Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

LDS, what do you not believe that is in the Bible?


Mudcat

Recommended Posts

I think some of the population counts were exaggerated, especially the death tolls of the various wars. I also don't believe Mormon had any way of knowing some of the (minor) things he wrote. Brant Gardner explains:

I actually believe that all these peoples, yes even the People of Zeniff, kept extensive records and journals and genealogies. It was an ancient custom (and commandment) to do so.

Mormon abridged and "searched the records" what he had, which was a whole lot.

Link to comment
I actually believe that all these peoples, yes even the People of Zeniff, kept extensive records and journals and genealogies. It was an ancient custom (and commandment) to do so.

Mormon abridged and "searched the records" what he had, which was a whole lot.

Cool.

Link to comment
Mudcat,

A verse immediately popped into my mind, but I was wondering if you would answer first. Perhaps you will believe my verse is “not” true too.

Charity, TOm

Hey Tom,

You got me stumped TOm and curious. What verse is it?

I suppose in regards to the NT, the Marcan appendix and the Johannine comma are additions to the text and for that reason don't hold the standard of as originally given.

The obvious inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts are another point. Contradictions can't exist in a singular account.

But I don't consider any of these things to have a doctrinal impact. There isn't much I struggle with in the NT as a whole and I accept most, if not all of it, as God's truth.

The OT, is quite another story. There are some beautiful elements within it, and there are some other points that seem foreign to God's character in relation to the NT (i.e. -Killing firstborn children, genocidal battles attributed to him, destruction of cities with fire and brimstone, drowning almost all of humanity because they were wicked only to come years later and die for the wicked that they might be saved.) Quite a contrast don't you think?

I really don't know what to make of it and my best answers are just rationalizing on my part.

It's obvious that the Genesis account doesn't scientifically match up, but I don't read the account as such either.

We've seen enough flood threads to realize that this too is problematic.

The Exodus account doesn't historically fit anything and the closest thing historically to a resemble it, is documented as having occurred much later.

I suppose I get to the point from time to time, when I ask myself... Just how seriously should I take all this stuff?

My current answer to that question places me quite some distance from my Protestant roots.

I think the OT is a record of God's effort to relay his will and teachings for the people of Israel and I also think that it was Israel's efforts to attribute many things to God. I think God can be found in the OT, I also think what Israel wanted their God to be is also there, and I don't think the two concepts coincided at all times.

At times I worry when I scrutinize Scripture. Could I be making the same mistakes that Israel made.

Am I trying to make God conform to my image of him?

That's supposed to work the other way round isn't it? :P

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Link to comment
I do not believe God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Hi CC,

Lightbearer seemed to supportive of this, as well. In fact, seems like the topic of Pharaoh's hardened heart, is a topic that has come up with nearly any missionary I have talked to, as well as my in-Laws. I have yet to have a "reality" LDS disagree with you either.

As a rule of thumb, I always take the position that God did harden Pharaoh's heart , if for no better reason than it leads to rather interesting conversations. :P

Link to comment
I don't believe that angels came down to have sexual intercourse with women, spawning a race of giants.

I think I do. There are too many instances of the story, even the names of the angels that did the deed, in several ancient texts. Enoch, Jubilees, Maccabees, The Septuagint, etc. If we are to search for truth in the mouth of two or three witnesses, than at least exploring the idea that it might be true has validity to me.

The idea of secret combinations and fallen angles aren't foreign ideas to LDS theology. Neither is the idea of resurrected beings being able to procreate. What is foreign is that these were beings prior to the resurrection. If they were sons of God from one of his other creations who violated the laws of God by coming to this world, than I could grasp the concept better.

Here's the Enoch reference.

"And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it..." http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/ethiop...rs/watchers.htm

Link to comment
Is there something in the Bible you don't believe to be true?

If so what is it?

Instead of giving a list of things, could you give the Biblical verse/verses that you believe to be most "not" true?

If you happen to find someone else has posted something to that effect, could you then go with what you feel is next most "not" true?

D&C 130

3 John 14: 23- The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance;

and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

also this will point out basic errors :

Heb 6: 1 Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/contents

Link to comment

Good topic for discussion!

My comment is not so much in regards to what I don't believe is true in the Bible, but more along the lines of how did the accounts come about.

For instance, how did the account of satan's temptation of Jesus transpire. Seeing this was an entirely personal, spiritual experience that Jesus had, no one could have witnessed it. So, we are only left to presume that Jesus pulled Peter, or whomever, aside one day and said, "let me tell you of this experience I just had with lucifer". How else would it have been recorded.

Another example is the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane. How did we get that account? The disciples were asleep! Who then saw that he did sweat "as if it were great drops of blood?"

