errarrancy/inerrancy

[LDS Guy 1986]

So what exactly is the "word of God"? Is it Christ Himself, or His word? And if it is His word, where do you find that word?

Christ is the Word of God, when he inspires the prophets to record under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost we receive scriptures. The Word is perfect, scriptures is not because it must pass through the imperfect mind and hands of man.

[zerinus]

Christ is the Word of God, when he inspires the prophets to record under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost we receive scriptures. The Word is perfect, scriptures is not because it must pass through the imperfect mind and hands of man.

So you are saying that the word of God is not directly equivalent to scripture. Is that correct?

[Calm]

So you are saying that the word of God is not directly equivalent to scripture. Is that correct?

Do you mean the "word of God" or the "Word of God" (I am thoroughly confused now by both of you, lol).

[zerinus]

Do you mean the "word of God" or the "Word of God" (I am thoroughly confused now by both of you, lol).

I and 1 Nephi 15 are both talking about the "word of God". You (and LDS Guy) are the ones who are confusing yourselves by introducing terminology into it that is not found in the scripture text we are discussing.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Do you mean the "word of God" or the "Word of God" (I am thoroughly confused now by both of you, lol).

they are one in the same, Christ is the Word of God and the word of God and the word of god and the Word of god, it doesn't matter how you capitalize it IMO.

[zerinus]

This board is going crazy! Duplicate post

[LDS Guy 1986]

So you are saying that the word of God is not directly equivalent to scripture. Is that correct?

No, I am saying that the scriptures are not equivalent to Christ, because Christ is prefect in all things, the scriptures are a perfect message, received through, recorded by, and translated by imperfect means, making the scriptures less than Christ.

The only record of scriptures that is inerrant IMO is the stones that contained the Ten Commandments written by the hand of Jehovah. This is a perfect message recorded by a perfect being so it is inerrant. Of course we don't have the stone tables anymore only mans translation of the stone tables making our Ten Commandments errant while the original record written by the finger of Jehovah is inerrant.

[zerinus]

No, I am saying that the scriptures are not equivalent to Christ, because Christ is prefect in all things, the scriptures are a perfect message, received through, recorded by, and translated by imperfect means, making the scriptures less than Christ.

I never argued that Christ = His word. You are the one who is introducing that into it.

The only record of scriptures that is inerrant IMO is the stones that contained the Ten Commandments written by the hand of Jehovah. This is a perfect message recorded by a perfect being so it is inerrant. Of course we don't have the stone tables anymore only mans translation of the stone tables making our Ten Commandments errant while the original record written by the finger of Jehovah is inerrant.

But the scriptures teach differently:

D&C 68

:

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall

speak

as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

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

.

D&C 1

:

38 . . . whether by mine own

voice

or by the voice of my servants, it is the

same

.

I like the words of the Psalmist:

Psalm 19

:

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

What kinds of "words," "statutes," "laws," and "judgments" of the Lord do you think he is talking about? Only the ones that are cast in tables of stone?

[Calm]

they are one in the same, Christ is the Word of God and the word of God and the word of god and the Word of god, it doesn't matter how you capitalize it IMO.

So the Bible is Christ?

Logically speaking that is where your claim is going when coupled with the teaching (see AoF 8 for the most obvious example) of the LDS faith.

Christ (B) is the Word (or word) of God (A).

The Bible and the Book of Mormon © are believed to be (A) the word of God (see AoF .

If B=A and C=A, then B=C.

[Obiwan]

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?

I honestly don't know where you have been, but no LDS that I know of have "ever" said Prophets are "inerrant". In fact, when contending against anti-mormons we make perfectly clear that they "aren't" when THEY claim they are or that we believe they are, thus according to them we are following false prophets because they sometimes error or have personal views, or don't actually belong to a "true" Church.

Doctrine is determined by the Scriptures, Prophets, Holy Ghost, and Common Consent.

Each one of the above can have errors, which is why it takes all four being consistent to determine what is from God. We don't have to and shouldn't lean upon ANY of the four "alone". It takes all four, but especially the first three, the last being a more sure sealing when the Kingdom is on the earth.

