Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[bubbachen]

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.

If you want to understand what Jesus and the apostles were referring to in the NT, you will need to understand the concepts in the OT. The NT CANNOT be understood properly in isolation; the NT authors based all the NT theology, concepts, arguments upon the OT. Too many Christians are OT illiterate. It's like reading the the "Return of the King" from the LOTR without having benefit of previously reading the Hobbit and the first two LOTR books. I keep repeating this to you, Tacenda, put away all the pro-LDS and anti-LDS materials. Trust in God and trust He will speak to you through the Bible. Talk to Jesus and the Father daily, constantly. In the end, no matter who's "right" or who's "wrong", you will draw closer to Jesus and to our Father.

[BCSpace]

The latter.

O.K. Is there a book, source, or sources you would recommend for those whose faith has been challenged by apparent difficulties of these kinds?

Good question. There are certainly too many to list, at least in any coherent fashion as in perhaps which ones you should read first. You know I started out with the poorly written and poorly edited original "Day of Defense" and have amassed quite a collection since then. Even before that the Topical Guide was pretty helpful. But after long study and debate I have pretty much narrowed most of it down to the scriptures themselves, the doctrine in the manuals, and perhaps Strong's and Thayer's. It's rare now that I have to refer to an apologetic work (though I might refer someone else to the early Church Fathers), at least for the mundane evangelical objections.

Edited June 16, 2013 by BCSpace

[Kenngo1969]

Circumstances change, men have free will, and conditions in mortality often are less than ideal . The LDS view is that whatever role human-caused changed circumstances, men’s exercise of free will, and other mortal conditions played in man’s inability to carry out a command given by God, those responsible for such conditions will be answerable to God in the day of judgment. Perhaps the most fundamentalist, rigid view is that changing circumstances, man’s free will, and other mortal conditions don’t matter, and that if God commands His children to do something, He will insist that His commandment be obeyed regardless of whatever impediments may impede it, and God will hold those He has commanded (rather than those who thwarted them) accountable for not carrying out His commands. To me, the latter view doesn’t seem consistent with a merciful, loving God, while the former does. That’s why, from the LDS perspective, there is a need for continuing revelation (even if later revelation contradicts earlier revelation), modern prophets, and an open canon.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Vance]

Right, so the core difference in our principles of interpretation is that the LDS view new revelation (that is from an authoritative source) equal to Jesus being on earth again, as he was in the NT.

That would be correct.

And non-LDS don't believe that Jesus would ever contradict himself in that way.

That is a false dicotomy. It isn't that Jesus is contradicting himself. It is that you MISunderstand what he taught, and/or MISintrepret what he said.

[volgadon]

So, when the latter revelation conflicts with previous revelations or teachings, it's the latter Jesus not the former Jesus you follow.

This is where I see the core difference between the LDS and non-LDS stem from.

Now, here's the kicker. Where does this principle of interpretation come from? Why is the latter revelation more reliable than the former?

Well, why don't you follow the former revelation, IE, discard the parts of the NT in conflict with the much earlier HB?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Short answer, the Bible contradicts, "Biblical doctrine".

[volgadon]

Short answer, the Bible contradicts, "Biblical doctrine".

Well stated.

[Robert F. Smith]

Right, that is one way to say it I suppose. I'd say it differently.

So, when the latter revelation conflicts with previous revelations or teachings, it's the latter Jesus not the former Jesus you follow.

This is where I see the core difference between the LDS and non-LDS stem from.

Now, here's the kicker. Where does this principle of interpretation come from? Why is the latter revelation more reliable than the former?

Presumably, the latest revelation is for those hearing it in the here and now. That is, it applies to them, and not to some previous generation. An example which one Protestant preacher used in a meeting I attended was that of God's command to Noah to build an ark and get everybody on board. That is not the latest word in subsequent generations or nowadays. The same applies to God's word to Israel through Moses to pick up and leave Egypt. These are commands which are bound by time and circumstance.

Is one command more reliable than the other? No, but the revelation to be obeyed here and now is the latest one. Previous revelations were equally reliable, but often bound by time & circumstance and no longer applicable. Common sense might be helpful in figuring out how all this works in practice.

[Robert F. Smith]

Good question. There are certainly too many to list, at least in any coherent fashion as in perhaps which ones you should read first. You know I started out with the poorly written and poorly edited original "Day of Defense" and have amassed quite a collection since then. Even before that the Topical Guide was pretty helpful. But after long study and debate I have pretty much narrowed most of it down to the scriptures themselves, the doctrine in the manuals, and perhaps Strong's and Thayer's. It's rare now that I have to refer to an apologetic work (though I might refer someone else to the early Church Fathers), at least for the mundane evangelical objections.

