Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[tagriffy]

What if there wasn't any apostasy, and Jesus was still building his Church, just like he promised he would to Peter?

What if? That still wouldn't end the necessity or desireability of later revelation.

[tagriffy]

I am sorry but were did Jesus specifically condemn polygamy? Also God did command it in Leviticus. Even the Jews tried to trip Jesus up with that law. Were, if a brother marry and die then the other brother baiscally marries the dead brothers wife and cares for her. You may remember the question asked of Jesus. Which of the 7 will be married to her?

I simply disagree with your assessment of plural marriage. Abraham was married to several women. Were did God condemn him? I have missed those verses that condemn him and Isaac and Jacob. They all had multiple wives. Non of them were ever once condemned for it.

CFR on the Leviticus commandment. And Isaac only had one wife.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Neither was David condemned for multiple wives. Even while God was condemning him for his adultery God stated that He would have give David even more wives had he asked for them. This certainly implies that the multiple wives David already had have been given to him by GOD. 7 2 Sam 12:7¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel , I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom , and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things .

I agree. This is exactly what I had in mind.

[danielwoods]

Then you would be Catholic. The fact that you are not Catholic is prima facie evidence that you believe that there was an apostasy. Since Jesus is not here he can NOT be building His Church without revelation. So, if you reject this latter revelation then you also reject the possibility that HE is the one building His church. This is true whether or not you are LDS. There is some debate about what Jesus actually promised Peter.

I don't reject latter revelation, only revelation that contradicts former revelation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

CFR on the Leviticus commandment. And Isaac only had one wife.

Ok I am not sure if it is in Leviticus. But under the law of moses there is a law that requires a brother to take his brothers wife if he dies.

And 2nd point. My bad.

Note: it is Duet 25:5

5 ¶If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[danielwoods]

"[O]r male or female slave [singular], or ox [singular], or donkey [singular]" (Exodus 20:17). Is it assumed in these instances the neighbor only has one slave, ox, or donkey?

I can only read what it says. Says wife, right? One?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't reject latter revelation, only revelation that contradicts former revelation.

So then you must reject Peter's revelation that is out lined in Acts to take the Gospel to the gentiles too. As it was received later and after Jesus said that the Gospel was to be preached unto the Jews.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can only read what it says. Says wife, right? One?

Only if one takes the most literal reading. Which you are entiled too. I just think you are wrong in that interpretation. As pointed out in the post you quoted.

[Ahab]

I don't reject latter revelation, only revelation that contradicts former revelation.

Catholics can say that too but look at how much revelation they are rejecting just because they think it contradicts scripture.

[danielwoods]

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying we don't need prophets because (basically) we ALL are already prophets ("God is inside us all now, and speaks to us all directly").

Right. The role of prophets as listed as a gift of the Spirit is different now. And the only way I would be contradicting myself if I was to claim that latter revelations that conflicted with older ones are to be preferred (within the new covenant).

[danielwoods]

So then you must reject Peter's revelation that is out lined in Acts to take the Gospel to the gentiles too. As it was received later and after Jesus said that the Gospel was to be preached unto the Jews.

False. This example is exactly what it means to "Bind on Earth, what has already been bound in Heaven." It is conflicting with the old covenant, not the new.

[danielwoods]

Only if one takes the most literal reading. Which you are entiled too. I just think you are wrong in that interpretation. As pointed out in the post you quoted.

Right. As I have observed, the statement, "Does the LDS Doctrine contradict the Bible?" stems from a different principle of interpretation. The source for that difference? I can only guess is acceptance or rejection of Joseph Smith as Prophet/Teacher.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

False. This example is exactly what it means to "Bind on Earth, what has already been bound in Heaven." It is conflicting with the old covenant, not the new.

Ok

I don't think you addressed my point at all. I have said nothing about "Bind on Earth, what has already been bound in Heaven." I am specifically talking about what Jesus said and later revelation given to Peter directly contradicts what Christ said.

Christ said to preach unto the Jews only. And Peter was shown

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common orunclean.

