Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[tagriffy]

LDS Doctrine contradict the Bible? Well, not when you’ve the freedom to make up your own definitions & language.

In How Wide the Divide? LDS co-author Dr. Stephen Robinson declared: “I would agree completely with Evangelicals about the eternality of God—defining eternity as…”

That last part’s the killer. You see, eternal doesn’t mean what the uninitiated think it does, if they were to look up the word in dictionary.com, for example. Robinson has

defined it to mean its very opposite: Windows of time, with beginning and end points. And with that little exercise, LDS and Biblical doctrines are set at harmony.

Page 90 of the book pretty well sums it up.

No contradictions, only misunderstandings. Repeat as necessary.

;0)

--Erik

First, not volgadon's discussion of the Hebrew term olam. While I have my own problems with Robinson's work in How Wide the Divide?, redefining "traditional" terms is not one of them. The fact is nearly all new religious traditions does this to some extent, especially when it is an offshoot of another religion. Christianity redefines and recontextualizes many Jewish terms, starting with the concept of the messiah. Islam does the same with both Judaism and Christianity. Buddhism does the same with Hinduism. So it shouldn't surprise us that Mormonism does it as well.

To some extent, it can't really be any other way. Religions get their start in specific historical-cultural situations. This includes a relatively limited language set. Sure, new words can be coined (like telestial or robotics), but if new words are coined for every aspect of the new tradition, it will sound like gobbledegook when you try to talk to outsiders. Putting a new spin on already existing terms is the simplest and best way to avoid this problem.

[Tacenda]

Thanks Kenngo and BD, appreciate your responses but as I've mentioned in the post to Williamsmith, I need references or instances of what popped out or what occurred after you both studied. I don't mean to have you give me everything of course, but something. Also, do you have anything concerning the contradictions I've provided? Thanks in advance, I know I appear lazy but need a starting point or a book in the bible to read.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Nemesis
Temple content removed

[Garden Girl]

Hello Tacenda...

In regard to marriage... eternal marriage....

Have you actually studied LDS doctrine on marriage? In your post #12 you cite biblical scripture stating "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven."

In D&C 132:15-19... "Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an etrnal weight of glory.

For these angels did not abide my law; therefore they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly..."

This is why we do the temple ordinances in this world, sealing families by the Lord's word, and by those with proper sealing "keys" (Matt 16:19) so they will be bound through the eternities, when they are out of the world...

GG

[bubbachen]

I don't have the time or patience to read the whole bible in a short amount of time.

Um...wouldn't you think that's a problem? Take a few months, or a year. Simply quoting bible verses in isolation won't get you where you need to go. Put everything else away and read your bible while opening your soul to God. If you don't have the time or the patience to do this, don't be surprised if you can't get the answers you desire.

[Kenngo1969]

Very few if any are giving "for instances" of how the bible lines up with LDS doctrine. …

Ask, and ye shall receive. Keep in mind, though, that I have already stated that I think the question of whether the Holy Bible supports LDS doctrine is irrelevant because of an open canon, living prophets, and continuing revelation. Thus, I have no intention of Bible Bashing with anyone in response to this post. If you disagree—and I suspect a fair number of you will—I have additional light and knowledge which I believe supports my interpretation. With no disrespect intended, what do you have? Scholarship, perhaps? I think a minute of direct revelation is worth a thousand years of even the best scholarship in the world (since, in fairness, not all scholarship is created equal). For that matter, a minute of direct revelation is worth a thousand years of reading the Holy Bible, as much as I revere it.

1. Premortal Life and Foreordination: Jeremiah 1:5 – “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

2. Man In God’s Image: Genesis 1:26-27 – “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him; in the image of God created He them.”

3. Stick of Joseph: If it Isn’t the Book of Mormon, What Is It? Ezekiel 37:6-7 – “The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.”