Link to comment

Darn it Sevenbak. You've gone and made me get off topic! :P

I think I do. There are too many instances of the story, even the names of the angels that did the deed, in several ancient texts. Enoch, Jubilees, Maccabees, The Septuagint, etc. If we are to search for truth in the mouth of two or three witnesses, than at least exploring the idea that it might be true has validity to me.

Well, there is validity in the exploring the idea that anything might be true. I don't disagree with you there.

The idea of secret combinations and fallen angles aren't foreign ideas to LDS theology.

Agreed.

Neither is the idea of resurrected beings being able to procreate.

Perhaps you can elaborate. Are you referring to the idea that God the Father procreated with Mary? If so, while you might see that as supporting precedent I think it just opens up a whole can of worms that only speculation and ad hoc explanations can account for. To be clear, I'm not challenging the idea that Jesus is the literal son of God in the flesh.

What is foreign is that these were beings prior to the resurrection. If they were sons of God from one of his other creations who violated the laws of God by coming to this world, than I could grasp the concept better.

This is the kind of ad hoc thing I'm talking about. While it might be a possible explanation, I find it much more likely that the story simply isn't true.

Volgadon:

Neither do I. Good thing that such notions are not found in the Bible.
Volgadon, perhaps you could be so kind as to stray from your usual habit of typing one or two sentences per post. I'd be interested in hearing your views on the matter. Thanks.
Link to comment
Darn it Sevenbak. You've gone and made me get off topic! ;)

:P Then my work here is done.

I'm not saying it is true, and I'm not staking my eternal salvation on it, but I'm not rejecting it out of hand either, for the above mentioned reasons.

Another point of interest is this statement purportedly made by Joseph Smith.

"Now the history of Josephs in Speaking of angels came down and took themselves wives of the daughters of men, See Geneses 6 Chapter 1-2, verses. These ware resurrected Bodies, Violated the Celestial laws."

-Joseph Smith (Nauvoo, April 13, 1843) George Laub Journal, BYU Studies, Winter 1978 V.18 #2, pg. 174

If they were indeed ressurected beings, they had to be part of God's other creations who "violated the Celestial laws"

Another thing that is hard to comprehend, is that if the Enoch account is false, why did He provide the specific names of the Angels? That's a lot of stuff to make up.

Shemjaza, Arakiba, Ramiel, Kokabiel, Tamiel, Ramial, Asael, Armaros, Batanel, Ananel, Zaquiel, Daniel, Ezequeel, Bartiqijael, Samsapiel, Turiel, Jomjael and Sariel.

Link to comment
Good topic for discussion!

My comment is not so much in regards to what I don't believe is true in the Bible, but more along the lines of how did the accounts come about.

For instance, how did the account of satan's temptation of Jesus transpire. Seeing this was an entirely personal, spiritual experience that Jesus had, no one could have witnessed it. So, we are only left to presume that Jesus pulled Peter, or whomever, aside one day and said, "let me tell you of this experience I just had with lucifer". How else would it have been recorded.

Another example is the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane. How did we get that account? The disciples were asleep! Who then saw that he did sweat "as if it were great drops of blood?"

Hey Senator,

Good questions that have no pat answers, I don't mind speculating though.

As to Christ's temptation, seems you are making a likely presumption, though its possible he could have told the apostles this after his resurrection.

As to the Garden, if Christ sweat blood, then it would seem likely that it was physically evident when he next saw the apostles. I would imagine if I were an apostle and saw my teacher drenched in his own blood, that I might ask him about it then and there.

Link to comment

The strength of the notion, that fallen angels impreganted human women, is based on just what the phrase sons of God means, as well as the term nephilim. People have drawn weak comparisons with Ugaritic literature, where El takes two human girls to wife and from this union are born Shachar and Shalem, two of the gods in the Ugaritic pantheon.

Nephilim means fallen, but compare that to the story of Adam's fall. He transgressed a commandment.

I think it is less of a stretch to presume that the sons of God meant those who entered into a covenant with God, similar to our temple covenants.

Compare Ps 82, Hos 1:10, Jn 1:12, Rom 8:14, 2 Cor 6:15-18, Phil 2:15-16, Mosi 5:7, 27:25, D&C 25:1, 76:57-58, Moses, 6:68, 7:1, 8:13.

Another strike against the theory of fallen angels is that unembodied spirits can't have children and I don't think any of Zion, the PURE IN HEART would either commit adultery or wed someone out of the covenant.

Link to comment
Another thing that is hard to comprehend, is that if the Enoch account is false, why did He provide the specific names of the Angels? That's a lot of stuff to make up.

Shemjaza, Arakiba, Ramiel, Kokabiel, Tamiel, Ramial, Asael, Armaros, Batanel, Ananel, Zaquiel, Daniel, Ezequeel, Bartiqijael, Samsapiel, Turiel, Jomjael and Sariel.