You can read the whole story in Act 10: 9-48

Some of the members of the Church even took issue with what Peter was doing. Acts 11: 2-3

2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the ^acircumcision ^bcontended with him,

3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Right. As I have observed, the statement, "Does the LDS Doctrine contradict the Bible?" stems from a different principle of interpretation. The source for that difference? I can only guess is acceptance or rejection of Joseph Smith as Prophet/Teacher.

Fair enough.

[tagriffy]

I don't reject latter revelation, only revelation that contradicts former revelation.

On what practical basis do you do this in principle? You've already said you accept latter revelatin that contradicts former revelation. All you've really done is drawn a line in the sand and said any further revelation must be judged against this line.

[tagriffy]

Ok I am not sure if it is in Leviticus. But under the law of moses there is a law that requires a brother to take his brothers wife if he dies.

And 2nd point. My bad.

Note: it is Duet 25:5

5 ¶If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

Okay. You're just a little late in this discussion then.

[Tacenda]

I have a question for all you LDS scholars or those that feel they might have an answer. What is mistranslated in the bible specifically? I know the bible is definitely not perfect and many hands have written or translated it. But what in your opinions are the parts that we know are translated incorrectly, I've always wondered about this. Also, why don't we use the JST of the bible much, if at all?

[tagriffy]

I can only read what it says. Says wife, right? One?

It's just poor example to use in your argument. The commandment says nothing about God's intent for the number of a kind of things a person may have. Do we infer that since house, slave, ox, and donkey are in the singular that God intends a person to have only one of them?

[tagriffy]

Catholics can say that too but look at how much revelation they are rejecting just because they think it contradicts scripture.

I should leave this for 3DOP, but it would probably be more correct to say Catholics would reject revelation based on a (perceived or real) contradiction with apostolic tradition, which includes but is not limited to the Bible.

[tagriffy]

Right. The role of prophets as listed as a gift of the Spirit is different now. And the only way I would be contradicting myself if I was to claim that latter revelations that conflicted with older ones are to be preferred (within the new covenant).

I would say this is a distinction without a difference. You say new covenant, Latter-day Saints say new dispensation. The practical effect is still the same.

[Ahab]

I have a question for all you LDS scholars or those that feel they might have an answer. What is mistranslated in the bible specifically? I know the bible is definitely not perfect and many hands have written or translated it. But what in your opinions are the parts that we know are translated incorrectly, I've always wondered about this. Also, why don't we use the JST of the bible much, if at all?

The text in the Bible, itself, is just fine. The problem is that people don't always know how to correctly interpret/understand what it means.

With just about any of the scriptures you can think of there are people who believe those words means one thing while other groups of people think those same words mean something else. Sometimes the understanding of one group is in agreement with the understanding of another group, but sometimes both of those groups are wrong about what the text really means and another group has it right.

We claim to be the group who knows how to correctly understand what the Bible says, completely, but there are other groups of people who think they know what it means, too. Sometimes they're right, and sometimes they're wrong. We claim to be right in every regard.

[Ahab]

I should leave this for 3DOP, but it would probably be more correct to say Catholics would reject revelation based on a (perceived or real) contradiction with apostolic tradition, which includes but is not limited to the Bible.

Yes, they put a lot of stock in their traditions thinking that their traditions are on par with scripture, but that's only because of the way they interpret the scriptures.

[Vance]

I don't reject latter revelation, only revelation that contradicts former revelation.

Except in cases where you don't.

[tagriffy]

I have a question for all you LDS scholars or those that feel they might have an answer. What is mistranslated in the bible specifically? I know the bible is definitely not perfect and many hands have written or translated it. But what in your opinions are the parts that we know are translated incorrectly, I've always wondered about this. Also, why don't we use the JST of the bible much, if at all?

Personally, that is just something I bracket. The only way to definitively judge what is mistranslated is to have the originals in hand. I have had problems in the past with the "as translated correctly" line.

As near as I can tell, the main reason the Utah Church does't use the JST much is because the script is held by the Community of Christ. I'm sure someone could point out an article discussing the question.

[Vance]

I can only read what it says. Says wife, right? One?

Again, you fall head long into absurdity.