Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[Kenngo1969]

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

Oh, don't say that to him, either! He follows the same false Jeeezus, too! :rofl:

[Kenngo1969]

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

Why prefer the later revelation? ...

Because we follow living prophets: the prophet who delivered the earlier revelation is dead, and the prophet who delivered the later revelation is living!

Edited June 17, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[danielwoods]

Because we follow living prophets: the prophet who delivered the earlier revelation is dead, and the prophet who delivered the later revelation is living!

Where is it taught that one should only follow the teachings of living prophets, not dead ones?

[Kenngo1969]

Where is it taught that one should only follow the teachings of living prophets, not dead ones?

Not, strictly speaking, only: if a living prophet reaffirms what was taught by a dead one, then such a teaching continues as part of our [open! ] canon. http://www.lds.org/t...ophets?lang=eng Edited June 17, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[urroner]

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.

At one time God told His people they were to abide by a certain commandment. This commandment was known as Commandment #1. This commandment was set by Revelation #1.

Times they are a-changin'. and the Lord says that Commandment #1 in no longer enforce, but his people are to abide by a new commandment. This commandment was known as Commandment #2. This new commandment is set by Revelation #2.

Time changes again and the Lord says that people were no longer had to abide by the Commandment #2, but he also gives a new commandment known as Commandment #3. This standard was set by Revelation #3

Which revelation should we prefer to abide by, Revelation #1. Revelation #2, or Revelation #3, and why?

I would choose the Revelation #3 because that is the latest revelation which God gave, and AFAIK, the Lord is still capable of overriding Revelation #3 with Revelation #4.

Now, you are probably asking, "what in the heck does any of this have to do with the price of rice in China?" and plural marriage.

Before the days of Moses, people lived by a set of commandments and doctrines given by God through His prophets. Moses cam along and during his days, some of those commandments and doctrines were replaced or even just dropped. During the time of Christ, some of the previous commandments which were still in effect given by those before the time of Moses and during the time of Moses, were replaced or dropped by new commandments and doctrines.

Many people insist that God is no longer capable of replacing or dropping any more commandments, that He is no longer capable, for whatever reason, of giving new revelation. It seems some people believe that some men got together in the middle part of the first millennium and decided that the Bible was closed and revelation has ceased.

I don't believe that. I believe that God is still very capable of giving new revelation to His children whenever He feels necessary and this revelation, like Revelation #2 and Revelation #3 can override a previous given commandment. I also feel that Revelation #1 very probably overrode a previous revelation.

You asked

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

Why prefer the later revelation?

I prefer to abide by the latest revelation which God has given for me to abide by whether that commandment is to have one wife, many wives, no wife, or whatever. Should a person prefer to abide by the latest revelation which God intended for that person to abide by or should that person insist upon abiding by a previous revelation which the Lord has revoked?

D&C 56:4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

[Avatar4321]

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.

Because building an ark wouldn't be as beneficial now as it was in Noah's days.

We have different challenges to deal with than Noah did. So why would God command us the same things He commanded Noah for his situation?

[Hamilton Porter]

I don't think Mormonism contradicts the Bible any more than the Bible contradicts itself.

People who think the Bible has no contradictions are uneducated.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Hamilton Porter

[Scott Lloyd]

Been absent from the board a few days, and this thread really took off after I started it and left, so I'll work through it as I can.

I'll take (1) Scott.

Well, Mudcat, I thank you for at least making a qualified statement.

"LDS doctrine disagrees with my interpretation of the Bible" is far more palatable to me as an assertion than the more absolutist and fatuous "LDS doctrine disagrees with the Bible."

If you can explain how the Bible agrees with Temple marriage, and it's compelling, I will likely interpret it otherwise.

If you're saying that the doctrine of eternal marriage cannot be supported by the Bible alone, I will readily agree with you.

However, that's not the question before us (at least it wasn't when I started this thread last week). What is in dispute is Tacenda's assertion that LDS doctrine contradicts the Bible. Within the framework of the Bible there is room for belief in eternal marriage; ergo, LDS doctrine does not contradict the Bible in this respect. This fails as an illustration.