4. God Still Speaks Through Prophets (Either That, or He’s Taken a Nice, Long Vacation! Amos 3:7 – “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”

5. Tithing & Other Offerings: Malachi 3:8-10 – “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.”

6. Elijah to Return: Malachi 4:5-6 – “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”

7. Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven: Ordinances Done Using Them Will Be Honored Both on Earth and In Heaven: Matthew 16:19 – “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. “

8. Physical Resurrection: Luke 24:36-39 – “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (See also Job 19:26).

9. Necessity of Being Born of Water (Baptism) and of the Spirit (Receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost): John 3:5 – Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

10. We Know Who Christ’s “Other Sheep” Are (and Why They’re Not The Gentiles, as Other Churches Often Claim): John 10:16 – “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be cone fold, and one shepherd.” (See 3 Nephi 15:21).

11. A Mere Proclamation of Belief is Insufficient to Show Our Love for God: John 14:15 – “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”

12. God, The Father, and Jesus Christ are Separate Beings: Acts 7:55-56 – “But he [stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus estanding on the fright hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

13. Baptism of the Dead By Proxy: I Corinthians 15:29 – “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the 1dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” Even honest non-LDS scholars have concluded that this verse must refer to some rite formerly practiced in the church but since lost.

14. Degrees of Glory: I Corinthians 15:40-42 – “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption.”

15. Apostles and Prophets: Ephesians 4:11-12 – “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.”

16. Apostasy to Precede Second Coming: Thessalonians 2:1-3 – “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”

17. Priesthood Holders Must Be Called of God: Hebrews 5:4 – “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.”

18. In Response to Those Who Discourage Others from Praying to Know, Inter Alia, Whether the Book of Mormon is True: James 1:5-6 – “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

P.S. Sorry about the spacing and font problems. Usually I’ve been able to resolve them (somewhat) by cutting-and-pasting from Word, but not this time …

Edited June 15, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[3DOP]

This thread is being started at the suggestion of Tacenda, but anyone may contribute to it.

On another thread, I contradicted her assertion that the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "clearly" contradicts the Bible.

What I have observed over the years when such an assertion is made is that what the commenter is really saying is this (or some variation thereof):

LDS doctrine contradicts (fill in the blank here*) of the Bible.

*Choose one or more:

1. my interpretation

2. my minister's interpretation

3. some career anti-Mormon's interpretation

4. someone else's ill-informed or ill thought-out interpretation

Heh. I would say that LDS doctrine clearly contradicts non-LDS interpretations of the Bible.

[Kenngo1969]

Duplicate! Erp!

Edited June 16, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Avatar4321]

No. easy question

[bjw]

I have gone to two protestant Bible colleges and have a degree in Bible, but still wound up joining the LDS church, so I have a somewhat unique background. IMHO, the books of the New Testament are somewhat misinterpreted by most because some don't realize that each book was written separately and pieced together as canon later. Some think the last part of Revelation where it says not to add or take away from the book is referring to the Bible (I've been hit by this one from critics in my family). The books from Romans to Revelation are written to the various churches to clear up misunderstandings with people who already had the doctrines.

Some have tried to say Romans is an exception and can actually be viewed as a complete doctrinal manual. I tend to disagree because it clearly follows a pattern to refute the heresies coming into the church trying to bring in Old Testament law. (such as the justified by faith, no condemnation passages in Romans 6-8.)

I don't see any contradictions with LDS doctrine and the Bible because I think the passages are taken out of context that are used to refute LDS doctrine. If they were passages in a codified book of doctrine I think they would be a contradiction, but they are not. This is also why I do not think the Bible contradicts itself. For instance, the woman at the well was not familiar with the doctrine of God having a body, the Sadducees were not familiar with the "scriptures or power of God" and were told what would happen as a result of this, the passages refuting salvation by works were addressed to those already familiar with eternal progression (hence there being no contradiction with the James passages of faith without works being dead). I'm sure I could find other examples if I think about it.

[3DOP]

Hi Tacenda,

There is no question that one can make a credible argument for virtually every non-LDS biblical belief. But that doesn't mean that the LDS position is clearly in contradiction with Scripture. In my opinion, as a non-LDS, there are adequate answers from an LDS perspective to Scriptures you cite in a recent post. Let me offer some examples.

Jesus says that we are neither married nor given in marriage in heaven. That's right says the LDS, you need to be married on earth first. Wham. That doesn't make the LDS position right. It means the Scripture is unclear. It just won't work for a proof text against them. So you got to I Cor 7:

For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I [unmarried].

