errarrancy/inerrancy

[inquiringmind]

On another thread, someone posted

LDS doctrine has never included a statement about the inerrancy of scriptures. Anyone who claims that scriptures can never be wrong is ignoring a very basic belief of LDS about how scripture is produced through mortal agency and therefore may have errors...as stated quite a few times by those who wrote the scriptures themselves.

Could anyone elaborate on LDS doctrine concerning how scripture is produced?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

On another thread, someone posted

Could anyone elaborate on LDS doctrine concerning how scripture is produced?

I cannot but I will tall you about inerrancy. there is not a single scripture anywere that says that scripture is inerrant. Also, you must understand the medium that is used. That medium is the human medium. We are imperfect and don't always understand everything from the get go. For that reason there will be mistakes. Why do people assume that if it is from God it must be inerrant?

[thesometimesaint]

inquiringmind:

Revelation is received from the Lord when he wants to give it. Once given we have a long and well established procedure for making that Revelation Scripture.

See http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four

[Calm]

On another thread, someone posted

Could anyone elaborate on LDS doctrine concerning how scripture is produced?

You would need quotes on specifics from those who produce the scriptures. Joseph Smith never, IIRC, specified exactly how it was done.

However, we do know this much:

When holy men of God write or speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, their words

[LDS Guy 1986]

On another thread, someone posted

Could anyone elaborate on LDS doctrine concerning how scripture is produced?

Scriptures are the inspired words of the prophets. Inspired does not mean inerrant, they still have to be recorded, translated, and interpreted. In each of these steps the imperfect nature of man can make errors. Now in most cases these errors are minor typographical and grammar errors. But even minor grammatical error can change the meaning and interpretation of a verse.

In some cases you have translation error, anyone who has translated from one language to another knows that there is plenty of times when the translation can't explain the full meanih of what is being said in the original language, do to language differences.

[Vance]

It is interesting to me that those who reject modern revelation (and therefore admit that they have NEVER received one), claim that they know what is entailed in its reception to the point that they demand that written revelation is inerrant.

If you don't know how it is given, how can make such a claim?

[Thunderfire]

Scriptures are the inspired words of the prophets. Inspired does not mean inerrant, they still have to be recorded, translated, and interpreted.

This has always lead to something that truly perplexes me regarding the things I have witnessed among the LDS for many years now. Please realize, this isn't a ridicule in any way, only a seeming inconsistency I perceive by many of the participants here.

In one breath it is stated that scriptures are not inerrant, yet it appears that what the First Presidency says is taken as inerrant. Just as example, a thread was offered about the First Presidency stating that only one ear piercing was acceptable and many women immediately removed any additional piercings. The belief that this came from God as was without error and not questioned. Please don't focus on only this one example, I use it to make a point. Even the "doctrines/scriptures" which Joseph and all the LDS prophets gave appear to be believed and followed as being inerrant.

It appears (from an outsiders point of view), that the prophets of the Bible should NOT be seen as inerrant, yet the ones of the LDS history are without error. So how can you have it both ways?

[Calm]

Even the "doctrines/scriptures" which Joseph and all the LDS prophets gave appear to be believed and followed as being inerrant.

Simply because something is followed does not mean that it is automatically believed to be inerrant instruction.

I think it would be best for you to give some quotes that indicate this inerrant POV.

[BCSpace]

Could anyone elaborate on LDS doctrine concerning how scripture is produced?

You might want to approach it from the other direction and read 1 Nephi 13 which describes the LDS view on Biblical errancy. It's not what's there, it's what isn't there. So of course LDS have no problem with the Bible as is.

[LDS Guy 1986]

It appears (from an outsiders point of view), that the prophets of the Bible should NOT be seen as inerrant, yet the ones of the LDS history are without error. So how can you have it both ways?

I can see the reason for confusion, scriptures are not inerrant and so are Prophets, but when a prophet offers guidance to us we are suppose to do our best to follow our prophet. Obeying the council of the Prophet is part of being in the Church, now you don't have to obey the prophet's council. There is no punishment for ignoring his council, it is taken by many as a sign that you do not fully sustain (or trust) the prophet. For LDS the rejection of prophets is serious, the Great Apostasy was the direct result of rejecting the ancient apostles (who are prophets). So rejecting the council of the prophet is considered unwise and fool hardy in many LDS circles.