Wasn't The Day of Defense first published in 1963? Have subsequent editions been kept up to date?

Here are a few suggestions for those who are not familiar with this genre of apologetic books:

Allis, Oswald T., The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its Critics (Phila.: Presbyterian & Reformed Publ., 1972). See especially pp. 37ff. on literary form.

Archer, Gleason L.,Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).

Arndt, William F., Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions, rev. ed., R. G. Hoerber and W. R. Roehrs, eds. (St. Louis: Concordia Publ., 1987), from Bible Difficulties and Does the Bible Contradict Itself? (1955).

Blomberg, Craig L., The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (IVP Academic, 2007).

​Cabal, Ted, ed., Apologetics Study Bible (Nashville: Holman Bible Publ., 2007).

Geisler, Norman L., and Thomas A. Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992/ reprint Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997).

Haley, John W., An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Andover, Mass., 1874/ London, 1875/ Nashville: Goodpasture, 1951/ Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977).

Jones, Hywel R., Edgar H. Andrews, and Ian H. Murray, The Bible Under Attack, three papers read at the 1977 Conference of the British Evangelical Council (Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press, 1978).

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996). Over 500 difficult passages.

Kitchen, Kenneth A., On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

Lindsell, Harold, The Battle for the Bible (Zondervan, 1976).

McDowell, Josh, and Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics are Asking About the Christian Faith (San Bernardino: Here’s Life, 1980) = Answers to Tough Questions: What Skeptics Are Asking About the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1993).

MOAN – “Mother of all Notebooks” = Apologetics Notebook, produced by The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, “Bible Difficulties,” 465-547; available online in pdf and MS Word formats (for $25) at http://www.C***.org/member/signup.php .

Pinnock, Clark H., A Defense of Biblical Infallibility, The Tyndale Lectures in Biblical Theology, 1966 (Phila.: Presbyterian & Reformed Publ., 1967).

Wright, N.T., The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God--Getting Beyond the Bible Wars (HarperCollins, 2005).

Yahuda, Abraham S., Accuracy of the Bible (London: Heinemann, 1934).

Edited June 17, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Kenngo1969]

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, not only would I have had to "Bible Bash" ™ to convince you, I would have actually had to win the "Bible Bash" ™? Why didn't I see that coming? I mean you absolutely no offense, but I'm sorry you seem to want your testimony handed to you on a silver platter, and/or prepackaged, all wrapped up neatly in a bow. Nobody can give you that, Tacenda. A testimony can't be bought off the shelf. Laman and Lemuel saw (and were gravely chastised by) angels, and they still weren't converted.

P.S.: This game seems rigged to me: It’s the Mormons who are placed at a disadvantage right out of the gate: we have to “prove this” and “prove that,” while detractors are privileged by being granted the huge assumption that the correctness of their interpretations somehow is self-evident? Please! Anybody else see a problem with this, or am I just a lone malcontent?

Edited June 17, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[urroner]

Earlier in the thread, somebody ask something about whether the Bible is inerrant or not and then asking about there being somewhere an inerrant interpretation of the Bible. There are also the questions of the Bible not only being inerrant, but it is also complete and if the doctrine of "sola scriptura" is true doctrine.

Just for the sake of argument, let assume that the Bible is complete and inerrant, then the question would be which version of the Bible is the complete and inerrant version or does it even matter? Which of the OT version is the inerrant version? Is it the MT? The Septuagint? How about some other version of the OT? Where do the Dead Sea Scrolls and other recently discovered ancient texts fit in or do they even matter? Also , which version of the inerrant version is the inerrant version? There are versions of the Septuagint which have additional scriptures and even books which other versions of the Sept don't have. Also, is the inerrant version written in Greek or Latin, or should it be in Hebrew and if so, which era of the Hebrew language?

How about the NT? Is it the Vulgate? The KJV? The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible? Some Slavonic version? How about some Coptic version of the NT? Are they all inerrant? Are any of them inerrant?

I go to the Bible Gateway site and there are only 44 different English versions of the Bible and there is a grand total of 162 versions of the Bible on that site. Is one of those the inerrant Bible? I also noticed that there were a lot of other versions of the Bible which were not included on that site. For example, I didn't see any of the Coptic versions or even the Ethiopian Orthodox version. Does that mean those versions not included on that site can't be inerrant?

Are there several different versions of the inerrant Bible?

Okay, taking it just one step further, let's assume that there is an inerrant interpretation of the Bible, then the question becomes, who is it that has the inerrant interpretation of the Bible and how did that person get that inerrant interpretation of the Bible? Having an inerrant Bible doesn't do anybody any good if the interpretation of it is not inerrant.