---v, 7, 8

The whole chapter seems to extol virginity and even says in one place that the time is coming when they who have wives, will be as though they had none. No marriage in heaven right? Clearly this is what Paul is teaching? This is a clear contradiction of Scripture? No. St. Paul says in this chapter, "For to the rest I speak, not the Lord." I do not understand it this way, but LDS will accept the interpretation that a Catholic gives to these words of Paul, but point to the diminished level of authority which must be given to them because of "I speak, not the Lord." I can make an argument for why it is a mistake to diminish the authority of this passage but by that time things are getting murkier. There is no way that I win the argument if I begin from the premise: LDS doctrine clearly contradicts Scripture.

I am fond of saying that the Scripture alone is inadequate to resolve any biblical controversy.

You cite that passage that the Lord is not a man and doesn't repent. The Mormon cites a passage that says that God repents of what He did:

It repenteth me that I have made Saul king

I believe Deuteronomy is making an ontological statement about God's nature and the passage about Saul is speaking about how God's ways seem from the human perspective. But I can't prove it from Scripture alone. Mormons think that when God says He repents, it is a factual description of God's human passions and that when Deuteronomy explicitly says God is not a man, that it means, God is not a man like other men. One interpretation is right and the other is wrong. But neither interpretation clearly contradicts the words.

In my opinion, it is easier to discern what church might qualify to have the true interpretation of Scripture than it is to find out which church is true by means of correctly interpreting Scripture ourselves. Sometimes I say things, especially in regards to LDS interpretations of Scripture that might make one think that I could be close to becoming LDS. Not at all. I am convinced that the Scripture is compatible with many different interpretations. This concept is critically valuable in leading me to the truth. I could never belong to a church that says the Scripture clearly contradicts all but the true doctrine. I could never defend such a position. Among all the churches, the Catholic Church emphasizes that the Scriptures alone are inadequate. I don't think the LDS usually go quite that far. In a lot of ways, many LDS still seem to act like Protestants when it comes to Scripture. Many seem to think that the Scripture clearly contradicts non-LDS interpretations. (To be fair, Catholics can be like that too.) But the point is that even if some Catholics and Mormons are biblically naive, there is a way out of the bible alone quandary for those of us who can see multiple credible ways of interpreting Scripture. For LDS, continuing revelation does partly what Sacred Tradition does for the Catholic in helping us to know what we believe to be the true interpretations of God's Holy Word.

3DOP

Edited June 15, 2013 by 3DOP

[Vance]

1. Is God a man? Numbers 23:19 states "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

It seem rather obvious that this is showing that God is different from mortal men (and women) in actions or character traits than in kind or "species", if you will.

2. Do members of the church place Christ's atonement in the Garden or the Cross first?

BOTH!!!!

4. No God before and no God after: Isaiah 44:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

A rhetorical question, since there is no "before" or "after" in a chronological sense.

5. Does God have flesh and bones?

UYES!!!

Jesus told the woman at the well in vs. 21 -26 Jesus saith unto her, Woman believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

So, can you tell me what the topic of those verses really is?

[Tacenda]

No. easy question

Nope and while I appreciate all of those scripitures Kenngo provided I also know those are scriptures that missionaries use to persuade non LDS as much as the anti mormon EV would use the ones I used to persuade the LDS. So it is up to the reader of scripture to get an answer themselves through inspiration. I now see how some in the church or out of the church have come to the conclusion that scripture is what is thought of at the time it is written. Just like the Ensign and conference talks could be scripture as was the JoD in BY's time and so on with prophets prophesying in the bible. Some even think Jesus was only prophet and not God too. It's hard when you have to get a testimony all by yourself. And read the bible clear through. If I do that, I hope to have something by then. Going to give it a shot. Thanks Bubbachen, for mentioning it! P.S. Should I start with the NT or OT, please don't say the OT. Edited June 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Hi Tacenda,

There is no question that one can make a credible argument for virtually every non-LDS biblical belief. But that doesn't mean that the LDS position is clearly in contradiction with Scripture. In my opinion, as a non-LDS, there are adequate answers from an LDS perspective to Scriptures you cite in a recent post. Let me offer some examples.