I suppose the Greek gods all having widely accepted names is a point in favor of the real existence of the Greek gods, and not just "a lot of stuff to make up"?

Link to comment

Jewish angelology around the time of 1 Enoch and Jubilees was very advanced. It would be peculiar NOT to see detailed angelic names in Jewish mysticism.

I forgot to add to my post that just because some things are very old does not make them necessarily true. Some lies are very old indeed.

Link to comment
I think the OT is a record of God's effort to relay his will and teachings for the people of Israel and I also think that it was Israel's efforts to attribute many things to God. I think God can be found in the OT, I also think what Israel wanted their God to be is also there, and I don't think the two concepts coincided at all times.

Well said, I agree completely and couldn't have said it better! And I also agree with you about the NT.

Link to comment
As to the Garden, if Christ sweat blood, then it would seem likely that it was physically evident when he next saw the apostles. I would imagine if I were an apostle and saw my teacher drenched in his own blood, that I might ask him about it then and there.

Hi Mudcat,

Yes, I would too. Therefore, I find myself wanting some sort of recorded interaction in that regard. Like, "Then, when Jesus awoke the disciples, Peter said unto him,"Master! Thy garments are stained with blood. Hast thou been assaulted by thieves?" Instead, we have no reaction by them, and also no reaction by Judas and the guards that meet him as he exits the garden. Did he bring a change of clothes?

We have a narration that seems to be from a transcendental, third party observer. So that leaves me to wonder where it comes from. (and how much of the other events told of in scripture comes to us through the same medium)

Link to comment
Well, Joseph Smith said the entire Song of Solomon was uninspired.

I would say it was more inspired in many ways.

"Dust to dust" seems more true than "pie in the sky". :P

Actually, I think "dust to dust" is from genesis but ...anyway...

Link to comment
:P Then my work here is done.

I'm not saying it is true, and I'm not staking my eternal salvation on it, but I'm not rejecting it out of hand either, for the above mentioned reasons.

Another point of interest is this statement purportedly made by Joseph Smith.

"Now the history of Josephs in Speaking of angels came down and took themselves wives of the daughters of men, See Geneses 6 Chapter 1-2, verses. These ware resurrected Bodies, Violated the Celestial laws."

-Joseph Smith (Nauvoo, April 13, 1843) George Laub Journal, BYU Studies, Winter 1978 V.18 #2, pg. 174

If they were indeed ressurected beings, they had to be part of God's other creations who "violated the Celestial laws"

Another thing that is hard to comprehend, is that if the Enoch account is false, why did He provide the specific names of the Angels? That's a lot of stuff to make up.

Shemjaza, Arakiba, Ramiel, Kokabiel, Tamiel, Ramial, Asael, Armaros, Batanel, Ananel, Zaquiel, Daniel, Ezequeel, Bartiqijael, Samsapiel, Turiel, Jomjael and Sariel.

That is all fine and well. I suppose it would be foolish to reject it completely out of hand....after all, anything is possible.

Concerning the statement "purportedly" made by Joseph, it is my personal approach that Joseph's opinion is important but is certainly not enough to sway me. As for the names of the angels, I think volgadon addressed that point. Most religious faiths have many specific names for angels, demons, gods and goddesses.

Link to comment
Hi CC,

Lightbearer seemed to supportive of this, as well. In fact, seems like the topic of Pharaoh's hardened heart, is a topic that has come up with nearly any missionary I have talked to, as well as my in-Laws. I have yet to have a "reality" LDS disagree with you either.

As a rule of thumb, I always take the position that God did harden Pharaoh's heart , if for no better reason than it leads to rather interesting conversations. :P

Let's clear this up right away.

Haven't you ever said to your wife after and argument, Honey you really ticked me off!

Well she didn't tick you off, you got ticked off!

It was more about Pharaoh's attitude toward God than anything God did to him. It's all about how Pharoah chose feel about God that is the key.

My heart hardens to the guy who cuts me off on the freeway, but it wasn't him who hardened my heart!

Does that make sense?

Theo

Link to comment

I could be wrong, but everything I've seen where the earliest available manuscripts are used to determine what was changed in later versions, shows text being added, rather than removed. That seems logical to me, that the impulse of scribes and translators would be to add little details that they thought would help explain something.

So the line about "plain and precious" truths being taken out doesn't seem very likely to me; the opposite seems more likely.

Link to comment
Is there something in the Bible you don't believe to be true?

If so what is it?

Hello Mudcat,

While I'm not LDS I still want to respond. Also, I do not want to say that certain things are not true, but I will say that certain things are no longer binding upon me. With the said, I do not believe the "Law of Moses" (Old Covenant) has any authority over me because Jesus fulfilled that law and established his "New Covenant" which superceeds it.

The New Covenant and not the Old is binding upon me. So I do not believe the Old should be taught (except for historical sake) and that people should understand and embrace the "New" (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...