We don't say the prophet is perfect, we only do our best to follow his guidance and put our faith in his inspired leadership.

[LDS Guy 1986]

You might want to approach it from the other direction and read 1 Nephi 13 which describes the LDS view on Biblical errancy. It's not what's there, it's what isn't there. So of course LDS have no problem with the Bible as is.

The title page of the BoM also speaks of it's inerrancy, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

[Calm]

I can see the reason for confusion, scriptures are inerrant and so are Prophets

I think you mean "not inerrant"

[inquiringmind]

Scriptures are the inspired words of the prophets. Inspired does not mean inerrant, they still have to be recorded, translated, and interpreted. In each of these steps the imperfect nature of man can make errors. Now in most cases these errors are minor typographical and grammar errors. But even minor grammatical error can change the meaning and interpretation of a verse.

But would that apply to the Book of Mormon, if the words were recorded by prophets, and translated using the unim and thummim?

[LDS Guy 1986]

I think you mean "not inerrant"

Yes, that is correct.

[LDS Guy 1986]

But would that apply to the Book of Mormon, if the words were recorded by prophets, and translated using the unim and thummim?

Yes, once again even though the translation was done by the power of God, it doesn't mean that there wasn't error in the recording of the plates. One error of the BoM is that is says Christ was born in Jerusalem not Bethlehem, many Anti's attack this as proof that the BoM is false which is silly.

JS knew that Christ was born in Bethlehem, everyone who has heard of Christ knows this, if the plates were a forgery then he would of at least made sure to get the widely known birthplace of Christ correct.

There are many apologists that argue that Bethlehem is part of the land of Jerusalem, meaning that Bethlehem is a suburb of Jerusalem. It is a plausible explanation, and there has been evidence found that support the idea that the surrounding area of the City of Jerusalem was called the land of Jerusalem during the time that Lehi and Nephi lived in Judah, there argument is convincing and I believe this is what Nephi was referring to personally.

Even if it was a flat out error, the title page says the such things are the errors of men, not of God.

[Thunderfire]

Simply because something is followed does not mean that it is automatically believed to be inerrant instruction.

I think it would be best for you to give some quotes that indicate this inerrant POV.

I know it would have been better to give examples. Yet I felt it could be seen as being disrespectful. For that matter, I was extremely hesitant to even post to this thread. So let me try to be pointed in a vague way

Again, speaking from an outsider "looking in". We know there are over 150 different church factions which came out of the Joseph Smith movement. Of course the LDS is the largest and the RLDS/Community of Christ a FAR distant second. Much of what I see as foundational/"uniquely" LDS beliefs and practices can be traced back to the King Follett discourse and Book of Abraham. Yes, the LDS use the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. But in "practice" the Book of Abraham is foundational for many of the more unique ceremonies and beliefs that are not practiced by the other restoration factions.

I have heard the argument that you cannot pick and choose what Joseph Smith (or the other LDS prophets) gave as inspired. But if the scriptures are not inerrant then we in fact are picking and choosing what is inspired or of man.

Forgive me for not getting more pointed. I realize that I am treading on sensitive areas here. Generally speaking, it appears that the LDS prophets are given more lattitude for speaking inerrantly than is afforded to the Biblical or even the Book of Mormon prophets. But again, this is just a perception I have gleened over the years being here and "listening" to what is being said in these discussions.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I know it would have been better to give examples. Yet I felt it could be seen as being disrespectful. For that matter, I was extremely hesitant to even post to this thread. So let me try to be pointed in a vague way

Again, speaking from an outsider "looking in". We know there are over 150 different church factions which came out of the Joseph Smith movement. Of course the LDS is the largest and the RLDS/Community of Christ a FAR distant second. Much of what I see as foundational/"uniquely" LDS beliefs and practices can be traced back to the King Follett discourse and Book of Abraham. Yes, the LDS use the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. But in "practice" the Book of Abraham is foundational for many of the more unique ceremonies and beliefs that are not practiced by the other restoration factions.