Jesus says that we are neither married nor given in marriage in heaven. That's right says the LDS, you need to be married on earth first. Wham. That doesn't make the LDS position right. It means the Scripture is unclear. It just won't work for a proof text against them. So you got to I Cor 7:

---v, 7, 8

The whole chapter seems to extol virginity and even says in one place that the time is coming when they who have wives, will be as though they had none. No marriage in heaven right? Clearly this is what Paul is teaching? This is a clear contradiction of Scripture? No. St. Paul says in this chapter, "For to the rest I speak, not the Lord." I do not understand it this way, but LDS will accept the interpretation that a Catholic gives to these words of Paul, but point to the diminished level of authority which must be given to them because of "I speak, not the Lord." I can make an argument for why it is a mistake to diminish the authority of this passage but by that time things are getting murkier. There is no way that I win the argument if I begin from the premise: LDS doctrine clearly contradicts Scripture.

I am fond of saying that the Scripture alone is inadequate to resolve any biblical controversy.

You cite that passage that the Lord is not a man and doesn't repent. The Mormon cites a passage that says that God repents of what He did:

I believe Deuteronomy is making an ontological statement about God's nature and the passage about Saul is speaking about how God's ways seem from the human perspective. But I can't prove it from Scripture alone. Mormons think that when God says He repents, it is a factual description of God's human passions and that when Deuteronomy explicitly says God is not a man, that it means, God is not a man like other men. One interpretation is right and the other is wrong. But neither interpretation clearly contradicts the words.

In my opinion, it is easier to discern what church might qualify to have the true interpretation of Scripture than it is to find out which church is true by means of correctly interpreting Scripture ourselves. Sometimes I say things, especially in regards to LDS interpretations of Scripture that might make one think that I could be close to becoming LDS. Not at all. I am convinced that the Scripture is compatible with many different interpretations. This concept is critically valuable in leading me to the truth. I could never belong to a church that says the Scripture clearly contradicts all but the true doctrine. I could never defend such a position. Among all the churches, the Catholic Church emphasizes that the Scriptures alone are inadequate. I don't think the LDS usually go quite that far. In a lot of ways, many LDS still seem to act like Protestants when it comes to Scripture. Many seem to think that the Scripture clearly contradicts non-LDS interpretations. (To be fair, Catholics can be like that too.) But the point is that even if some Catholics and Mormons are biblically naive, there is a way out of the bible alone quandary for those of us who can see multiple credible ways of interpreting Scripture. For LDS, continuing revelation does partly what Sacred Tradition does for the Catholic in helping us to know what we believe to be the true interpretations of God's Holy Word.

3DOP

I always appreciate your views, thanks 3DOP.

ETA: Since I'm low on posts allowed me, I want to thank you all for the responses, God works His ways through all of us, I believe.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[Five Solas]

First, not volgadon's discussion of the Hebrew term olam. While I have my own problems with Robinson's work in How Wide the Divide?, redefining "traditional" terms is not one of them. The fact is nearly all new religious traditions does this to some extent, especially when it is an offshoot of another religion. Christianity redefines and recontextualizes many Jewish terms, starting with the concept of the messiah. Islam does the same with both Judaism and Christianity. Buddhism does the same with Hinduism. So it shouldn't surprise us that Mormonism does it as well.

To some extent, it can't really be any other way. Religions get their start in specific historical-cultural situations. This includes a relatively limited language set. Sure, new words can be coined (like telestial or robotics), but if new words are coined for every aspect of the new tradition, it will sound like gobbledegook when you try to talk to outsiders. Putting a new spin on already existing terms is the simplest and best way to avoid this problem.

Everybody does it--so it's fitting & proper for LDS to do it too. Yeah.

Except of course, nobody defines "eternal" as its antonym, a window of time with a beginning and an end. That's pretty egregious by any standard, no? And when you consider Dr. Robinson does this to make a "we're Christians too" argument, that he like Evangelicals, also believes Jesus is the eternal God--well, it feels a little disingenuous, no?