If you say otherwise, it is you who bears the burden of proof: How, if at all, does the Bible preclude eternal marriage?

I will reiterate here what I've said repeatedly in the past: The unbiblical notion that the Bible is the exclusive repository of everything that is true is not a dogma that I embrace, nor do the Latter-day Saints.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[cdowis]

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?

"If the King James Bible was good enough for Peter and Paul, then it's certainly good enough for me."

Anyway, let's go back to the basics.

It starts with "the Bible" -- Peter didn't have one. The Bible has a front and back cover, which was unknown to the Peter and Paul. So the problem is not "which version" but the whole concept of the bible. If we were to discover in the sands of Egypt another epistle of Paul, and could verify it with certainty....... then what?

This is one of my "Questions to ask James White".

Edited June 17, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

Not, strictly speaking, only: if a living prophet reaffirms what was taught by a dead one, then such a teaching continues as part of our [open! ] canon. http://www.lds.org/t...ophets?lang=eng

Right, so the LDS doctrine (as revealed by LDS Leaders/Prophets) is that they are trustworthy sources, and they teach that the canon is open, and if it contradicts a previous teaching or revelation, then the latter is to be preferred.

This is a huge difference between the teaching of the Bible and the teachings from the LDS Doctrine. I noticed that your link only quoted the D&C, not any biblical text. If I had time, I would point out that the Biblical prophets of the OT (of which John the Baptist was the last) didn't contradict each other, though it may appear that way. In other words, at one time God didn't say marry many wives, and then say marry only one, and then again later, marry many again, as an example.

My view is that the large difference in viewpoints between the LDS and non-LDS stem from this difference in approach to interpretation, which is based on this LDS doctrine of preferring the latter revelation.

[Five Solas]

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....eternal&f=false

Much as I love to argue with you, volgadon, you've hit this one on the nose. Many LDS dispute the eternality of God as God (although they would say Jesus has always existed as an "intelligence").

So how do they harmonize their doctrines with the Bible? Exactly as you suggest--by appealing to words "philological meaning" and the Bible's "limited framework." And when their work is done, eternal no longer means what your dictionary tells you--it means its antonym.

And not just Biblical doctrines thereby reconciled, as you wrote: "LDS agree with evangelicals when it comes to God being eternal."

Except they don't. But sure looks good on the surface

;0)

--Erik

[Storm Rider]

Right, so the LDS doctrine (as revealed by LDS Leaders/Prophets) is that they are trustworthy sources, and they teach that the canon is open, and if it contradicts a previous teaching or revelation, then the latter is to be preferred.

This is a huge difference between the teaching of the Bible and the teachings from the LDS Doctrine. I noticed that your link only quoted the D&C, not any biblical text. If I had time, I would point out that the Biblical prophets of the OT (of which John the Baptist was the last) didn't contradict each other, though it may appear that way. In other words, at one time God didn't say marry many wives, and then say marry only one, and then again later, marry many again, as an example.

My view is that the large difference in viewpoints between the LDS and non-LDS stem from this difference in approach to interpretation, which is based on this LDS doctrine of preferring the latter revelation.

Daniel, how often did the prophets or the Apostles after Christ conflict with one another? Does the seeming approval of wives and concubines in one yet rejected by a later man of God invalidate God's early work? Which one takes precedence? Who says? You seem to have created a perfect world of scripture where God never contradicts himself ---- the issue is that God does not contradict himself, but he certainly has a different context depending on who he is talking to and what he is talking about. I will also state that I don't think there is any more conflict of what God has said today for the world and what he said at the time of Joseph, Peter, Daniel, Isaac, or Abraham. God is not some cookie cutter deity that seeks to operate in such a way that he is perfectly understood by man. He is infinite in his knowledge and wisdom and we do not understand his ways any more than a bug understands our ways as mortals. It is a problem when you try to put God in a box and then proclaim you know him. The reality is that we are on the front end of knowing him and his love and mercy toward all humanity; not just EVs, Catholics, LDS, or Orthodox; he works in the lives of all his children.