Can one have an inerrant or even a "pretty good" interpretation of the Bible if one doesn't understand the context of the text or does that even matter?

For example, Hebrews 13:16 in the KJV reads "But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." That looks pretty easy to interpret, but what does it mean "to do go" and what does it mean to "communicate"? The former might be a little difficult, so let's go with the latter, the "communicate" part.

I go to my handy dandy dictionary and look up the word "communicate." Dang, everybody knows what communicate means. It means to communicate, right? To talk with somebody, to express ideas. You know, we communicate to God through prayer, we communicate with spouses by listening and honestly expressing our thoughts respectfully and with love. That's where the sacrifice part comes in, right?

Nah, it has nothing to do with talking. It has to do with sharing things, more than just talking. That's what "communicate" can mean in archaic English, to share. Sometimes, if the Bible is left to interpret itself, if we just read it with an open mind (whatever that means.), the Bible sure can say some really different things to really different people with some of the things not agreeing with each other, OIOW, they contradict.

So, to boil everything down into a small nutshell, which I should have done at the very beginning, I think that before people go wagging their chins and flapping their jaws about how Mormon beliefs and doctrines contradict the Bible, I think that it's rather important that those same people need to be ready to explain upfront why their version of the Bible is inerrant, or maybe if it isn't, why not, and why the doctrine that those Mormon beliefs and doctrines contradict is also inerrant. That would be a good start. Also, what is meant by "inerrant?"

BTW, saying that the current Bible isn't inerrant, but the original autographs were is rather a silly argument. If the current Bible isn't inerrant, it's doesn't matter whether or not if the original autographs were inerrant to the discussion since those original autographs aren't any where to be found. Why did God lose such important things? He must not be all that powerful or maybe the Church back then knew that there were never any original autographs, but made up the story that they really did exist just to fool people.

[danielwoods]

That would be correct.

That is a false dicotomy. It isn't that Jesus is contradicting himself. It is that you MISunderstand what he taught, and/or MISintrepret what he said.

That's your interpretation then isn't it?

I posited that if Paul stated we should have but one wife, and then later there's a revelation that many wives are preferred, then obviously there is a conflict.

Your argument seems to be that Paul was misunderstood. And certainly at one time the LDS taught we should have many wives, and now they don't. So even if Paul was misunderstood, there is a conflict.

The greater point is about the principles of interpretation. Why is latter revelation preferred?

[danielwoods]

Well, why don't you follow the former revelation, IE, discard the parts of the NT in conflict with the much earlier HB?

I answered this already, because I follow Jesus.

[teddyaware]

So, not only would I have had to "Bible Bash" ™ to convince you, I would have actually had to win the "Bible Bash" ™? Why didn't I see that coming? I mean you absolutely no offense, but I'm sorry you seem to want your testimony handed to you on a silver platter, and/or prepackaged, all wrapped up neatly in a bow. Nobody can give you that, Tacenda. A testimony can't be bought off the shelf. Laman and Lemuel saw (and were gravely chastised by) angels, and they still weren't converted.

P.S.: This game seems rigged to me: It’s the Mormons who are placed at a disadvantage right out of the gate: we have to “prove this” and “prove that,” while detractors are privileged by being granted the huge assumption that the correctness of their interpretations somehow is self-evident? Please! Anybody else see a problem with this, or am I just a lone malcontent?

Well put! This very thing has held me in a state of perplexity for many years. By their very admission, non-LDS Christians admit there haven't been living prophets on the earth for nearly two millennia, yet their spin on doctrine and their expositions on the scriptures are spoken with all confidence and certitude as if they are the very living prophets whom they claim can no longer exist, Whence cometh this seeming inerrancy? Whence cometh this authority and knowledge to teach as if they were like unto Moses himself descending Mount Horeb, proclaiming to the people "thus saith the Lord?" Since by their own mouths they assuredly promise the world they are not prophets, why should anyone accept their understanding and teaching of holy things as if the are indeed prophets? Please don't tell me this inerrant authority comes from the Bible -- that's what they all say...

[urroner]

The greater point is about the principles of interpretation. Why is latter revelation preferred?

I have sons. When they were younger, I told them to do X. Later, since conditions had changed, I told them to do Y, which was not X. Should they still have done X or should they have done Y, which was not X.

Is God different in this respect that He will, at one time, say we need to do X, but when the situation has changed, He will then tell us to do Y or is He forced to still insist that we continue to do X because it's something He told us to do in the past?

[urroner]

I answered this already, because I follow Jesus.

How do you know you follow Jesus and not just following your own interpretation of what you think he said?