--Erik

[tagriffy]

Cut and pasted from PART of Bcuzbcuz's post # 21 in the thread "The Spectacles, The Stone, The Hat and The Book":

From Deutronomy:- Do not be tempted to worship or serve what you see in the sky - the sun, the moon, and the stars (4.19). "...man or woman has sinned against the Lord and broken his covenant ; by worshipping and serving other gods or the sun or the moon or the stars, contrary to the Lord's command." (17.2-3). Don't sacrifice your children in the fires on your alters> and don't let your people practice divination or look for omens or use spells or charms. and don't let them consult the spirits of the dead. The Lord your God hates people who these disgusting things. Be completely faithful to the Lord (18.10-13) From Leviticus:- Do not go for advice to people who consult the spirits of the dead.(l9*31). If anyone goes for advice to people who consult the spirits of the dead I will turn against him and will no longer consider him one of my People - 20.6. A prophet or an interpreter of dreams may promise a miracle, or a wonder, in order to lead you to worship and serve gods that you

have not worshipped before. EVEN IF WHAT HE PROMISES COMES TRUE, DO NOTPAY ANY ATTENTION TO HIM, THE LORD YOUR GOD IS USING HIM TO TEST YOU TO SEE IFYOU LOVE THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART. Follow the Lord and fear him; obey him and keep his commands; worship him and be faithful to him-(13.1-4) Deutronomy. He practiced divination and magic and consulted fortune-tellers and mediums. He sinned greatly against the Lord and stirred up his anger. 2 Kings 21.6 and 2 Chronicles 33.6. Read also Samuel 28.3-25. From Isaiah:- But people will tell you to ask for messages from fortune-tellers and mediums, who chirp and mutter. They 'will say, "After all, people should ask for messages from spirits and consult the deadon behalf of the living." You are to answer theme "Don’t listen to mediums....

<snip>

Scott, when I said "clearly" it was in the instance of using magic. Then I went on to say how the bible tends to contradict mormon doctrine and then you wanted me to search it out and not take the non LDS Christian view and stop there, which I tend to do, admittedly. So I rustled up a red letter bible I keep at my bedside that belonged to my mom's side of the family. I went to the bible index and looked up the subject and then looked up the scripture and context. As I was reading the bible (shocking even to myself) I ran across some things that I didn't mention in the post, so if you don't mind I'll include that also. P.S. I didn't cut/paste any of the scriptures below from the internet, read and typed while reading them.

1. Is God a man? Numbers 23:19 states "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Note volgadon's response that for every Numbers 23:19, there is an Exodus 15:3. Add to this the fact Jeremiah could accuse the Lord of deception, both of the people (4:10) and Jeremiah himself (20:7). And that most subversive book Jonah portrays God repenting (3:10).

And let's not forget to consider the context of Num. 23:19. Balak was trying to convince Balaam to curse the Israelites. The first attempt failed. So Balak was hoping that going to another place would be enough to allow Balaam to curse "only a part of them" (Num. 23:13, NRSV). God might well be willing to change his mind, as in Moses petitioning him not to destroy the Israelites, but simply moving the prophet to a new vantage point won't do it--even if it would be enough for a human.

2. Do members of the church place Christ's atonement in the Garden or the Cross first? Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that parish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (Note: It seems the Garden of Gethsemane takes precedence over the cross when I read the many talks from church leaders.)

The Gethsemane scenes read almost as if they were constructed to counteract the events of the Garden of Eden. As Adam willfully disobeyed God in Eden, Jesus willfully accepts God's will in Gethsemane. As Paul said elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, "For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being, for as all die in Adam, so will all be made alive in Christ" (15:21-22). The Church is not wrong for placing emphasis on Gethsemane; it could be argued they are reading the Gethsemane accounts exactly as it was intended.

3. Are you married in the hereafter? In Matthew Chapter 22 it talks of the question by the Sadducees in vs. 24-30 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren; and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Note: Wouldn't this solve the problem we're having in the polyandry/polygamy thread right there!)

This is indeed a problem I have not found a satisfactory solution for yet. I will point out that if Genesis 6:2 is a reference to "angels," there is a conflict with that story and this pericope.