I have heard the argument that you cannot pick and choose what Joseph Smith (or the other LDS prophets) gave as inspired. But if the scriptures are not inerrant then we in fact are picking and choosing what is inspired or of man.

Forgive me for not getting more pointed. I realize that I am treading on sensitive areas here. Generally speaking, it appears that the LDS prophets are given more lattitude for speaking inerrantly than is afforded to the Biblical or even the Book of Mormon prophets. But again, this is just a perception I have gleened over the years being here and "listening" to what is being said in these discussions.

Actually, the Cutlerites practice the Nauvoo Endowment and they do not accept the Book of Abraham.

[zerinus]

On another thread, someone posted

Could anyone elaborate on LDS doctrine concerning how scripture is produced?

In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has answered that question as follows:

D&C 64

:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

That answers your question as to how scripture is produced.

[zerinus]

I cannot but I will tall you about inerrancy. there is not a single scripture anywere that says that scripture is inerrant. Also, you must understand the medium that is used. That medium is the human medium. We are imperfect and don't always understand everything from the get go. For that reason there will be mistakes. Why do people assume that if it is from God it must be inerrant?

I think we need to define first what we mean by "inerrant". I define "inerrant" to mean that it will not lead us astray in doctrine, or in conveying the will of God to man. In that sense I believe scripture is inerrant as it was penned by the original authors. If scripture was not inerrant it could not be relied upon as a source of correct doctrine. But the Lord teaches otherwise:

D&C 42

:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

If scripture was not inerrant (according to my definition) the Lord could not give us that counsel. I believe scripture is inerrant as it was penned by the original authors.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I think we need to define first what we mean by "inerrant". I define "inerrant" to mean that it will not lead us astray in doctrine, or in conveying the will of God to man. In that sense I believe scripture is inerrant as it was penned by the original authors. If scripture was not inerrant it could not be relied upon as a source of correct doctrine. But the Lord teaches otherwise:

D&C 42

:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

If scripture was not inerrant (according to my definition) the Lord could not give us that counsel. I believe scripture is inerrant as it was penned by the original authors.

See, I think this it taking the verse out of context, the fullness of the Gospel is the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, Gospel means Good News or Good Story. The scriptures contain this even if the message has grammatical, typographical, and translation errors.

The Book of Mormon alludes that it has errors in the title page and in Mormon.

You can have a fullness of the Gospel even though we do not have perfect records, translations, and interpretations of the Gospel.

[zerinus]

See, I think this it taking the verse out of context, the fullness of the Gospel is the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, Gospel means Good News or Good Story. The scriptures contain this even if the message has grammatical, typographical, and translation errors.

The Book of Mormon alludes that it has errors in the title page and in Mormon.

You can have a fullness of the Gospel even though we do not have perfect records, translations, and interpretations of the Gospel.

I define inerrancy differently than you do. According to my definition scripture is inerrant as it was penned (or spoken) by the original authors.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I define inerrancy differently than you do. According to my definition scripture is inerrant as it was penned (or spoken) by the original authors.

So the original writer/speakers are perfect?

[Calm]

I define inerrancy differently than you do. According to my definition scripture is inerrant as it was penned (or spoken) by the original authors.

That's a rather Evangelical position.

[3DOP]

Since human language and words are imprecise, it makes it even easier to avoid error. In math, mistakes are glaring and obvious. Not so in living languages that are always in flux. It is much more difficult to prove error.

Human language is capable of multiple interpretations. As soon as you think you have found an error, someone comes along and explains why you didn't understand. I think it is important to note that a belief in biblical inerrancy does not imply belief in biblical perfection. I reject biblical perfection. Some things may be said awkwardly and confusedly. I only hold to inerrancy, a vastly easier standard to reach. This would mean that if one considers the place, the times, and the purpose of the human words that are being communicated, there is a way to understand all of Scripture that is compatible with truth. God condescends to use living human language. He does not condescend to mislead.

[zerinus]

So the original writer/speakers are perfect?

Perfect or not, what is classified as scripture cannot lead us astray, or cause us to err in doctrine.