[zerinus]

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.

[zerinus]

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

Why so hesitant? I am a Mormon, and I am not afraid of getting involved in serious LDS discussion, no matter how critical it might be.

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.

Not sure what relevance that has to the discussion.

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.

I disagree. I would not classify the King Follett discourse as

[nicolasconnault]

There are a couple of passages in the Book of Mormon that have always seemed grammatically incorrect to me. One of them is in Alma 36: 9-11:

9 And he said unto me:

If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God

.

10 And it came to pass that I fell to the earth; and it was for the space of three days and three nights that I could not open my mouth, neither had I the use of my limbs.

11 And the angel spake more things unto me, which were heard by my brethren, but I did not hear them; for when I heard the words

[zerinus]

There are a couple of passages in the Book of Mormon that have always seemed grammatically incorrect to me. One of them is in Alma 36: 9-11:

9 And he said unto me:

If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God

.

10 And it came to pass that I fell to the earth; and it was for the space of three days and three nights that I could not open my mouth, neither had I the use of my limbs.

11 And the angel spake more things unto me, which were heard by my brethren, but I did not hear them; for when I heard the words

[LDS Guy 1986]

As I have repeated again and again, inerrancy does not mean that it cannot have a spelling mistake in it, or a copying error in it. It means that it cannot lead you astray from the paths of virtue and righteousness (or from true doctrine) that leads to God.

So then how did The Book of Abraham lead Brigham Young astray and caused the Church to instate bigoted restrictions of the Priesthood?

[zerinus]

So then how did The Book of Abraham lead Brigham Young astray and caused the Church to instate bigoted restrictions of the Priesthood?

There are several answers to that. First of all the restrictions on the priesthood did not start with Brigham Young. As far as I know it started with Joseph Smith. And the General Authorities have never argued that the restrictions were always wrong. The restrictions were initially commanded by the Lord, and then at some point in time it was revoked. God has the right to impose a restriction at one point in time, and revoke it at another time. Just because it was revoked during the administration of Spencer W. Kimball, it does not mean that it should not have been imposed during the administration of earlier prophets. The mistake that some of the earlier Church leaders made was to try to speculate on the reasons why the restrictions were imposed

[David T]

There are several answers to that. First of all the restrictions on the priesthood did not start with Brigham Young. As far as I know it started with Joseph Smith.

The ultimate conclusion of President Kimball, Elder McConkie, and the brethren - and pretty much all scholars who have researched the topic - was that it was not. If you haven't already,please read this in depth paper by President Kimball's son, Edward, on the full documented history of the ban, and its removal.

[zerinus]

The ultimate conclusion of President Kimball, Elder McConkie, and the brethren - and pretty much all scholars who have researched the topic - was that it was not. If you haven't already,please read this in depth paper by President Kimball's son, Edward, on the full documented history of the ban, and its removal.

Thank you for the article. I haven't read it all the way through; but from briefly looking at it, it does not seem to establish beyond doubt that the restrictions did not begin with Joseph Smith. The rest of the article does not seem to negate what I have said. What is taught in the Book of Abraham is true and correct according to our beliefs; and I don't believe it does foster racism or color prejudice against our colored brethren. If some people had understood or used it that way, that was their fault, not the fault of the Book of Abraham.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Thank you for the article. I haven't read it all the way through; but from briefly looking at it, it does not seem to establish beyond doubt that the restrictions did not begin with Joseph Smith. The rest of the article does not seem to negate what I have said. What is taught in the Book of Abraham is true and correct according to our beliefs; and I don't believe it does foster racism or color prejudice against our colored brethren. If some people had understood or used it that way, that was their fault, not the fault of the Book of Abraham.

What?!?! You said that the scripture cannot lead man away from God, here it plainly did!

Unless you are claiming that God desired BY to remove the priesthood of the black men JS called and ordained, and keep them from the fullness of the the restored Gospel until 1978.