4. No God before and no God after: Isaiah 44:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I know what you are referring to, but it is actually 43:10. I think the "standard" LDS solution is to relativize the passage. Given that the overall context is YHWH's supremacy against the gods of the nations, the solution works well enough. Relative to human beings, there is only one God and there will only ever be one God. It's not a perfect solution, but also note the comments I made in post #4 of this thread.

5. Does God have flesh and bones? Jesus told the woman at the well in vs. 21 -26 Jesus saith unto her, Woman believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

I believe placing so much emphasis on this pericope is misplaced. One of the "standard" responses I've seen is to say that being a spirit is in no way a denial of possesing a body. While it is true there is no flat out statement like D&C 132:20 in the Bible, I am convinced that divine embodiment is assumed throughout the Bible from Gen. 1:26 to Rev. 21:3. To focus on this pericope and use it to declare God doesn't have a body requires literally ignoring the rest of the Bible. There are simply too many passages in the Bible that simply don't make sense and/or requires twisting what the text actually says to make God "only" a spirit with no body.

[tagriffy]

Very few if any are giving "for instances" of how the bible lines up with LDS doctrine. And no one addresses the contradictions I provided, this would help, I don't have the time or patience to read the whole bible in a short amount of time. I know it's the easy way out but do you mind sharing with me what shot out that the LDS have it right vs. the non LDS? I just need some more passages or scripture that might speak to me. Also the line in bold in your post, makes me want to ask if our church lines up better with the Old Testament. I've heard it said before that we do, and we don't go by the New Testament as much, some even say we as LDS, are in bondage. Yes I do listen to sermons from other faiths, and some LDS turned EV's. So that is why I'm messed up so much, if in fact I am.

It is going to be very difficult to give such "for instances." As I said back in post #4, "LDS doctrine" is a codification of a mass of documents that are themselves often inconsistent and contradictory. Those documents include, but are not limited to the Bible. So for any given statement of "LDS doctrine," of course you are going to find something in the Bible that either does or seems to conflict with it. Because of the inconsistencies and contradictions, the act of codifying "LDS doctrine" necessarily involves determining what gets interpretive priority and what does not.

Lest anyone think I'm engaging in special pleading, I would remind them that Christians do exactly the same thing with the Bible. Is the Bible Calvinist or Arminian? The answer is neither; the Bible can be called upon to interpret either position. The difference is in how one assigns priority to which passages.

Even the question of whether and how much "LDS doctrine" lines up with the Bible is an irrelevant question. It is a Protestant, and specifically an Evangelical/Fundamentalist problem; it is not a Mormon problem. Mormon doctrine is not limited to the Bible. This is a fact that cannot be stressed enough. It is a fact that needs sink in, and the implications thereof need to be grasped. Once those implications are grasped, you'll realize there is no "what the LDS have right vs what non-LDS have wrong." The real question is "What does the whole of Scripture have to say to us?"

[tagriffy]

Hello Tacenda...

In regard to marriage... eternal marriage....

Have you actually studied LDS doctrine on marriage? In your post #12 you cite biblical scripture stating "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven."

In D&C 132:15-19... "Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an etrnal weight of glory.

For these angels did not abide my law; therefore they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly..."

This is why we do the temple ordinances in this world, sealing families by the Lord's word, and by those with proper sealing "keys" (Matt 16:19) so they will be bound through the eternities, when they are out of the world...

GG

This only works as far as it goes. However, the Sadducees question presumes the marriages were done correctly, as their citation of Deuteronomy 25:5 shows. The woman passed on to the various brothers was in accordance with God's expressed word.

[tagriffy]

Everybody does it--so it's fitting & proper for LDS to do it too. Yeah.

Except of course, nobody defines "eternal" as its antonym, a window of time with a beginning and an end. That's pretty egregious by any standard, no? And when you consider Dr. Robinson does this to make a "we're Christians too" argument, that he like Evangelicals, also believes Jesus is the eternal God--well, it feels a little disingenuous, no?

--Erik

Not "proper and fitting." The better term is "inevitable." I'm describing a phenomena, not making any judgments about it.

Since I no longer have a copy of How Wide the Divide?, I can't properly judge what Robinson said. Additionally, the question "Are Mormons Christian?" is not a live one for me. Under these circumstances, it would be improper of me to make a judgment about whether Robinson is being disingenuous with his argument.