[Craig in Austin]

Right, so the LDS doctrine (as revealed by LDS Leaders/Prophets) is that they are trustworthy sources, and they teach that the canon is open, and if it contradicts a previous teaching or revelation, then the latter is to be preferred.

This is a huge difference between the teaching of the Bible and the teachings from the LDS Doctrine. I noticed that your link only quoted the D&C, not any biblical text. If I had time, I would point out that the Biblical prophets of the OT (of which John the Baptist was the last) didn't contradict each other, though it may appear that way. In other words, at one time God didn't say marry many wives, and then say marry only one, and then again later, marry many again, as an example.

My view is that the large difference in viewpoints between the LDS and non-LDS stem from this difference in approach to interpretation, which is based on this LDS doctrine of preferring the latter revelation.

Interesting discussion. Can I jump in here and share an example? This is a case where Jesus contradicts himself, and changes His commandment. It exists only in the Bible (only in the New Testament), and are words spoken by Jesus Himself.

Should those who are sent, go with purse or script, or should they go without purse or script? See Luke 10:4, and Luke 22:35-36.

This shows that God changes his commandments at times, based on conditions. But should an inerrant-sola-scriptura adherent struggle with this contradiction, since he can't obey both commandments? Of course not. But it is a case where God changes His mind, and changes a commandment.

To me, it really boils down to whether a person feels that God can no longer speak to His children, or that He is limited to what He said at one point in time.

[Tacenda]

There is a contradiction that is a biggie, or maybe not. The bible says Mary was a virgin when when she gave birth to Jesus. Our Mormon doctrine taught by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, James Talmage and Bruce McConkie, to name a few, say it wasn't a virgin birth. That men will becomes Gods is stemmed from this doctrine isn't it? Everything begins with it dosesn't it? I don't see any fuzzy lines or, to-each- his- own interpretations on this contradiction. Our church has not thrown out this doctrine, our whole doctrine is based on this fact. I had a discussion with my husband last night about it and he even goes by it and most LDS do and that is this scripture, "Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." I guess this scripture means to be a God one day. Which I'm sure to many non LDS Christian it doesn't mean that. But I've been enlightened in the last while to learn that some early Bible Scholars or belief systems actually believed the same. So that is where the "maybe not" in my first sentence comes in. So difficult this war of words and ideas of what the bible means.

[volgadon]

That men will becomes Gods is stemmed from this doctrine isn't it? Everything begins with it dosesn't it?

No.

[Tacenda]

"The Pearl of Great Price" [Abr.3:9,16] states that God the Father is now on a planet near the star Kolob, with His wives having spiritual children. But the Bible says, "Our Father which art in Heaven" [Matthew 6:9].

[volgadon]

"The Pearl of Great Price" [Abr.3:9,16] states that God the Father is now on a planet near the star Kolob, with His wives having spiritual children. But the Bible says, "Our Father which art in Heaven" [Matthew 6:9].

One, the BoA says nothing of wives. Two, unless Kolob is on the surface of our earth, I don't see how it contradicts God being in heaven.

[tagriffy]

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

I don't know about the LDS in general. I don't think most Latter-day Saints would perceive newer revelation as Jesus contradicting himself in that way either. For myself, I no longer believe in propositional revelation, so It isn't a matter of what Jesus might or might not do, or did or did not do. I try to let the authors speak for themselves, then seek an approach that makes the Scripture "gathered in one" (2 Nephi 29:14).

[tagriffy]

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?

It comes straight from the Bible. You said it yourself that if the New Testament contradicts the plain reading of the Old, you privilege the New. You might well state it differently, but you've already agreed to it in principle. Another reason latter revelation might be privileged (whether it is more reliable is a different matter) is precisely because latter revelation is given "after the manner of their language" (D&C 1:24).

[Tacenda]

One, the BoA says nothing of wives. Two, unless Kolob is on the surface of our earth, I don't see how it contradicts God being in heaven.

True, thanks.

[tagriffy]

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.