The Book of Abraham led BY to make a racist decision because the Book of Abraham (like all scripture) has error since it is not perfect and complete.

Edit:

If the scriptures are not clear about something and they lead to evil things happening (such as racism) then they have error. This ban was a source for many a people in our Church to believe that blacks were inferior to whites, that they didn't serve God valiantly enough in the premortal world, and far worse things.

The ban is over but it still was the source of a lot of terrible things that happened, the Book of Abraham is responsible for all of this, if it was inerrant such things could of never happened.

This is like saying if I keep a loaded hand gun unlocked around unsupervised children and one of them kills themselves or another that I am not to blame.

The Book of Abraham created a justification for people to discriminate, unless you want to say discrimination is part of God's perfect plan you must admit that the Book of Abraham is not inerrant.

Only through the Holy Ghost and proper interpretation is the truth revealed to men, the scriptures do not have the power to save you because they are not perfect (or inerrant).

If the scriptures were inerrant or perfect, we would have no need for the Holy Ghost since they have all of our answers and cannot lead us astray ever.

Blind faith is never good, and inerrancy is nothing but blind faith.

[zerinus]

What?!?! You said that the scripture cannot lead man away from God, here it plainly did!

Don

[LDS Guy 1986]

That is not the meaning of inerrancy. Inerrancy does not mean that we do not need the Holy Ghost. You can read Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Sherlock Holms, any other book you like by the Holy Ghost, and it will not lead you to God or teach you the principles of eternal life. The fact that you have to read the scriptures by the Holy Ghost to get the right meaning out of it does not mean that it is errant. Where did you get your fantastic logic form?

Why do we need the Holy Ghost, if the scriptures are our" perfect guide to return to God every time" as you claim?

If the scriptures are inerrant then the Holy Ghost is not needed since we have the perfect guide to salvation in the scriptures. The fact we do need the Holy Ghost implies that the scriptures are not inerrant, IMO.

I haven

[zerinus]

Why do we need the Holy Ghost, if the scriptures are our" perfect guide to return to God every time" as you claim?

If the scriptures are inerrant then the Holy Ghost is not needed since we have the perfect guide to salvation in the scriptures. The fact we do need the Holy Ghost implies that the scriptures are not inerrant, IMO.

You are imposing on it your own definition of inerrancy which I disagree with. We need the Holy Ghost because without it we are blind to spiritual things, which is the substance of what the scriptures deal with. Let me quote you another scripture:

Moses 6

:

59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water,

and of the Spirit,

and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and

enjoy the words of eternal life in this world,

and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;

Without that Spirit one cannot "enjoy the words of eternal life" because one is simply blind to what is in it. It is simply bad logic to argue that because one needs the Holy Ghost to understand the scriptures correctly, therefore it must be "errant". That is like saying that because you can't read a book in the dark, therefore there must be something wrong with the book. Of course you can't read a book in the dark. You are not supposed to be able to.

Inerrancy is blind faith, you have complete and unfounded faith that the scriptures are completely perfect in ever way shape and form. It is dangerous to put such blind faith into a work of man.

It is not the work of man. It is the work of God. If there are human errors in it, such as the Book of Mormon tells us there are in the Bible, I am excluding those from my definition. You are using a shifting standard. On minute you are talking about "human errors" (which I exclude), and next minute you are talking about the "misinterpretation" of the scriptures, which cannot be the fault of the scriptures. You seem to be unsure of yourself.

Added by edit:

I do believe that the Living Gospel, Jesus Christ is inerrant, but no work of man will ever be inerrant. The only time we will have the inerrant gospel is after the resurrection when we are reunited with our immortal bodies and the veil is completely removed so we have access to our pre mortal memories in there fullness.

First of all the scriptures are the work of God; and secondly, I gave you scriptural references that "whether it is by His own voice, or the voice of His servants, it is the same". The word of God is an inerrant guide to eternal life, if heeded properly and held on to steadfastly as in the parable of the iron rod. That is my understanding of the case.