[BlueDreams]

Nope and while I appreciate all of those scripitures Kenngo provided I also know those are scriptures that missionaries use to persuade non LDS as much as the anti mormon EV would use the ones I used to persuade the LDS. So it is up to the reader of scripture to get an answer themselves through inspiration. I now see how some in the church or out of the church have come to the conclusion that scripture is what is thought of at the time it is written. Just like the Ensign and conference talks could be scripture as was the JoD in BY's time and so on with prophets prophesying in the bible. Some even think Jesus was only prophet and not God too. It's hard when you have to get a testimony all by yourself. And read the bible clear through. If I do that, I hope to have something by then. Going to give it a shot. Thanks Bubbachen, for mentioning it! P.S. Should I start with the NT or OT, please don't say the OT.

I've been extremely busy all day and missed the scripture fiesta. But to this question, I'd start with the new testament. There's parts of the OT I really love, but it can be a beast to get through. NT for greater confidence in reading, OT for humility . And as you've figured out scriptural support is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I've never ran into a scripture that an Ev has used that I couldn't think of a counter argument and holes in said use (as others have pointed to a number of holes in the scriptures you used as problematic). Doesn't mean I always have. Most the time it's counter productive.

But for your perusing here's my list based on just randomly opening my scriptures to whatever was highlighted in the NT (not all, just ones that applied to your Q). I'm not giving any explanation. You can make your own conclusions:

Matthew 5; 7; 10:1,22, 37-42, 23:7-12

Mark 6:4-5, 16:16

Luke 8 :21, 10:25-37,

John: 3, 5: 17-31, 7:17, 10, 14, 15

acts: 2, 17:28-29, 20:28-30

romans 8:14-17

1 cor 2, 4, 15,

2 cor 3:15-18

Gal 3: 24-29, 4:1-7

Eph 1:10

Phillipians 3:20-21

1 Ths 3,5:19-21

1 tim 4

Titus 1:2,

Hebrews

James

1 Peter 1:7-9; 3:18-20, 4:6-8

2 Peter 1:20-21

1-3 John

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

Thanks BD, I was thinking chapter by chapter for fear of missing something, but will check these out. And will read the NT where I left off with my family. I've been reading the NT with them until a few months ago when we let it go. And for personal study I read the BoM each night and that only lasted a short time. So I'll see what happens with trying it again. I've been going to bed with my phone, reading FB, Pinterest and this board and others. My priorities are out of wack.

[Robert F. Smith]

Cut and pasted from PART of Bcuzbcuz's post # 21 in the thread "The Spectacles, The Stone, The Hat and The Book":

.........................................

My comment in post #22:

................................

Scott's post in #23:

................................

My comment in post #25:.................... These aren't contradictions?

***********************************

.....................................

1. Is God a man?

................................

2. Do members of the church place Christ's atonement in the Garden or the Cross first?

......................................

3. Are you married in the hereafter?

........................

4. No God before and no God after:

...................................

5. Does God have flesh and bones?

...............................................

Scott, I've held conversations with others on this board before on this subject, and I suspect I'll get the same answers as before, but I appreciate that you took the time and effort to post a new thread to discuss on. I've read the responses so far and appreciate what they had to offer and look forward to more. Thanks for the homework you gave and reading the bible in context. I said a little prayer that it might show me or you the way.

These instances and many like them can be multiplied a thousand fold, and it gets us nowhere. Why? Because people reading a translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible are reading the translation as though it was the very word of God, rather than someone's interpretation of the word of God, because every translation is an interpretation. Indeed, they carelessly imagine that the English plain text is simple and directly understandable on its own terms, without any understanding of the cultures from which it came.

Rampant denominationalism is based squarely on this fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Scripture, and the number of denominations is steadily increasing even as I write this. The schisms taking place within Protestant Christianity should be an embarrassment to sola scriptura, along with the rejection of inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the primary source of interpretation of Scripture. Even scholars are unable to agree on the interpretation of Scripture.

