinion- a "best guess".

Given previous experience, I suspect I will be saying this a lot (unfortunately, it happens to be true): This is a statement of FAITH, nor FACT.

There are indeed many extant manuscript fragments- but not a single original text can be found. The oldest New Testament fragments date to about 100 AD- a full generation after the Savior and his original apostles lived and died.

This does not qualify even as a statement of faith- it is instead wishful thinking and perhaps a petulant foot-stomp to boot.

Horse feathers. Christianity is replete- even rife- with doctrinal contradictions cherished and preserved by Christians who in each case claim the Bible as their ultimate authority.

I agree with this final statement.

Do you hold the Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP to the same standards you hold the Bible to? Yes, I am coming from the viewpoint that the Bible is trustworthy. You are coming from the viewpoint that it is not trustworthy. We will never agree. I'll not be able to convince you otherwise and you'll not be able to convince me. Isn't free agency wonderful?

[selek]

Do you hold the Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP to the same standards you hold the Bible to?

Yes- I do.

Do you hold the Bible to the same burden of proof to which you hold the Book of Mormon? Based on the conversation above, I believe the answer is an unequivocal "no".

Yes, I am coming from the viewpoint that the Bible is trustworthy. You are coming from the viewpoint that it is not trustworthy. We will never agree.

Particularly when you insist on misrepresenting my position.

This is the second time I've had to ask you not to put words in my mouth.

But then again, intellectual honesty is a lot like Biblical study: it's easier to fudge things in the name of dogma than it is to do the heavy lifting to keep things factual.

[Vort]

Do you hold the Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP to the same standards you hold the Bible to?

Answering for myself: Yes, of course.

Yes, I am coming from the viewpoint that the Bible is trustworthy. You are coming from the viewpoint that it is not trustworthy.

I am quite sure you are wrong, though I can't speak for selek. You seem to equate "trustworthy" with "flawless", but the two are not synonymous.

[Irishcolleen]

Selek- Beyond this I will not respond to your posts. You seem to be intent on arguing. I am not. I believe the Bible is inerrant, this does not mean there are no issues with translation. I have not put words in your mouth as you said, "And yet a look at "the Bible as a whole" clearly reveals that there are things missing.

No matter which version or edition or compilation you are using, EACH of them contains contradictions, errors, omissions, and additions." This is hardly a statement expressing trust in the Bible.

Again, I have no desire to argue with you. I know your faith is different than mine and I am not trying to dissuade or destroy your faith. Can you say the same? Do you believe in the LDS 11th article of Faith?

[Guest]

If you don't have a desire to argue, don't come on a board called LDS.net and write a post full of judgments and veiled insults against the LDS church. :shrug:

[Irishcolleen]

If you don't have a desire to argue, don't come on a board called LDS.net and write a post full of judgments and veiled insults against the LDS church. :shrug:

Eowyn, I didn't realize pointing out observed differences would be found as insulting. If I have offended you, please accept my apologies.

[pam]

They were very insulting.

[selek]

This is hardly a statement expressing trust in the Bible.

Putting forth a factual and logical argument about the inherent problems in the current canon does not mean I "do not trust" the Bible- it simply means I do not trust the Bible blindly.

It means that I do not accept the current canon unthinkingly.

I was a sailor (it shows up occasionally in my language). I love the Navy and I am extraordinarily proud to have served.

But that doesn't for a moment mean that I am blind to the Navy's flaws.

It simply means that I love the Navy with fewer illusions than others.

I love the Bible- as I explained above, I was raised with it- and was reading Bible stories from my earliest memories.

But I love and trust the current compilation with fewer illusions about what it is and is not.

IC, when you leap to conclusions about what I believe, instead of asking me, you are putting words in my mouth.

When you leap- without evidence- from specific criticisms to a general statement, you are putting words in my mouth.

I know your faith is different than mine and I am not trying to dissuade or destroy your faith.

Nor I yours. In point of fact, however, I am contradicting misrepresentations YOU made about MY faith.

Can you say the same?

I can indeed- because I did not even enter this thread until you began misrepresenting my faith.

Do you believe in the LDS 11th article of Faith?

Indeed I do- as prima facia evidence, I offer the fact that I am not on an evangelical board bashing your religion.

As others have pointed out, this is an LDS discussion board. I am here to teach and explain my faith- and that means contradicting those who distort or defame what we believe.

You are free to believe what you like: but that does not- not for a moment- mean that your beliefs are immune to the same sort of scrutiny you insist on bringing to ours.

Edited February 18, 2013 by selek

[selek]

Eowyn, I didn't realize pointing out observed differences would be found as insulting. If I have offended you, please accept my apologies.

One last flog on this particular horse, and then I go back to a more conciliatory tone:

You accused me of looking to argue- and implied that I was either a hypocrite or a bad Mormon (by dint of violating the 11th Article of Faith)- based solely on the fact that I was pointing out "observed differences".

While you may not have been insulted per se, it is quite clear that you were discomfited (even irritated) by what you perceived as my intransigence and "attacks".

So that particular sword cuts both ways.

[estradling75]

Do you hold the Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP to the same standards you hold the Bible to?

I wanted to expand on this... The answer is yes.

Both are secondary sources to a Living Prophet and Personal Revelation.

More to the point Christ says my sheep hear my voice. That voice is the voice of the Spirit. The foundation of any conversion to the LDS faith is (or at least should be) is the person getting on their knees and asking God and learning to hear his voice answering. That should never change in a persons life. (Sadly enough often it does)

The scriptures (both the bible and the LDS additions) are of great help for a person to learn how to listen and once they can listen to learn great truths, instructions, and directions that the Lord has already revealed and had been recorded.

We believe all scripture as Lord gave it to he prophets and revelators without exception. We also know that over time changes and distortions can creep in to the written word and traditions. So simple logic is that the primary source for the New Testament account is 2000 plus years old. The primary source for the Doctrine and Convents is about 200. The Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon have older source docs but we accept as a matter of Faith that Joseph Smith was a Living Prophet and he translated them by the Gift and Power of God... Which given the criteria of being how the Lord gives it, resets that to about 200 years for both books.

So just on the face of it we have a difference in time of about about a factor of 10 between the Bible and the other scriptures the LDS take as the revealed word of God. By this one could easy expect their to be drifts in both sets but that the older set would drift more.

Now the main agreement and reason for inerrantacy is the simple logic that God would not let those who seek after truth come up short. If those that seek to find truth have only the Bible. This forces the bible to be the complete source undimmed or it fails making God a failure which can't happen. But God can have another way people can be wrong in what they think God must do.

LDS say there is another other way... The way the bible shows that God has always done it. He calls prophets and they teach his word. This pattern shows up through out all the bible this pattern is how we got the bible. This pattern the LDS state is still in use.

This is why the OP asked his question... The LDS have a pretty detailed answer on how God does his work this matter. This gives theory of inerrantacy the appearance of a bunch of handwaving. And while the answer 'because God said so' is a valid answer, it kind of leaves people wanting more, no matter which group says it.