[LDS Guy 1986]

You are imposing on it your own definition of inerrancy which I disagree with. We need the Holy Ghost because without it we are blind to spiritual things, which is the substance of what the scriptures deal with. Let me quote you another scripture:

Moses 6

:

59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water,

and of the Spirit,

and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and

enjoy the words of eternal life in this world,

and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;

Without that Spirit one cannot "enjoy the words of eternal life" because one is simply blind to what is in it. It is simply bad logic to argue that because one needs the Holy Ghost to understand the scriptures correctly, therefore it must be "errant". That is like saying that because you can't read a book in the dark, therefore there must be something wrong with the book. Of course you can't read a book in the dark. You are not supposed to be able to.

It is not the work of man. It is the work of God. If there are human errors in it, such as the Book of Mormon tells us there are in the Bible, I am excluding those from my definition. You are using a shifting standard. On minute you are talking about "human errors" (which I exclude), and next minute you are talking about the "misinterpretation" of the scriptures, which cannot be the fault of the scriptures. You seem to be unsure of yourself.

First of all the scriptures are the work of God; and secondly, I gave you scriptural references that "whether it is by His own voice, or the voice of His servants, it is the same". The word of God is an inerrant guide to eternal life, if heeded properly and held on to steadfastly as in the parable of the iron rod. That is my understanding of the case.

Misinterpretation is based in human errors, there is not shifting standards here, only the solid logic that inerrancy removes the need for the Holy Ghost.

You said we need the Holy Ghost to understand the scriptures correctly, well that would seem to me like those scriptures are not inerrant then. See inerrant means that they are perfect, complete, not needing further explanation. If you need the Holy Ghost to translate or help you figure out the answer then what your reading has some errors in it my friend.

As I said prevously we do have an inerrant set of scriptures, the ones we were taught by the mouth of God in pre-mortal existence, the perfect teachings covered by the veil. What we have now is the best and closet thing to those perfect teachings we had in premortal existence. The only time we will have anything with inerrancy is after the resurrection not before.

[nicolasconnault]

So then how did The Book of Abraham lead Brigham Young astray and caused the Church to instate bigoted restrictions of the Priesthood?

You've got some nerve to be writing this, when your own (incorrect) interpretation of LDS scriptures leads you to have bigoted views regarding non-LDS Christians and their inability to have real faith in Christ...

[zerinus]

Misinterpretation is based in human errors, there is not shifting standards here, only the solid logic that inerrancy removes the need for the Holy Ghost.

Not according to my definition it doesn't; and the scriptures and past Prophets and Apostles of the Church agree. See the the quotes given in post #62.

You said we need the Holy Ghost to understand the scriptures correctly, well that would seem to me like those scriptures are not inerrant then.

Of course not. They are inerrant.

See inerrant means that they are perfect, complete, not needing further explanation. If you need the Holy Ghost to translate or help you figure out the answer then what your reading has some errors in it my friend.

Inerrant means that if held on to steadfastly (i.e. by the Holy Spirit), it will lead you unfailingly to the tree of life. That is my definition of inerrancy. You are welcome to invent your own unscriptural definitional if you like; but don't expect everyone else to agree with it.

As I said prevously we do have an inerrant set of scriptures, . . .

I am sure we do; it is called the standard works!

. . . the ones we were taught by the mouth of God in pre-mortal existence, the perfect teachings covered by the veil.

Since I have no access to that one, it has no practical relevance to me during my sojourn in mortality.

What we have now is the best and closet thing to those perfect teachings we had in premortal existence.

It sounds a lot like Plato's theory of Ideas to me!

The only time we will have anything with inerrancy is after the resurrection not before.

You are welcome to that idea if you like; but I will stick to the scriptural doctrine, that "whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it, they would never perish; neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction" (1 Nephi 15:23). I take that to mean the canonized scriptures of the Church primarily; and secondly the words of living prophets and Apostles of the Church when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. I take those words to be inerrant according to the word of the Lord, meaning that they are an unfailing guide in leading us to the tree of life. They will not lead us astray.