[3DOP]

Well put! This very thing has held me in a state of perplexity for many years. By their very admission, non-LDS Christians admit there haven't been living prophets on the earth for nearly two millennia, yet their spin on doctrine and their expositions on the scriptures are spoken with all confidence and certitude as if they are the very living prophets whom they claim can no longer exist, Whence cometh this seeming inerrancy? Whence cometh this authority and knowledge to teach as if they were like unto Moses himself descending Mount Horeb, proclaiming to the people "thus saith the Lord?" Since by their own mouths they assuredly promise the world they are not prophets, why should anyone accept their understanding and teaching of holy things as if the are indeed prophets? Please don't tell me this inerrant authority comes from the Bible -- that's what they all say...

Hi teddyaware.

With respect, that is NOT "what they all say". It is not even what most non-LDS Christians say. Inerrant authority does not derive from the Bible, but from God. St. Paul says very plainly, "Despise not prophesying," and while Catholics contend that subsequent revelation is subject to the Apostolic deposit, we also insist that God still speaks to us from heaven with timely messages that never contradict what the Apostles taught. As a Catholic I will only admit that no true prophet would overturn Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. I would never admit that prophecy is ended. Authentic prophecy has continued non-stop for 2,000 years and in fact, vivid and remarkable 19th and 20th Century prophecies, if I know myself well, are significant if not essential graces that confirm my faith in the Holy Catholic Church.

3DOP

Edited June 17, 2013 by 3DOP

[danielwoods]

I have sons. When they were younger, I told them to do X. Later, since conditions had changed, I told them to do Y, which was not X. Should they still have done X or should they have done Y, which was not X.

Is God different in this respect that He will, at one time, say we need to do X, but when the situation has changed, He will then tell us to do Y or is He forced to still insist that we continue to do X because it's something He told us to do in the past?

I asked, "at one time the LDS taught we should have many wives, and now they don't."

Why prefer the later revelation?

Your analogy doesn't apply to this situation.

[danielwoods]

How do you know you follow Jesus and not just following your own interpretation of what you think he said?

Because I have a relationship with him.

[Glenn101]

urroner, on 16 June 2013 - 10:01 PM, said: How do you know you follow Jesus and not just following your own interpretation of what you think he said?

Because I have a relationship with him.

So do I.

Glenn

[urroner]

Because I have a relationship with him.

Which leads to an endless set of questions that starts with "How do you know you have a relationship with him and not with your own interpretation of what you want him to be?"

Non-mormons have told me for a long time that I'm wrong if I can't "prove" that I'm right, yet, when i ask them to apply that same logic to their beliefs, they act like it's either not important for them to do so or that it just doesn't apply to their beliefs. They seem to be telling me that my beliefs demand a higher burden of proof then theirs do. Isn't there a double standard in there somewhere?

I too have a relationship with Christ, but are you willing to accept that as truth simply because I say I do?

[danielwoods]

urroner, on 16 June 2013 - 10:01 PM, said: How do you know you follow Jesus and not just following your own interpretation of what you think he said?

So do I.

Glenn

Praise God.

[danielwoods]

Which leads to an endless set of questions that starts with "How do you know you have a relationship with him and not with your own interpretation of what you want him to be?"

Non-mormons have told me for a long time that I'm wrong if I can't "prove" that I'm right, yet, when i ask them to apply that same logic to their beliefs, they act like it's either not important for them to do so or that it just doesn't apply to their beliefs. They seem to be telling me that my beliefs demand a higher burden of proof then theirs do. Isn't there a double standard in there somewhere?

I too have a relationship with Christ, but are you willing to accept that as truth simply because I say I do?

I am not the judge of your relationship with Christ. If you say you do, then I accept that at face value.

It doesn't get us any closer to an answer to the question I posed about the different principles of interpretation.

[Kenngo1969]

Which leads to an endless set of questions that starts with "How do you know you have a relationship with him and not with your own interpretation of what you want him to be?"

Non-mormons have told me for a long time that I'm wrong if I can't "prove" that I'm right, yet, when i ask them to apply that same logic to their beliefs, they act like it's either not important for them to do so or that it just doesn't apply to their beliefs. They seem to be telling me that my beliefs demand a higher burden of proof then theirs do. Isn't there a double standard in there somewhere?

I too have a relationship with Christ, but are you willing to accept that as truth simply because I say I do?

You just don't get it, Urroner! The truthfulness of [their interpretation of] the Holy Bible is self-evident, and the logic underlying their beliefs is, res ipsa loquitur, self-evident, as well!

[Kenngo1969]

Praise God.

Oh, don't say that! Glenn follows a False Jeeeezus!