I like this. I think I'm going to incorporate it into my own responses.

[tagriffy]

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?

No. You are not alone. As I said in post #41, "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." The more I let my Mormonism sink in, the more I realized Evangelical criticisms from the Bible are simply irrelevant.

[Craig in Austin]

There is a contradiction that is a biggie, or maybe not. The bible says Mary was a virgin when when she gave birth to Jesus. Our Mormon doctrine taught by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, James Talmage and Bruce McConkie, to name a few, say it wasn't a virgin birth. That men will becomes Gods is stemmed from this doctrine isn't it? Everything begins with it dosesn't it? I don't see any fuzzy lines or, to-each- his- own interpretations on this contradiction. Our church has not thrown out this doctrine, our whole doctrine is based on this fact. I had a discussion with my husband last night about it and he even goes by it and most LDS do and that is this scripture, "Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." I guess this scripture means to be a God one day. Which I'm sure to many non LDS Christian it doesn't mean that. But I've been enlightened in the last while to learn that some early Bible Scholars or belief systems actually believed the same. So that is where the "maybe not" in my first sentence comes in. So difficult this war of words and ideas of what the bible means.

Over the years I have come to a different approach on issues like these. For the virgin birth, I understand that for some religions (Catholics, for example), the virgin birth is a Big Deal, and is intertwined with their concept of immaculate conception, original sin, etc It's interesting that, starting centuries after the New Testament books were written, very carefully worded creeds were formed to state an exact stance on issues like this, to differentiate themselves from other faiths, and to avoid "heresy". For example, whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone, or from both the Father and Christ, is a Big Deal, and was a major disagreement between the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic faiths. As I understand, the latest creed recited in the Catholic Mass now includes the term "consubstantial". Google that- it's another Big Deal. I suspect most people have no idea what the word "consubstantial" actually means (I don't), so is it important to claim it as a belief?

You notice that we don't recite creeds in the lds church. The closest thing we have are the Articles of Faith, which are pretty innocuous with respect to many of the historical major points of contention between the larger Christian faiths. For example, it doesn't even say much about the exact definition of the Trinity, which is a major issue between LDS and other Christian groups. My understanding is that there are many things that have not been revealed to us, or at least not very clearly, and it seems to me that creating rigid stances on these issues and contending over them is not something that Heavenly Father wants us to do, else He would have been clearer. Maybe God should work on His communication skills, if it means we'll burn in hell for all eternity for not reciting the correct creed. I focus on trying to understand how I should live my life, and try to become more like Jesus, which in turn hopefully means I would become more like Heavenly Father. What the next trillion trillion years will be like, I don't know exactly. But I don't think He really cares whether I chant the word "consubstantial" while I am alive.

[danielwoods]

It comes straight from the Bible. You said it yourself that if the New Testament contradicts the plain reading of the Old, you privilege the New. You might well state it differently, but you've already agreed to it in principle. Another reason latter revelation might be privileged (whether it is more reliable is a different matter) is precisely because latter revelation is given "after the manner of their language" (D&C 1:24).

False. I would argue that following Jesus' teaching is the fulfillment of the Mosaic law in total. So, while a Hebrew would argue that I'm all wet, I follow what Jesus taught. The new covenant of his blood.

When the LDS argue that new revelations are for new situations etc. that isn't the point I'm disagreeing with. Rather, it's the idea that completely contradictory teachings trump previous teachings based on the latter revelation being privileged (eg. the marriage issue). It is this idea that I don't see in the NT. And as I pointed out, the link to the LDS website only quotes the D&C, not the NT.

I understand that the LDS don't think that the Bible is the be all and end all of revelation. Which only makes the my point, that the principle of interpretation that the LDS use is different from non-LDS, which is why there is conflict when interpreting certain passages.

[volgadon]

False. I would argue that following Jesus' teaching is the fulfillment of the Mosaic law in total. So, while a Hebrew would argue that I'm all wet, I follow what Jesus taught. The new covenant of his blood.

And we would argue that following continuing revelation stemming from Jesus IS following Jesus in full.