The field of apologetics within Christianity was developed largely to defend against the long lists of internal biblical contradictions. I have compiled a list of thousands of such internal biblical contradictions as a demonstration that the building of one's theology upon such a base of shifting sand.is extremely dangerous -- even suicidal. Pat answers don't get us where we want to go in this fever swamp. You need to ask harder, more fundamental questions, Tacenda.

[volgadon]

Not "proper and fitting." The better term is "inevitable." I'm describing a phenomena, not making any judgments about it.

Since I no longer have a copy of How Wide the Divide?, I can't properly judge what Robinson said. Additionally, the question "Are Mormons Christian?" is not a live one for me. Under these circumstances, it would be improper of me to make a judgment about whether Robinson is being disingenuous with his argument.

I think that solas is slightly misremembering what Robinson actually said. In essence, Robinson's argument is that given the philological meaning of "eternity" in the Bible, and the limited framework that the book affirms, the LDS agree with evangelicals when it comes to God being eternal.

http://books.google.com/books?id=v78HDTHd9nwC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=how+wide+the+divide+eternal&source=bl&ots=1_7K3m1zSm&sig=OaY3CVxll1iRlm5NIS5kSVmBazQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xUO9UfOOK-muyAHTiYGICw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=how%20wide%20the%20divide%20eternal&f=false

[danielwoods]

This thread is being started at the suggestion of Tacenda, but anyone may contribute to it.

On another thread, I contradicted her assertion that the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "clearly" contradicts the Bible.

What I have observed over the years when such an assertion is made is that what the commenter is really saying is this (or some variation thereof):

LDS doctrine contradicts (fill in the blank here*) of the Bible.

*Choose one or more:

1. my interpretation

2. my minister's interpretation

3. some career anti-Mormon's interpretation

4. someone else's ill-informed or ill thought-out interpretation

Essentially, LDS interpretation of the Bible agrees with the LDS Doctrine. No surprise there.

And, Non-LDS interpretation of the Bible disagrees with LDS Doctrine. Again, no surprise there.

So, the real question should be, what is the correct interpretation of the Bible? And does that agree or disagree with LDS Doctrine or not?

Is the Bible intended to be interpreted next to, or in light of "further revelation" such as the LDS standard works?

Let's ask one more question. What if a plain reading of the Bible contradicts a plain reading of the teachings of the LDS doctrine?

For example. Paul states that a husband should have one wife (Titus 1:6). That's it. Then the LDS have further revelation that contradicts this teaching (for a period of time). But, where in the Biblical text does it indicate that if a prophet comes along, we should ignore what the Spirit plainly taught through Paul, and listen to this "further revelation" even though it clearly contradicts the former?

[Robert F. Smith]

Heh. I would say that LDS doctrine clearly contradicts non-LDS interpretations of the Bible.

In many instances that is certainly true, Rory,

But it is equally true of biblical interpretations within the Christian community generally. This is because (1) many interpreters come from faith traditions requiring an apriori defense of a received theology, and (2) because many are unable to parse biblical texts accurately. That is why a hierarchical focus on a single faith tradition is so important within Roman Catholicism, is it not? The LDS Church likewise relies on a tightly focused doctrinal tradition, along with revelatory interpretation -- so as to avoid centrifugal tendencies.

As always, the Paraclete is of prime importance.

Bob

[volgadon]

Essentially, LDS interpretation of the Bible agrees with the LDS Doctrine. No surprise there.

And, Non-LDS interpretation of the Bible disagrees with LDS Doctrine. Again, no surprise there.

So, the real question should be, what is the correct interpretation of the Bible? And does that agree or disagree with LDS Doctrine or not?

Is the Bible intended to be interpreted next to, or in light of "further revelation" such as the LDS standard works?

Let's ask one more question. What if a plain reading of the Bible contradicts a plain reading of the teachings of the LDS doctrine?

For example. Paul states that a husband should have one wife (Titus 1:6). That's it. Then the LDS have further revelation that contradicts this teaching (for a period of time). But, where in the Biblical text does it indicate that if a prophet comes along, we should ignore what the Spirit plainly taught through Paul, and listen to this "further revelation" even though it clearly contradicts the former?

Even better, what if the plain reading of certain passages in the Hebrew Bible contradicts a plain reading of the New Testament?