Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[Ahab]

You don't have to forget the past, just don't bother with those who take the past and rewrite it to make it appear at its worse. Instead actually study the past, skip the middlemen and go directly to the original sources and read all of it, not just the cherrypicked and altered quotes.

Our history is not pristine, there is quite a bit of disturbing stuff there...as would be expected in my view in a church that is flooded with new converts all bringing baggage (some good, some not so good) from other faith traditions to a faith tradition that was neither throughly established or systematically establishing....leaving with us even today gaps in our revealed knowledge....and it's not like they were doing background checks on those who sought positions of leadership once the Church looked like it might be headed somewhere (too bad because they really could have used that with Bennett).

But if the only way you are willing to study history is through taking shortcuts, then I would say forget it, like many unfamiliar shortcuts they will be more likely to lead you astray than get you there...and that includes shortcuts created by faithful LDS as well as antis.

Ditto, and if you have the curiousity to check it out I suggest you get what is called the Personal Gospel Library, which has hundreds of books and volumes of books, including all of the standard works and what I suggest you read from beginning to end: History of the Church. I think you can get it for free on the internet now but if you have to buy it, like I did, it only costs about $40, and it's a very big bang for your buck. I have it all on a pocket PC so that I can whip it out and read it anytime and anywhere I have a mind to. You can download it to your smart phone too if you have one of those. Imagine having all of the knowledge from all of those books in the palm of your hand to read anytime you want it.

[Garden Girl]

Well, like fallible prophets, I'm a fallible woman. I'm not sure where I cut and pasted that, but will admit to doing that. I was in a hurry and needed to show that there is a contradiction in my view. The bible doesn't talk about Kolob and men becoming Gods. Therefore the snarky comment. I did show that in one of my replies that I was wrong about it showing wives in the Abraham scripture. And then when you wanted sources well, you know, I put in the info and came up with what I did in a hurry, I think it was an EV site that isn't fond of mormonism, so I should have taken a higher road.

I just didn't grow up like Cal or many others where the gospel was taught in depth or had a library with this information in it. Or my parents kept it from me. My mom even kept from me that I had polygamous ancestry and have just learned about my famous relatives in the Martin Handcart Company, the mother and daughter that found a freshly baked pie in the road.

I didn't even grow up with scripture reading in my home and never remember taking the scriptures to church. My family wasn't too spiritual that way, my dad never owned a set of scriptures.

Hello Tacenda...

I too am a fallible woman, more than I like to think about at times... but I did grow up in a home where we shared scripture reading and in depth teaching... You didn't, which is all the more reason for you to avoid the anti sites and concentrate on learning and truly understanding your faith from appropriate LDS sites, publications, etc etc. Then you won't be so easily doubting or confused when you "hear" or read things from anti sources. You will know where to go for accurate information and background... not some pseudo-interpretation by biased critics.

And, importantly, please don't feel "beat"... just continue to seek understanding through study and prayer, prticularly prayer...

GG

[Tacenda]

Hello Tacenda...

I too am a fallible woman, more than I like to think about at times... but I did grow up in a home where we shared scripture reading and in depth teaching... You didn't, which is all the more reason for you to avoid the anti sites and concentrate on learning and truly understanding your faith from appropriate LDS sites, publications, etc etc. Then you won't be so easily doubting or confused when you "hear" or read things from anti sources. You will know where to go for accurate information and background... not some pseudo-interpretation by biased critics.

And, importantly, please don't feel "beat"... just continue to seek understanding through study and prayer, prticularly prayer...

GG

Kind of interesting how we both ended up. Me, married in the temple and for almost 30 yrs., never once went inactive, held many callings, V.T.'g, GC watcher, Sabbath Day keeper (tried). But now have lost my testimony, or parts. In a way always felt like it was a check off list, I didn't want to disappoint anyone, mainly my husband and his family. Really envious of your previous life......sounds like freedom. Something in your childhood apparently stuck because look at you now.

ETA: don't want it to sound so bad, I have had a good life, maybe I needed all that structure for the rebellious person inside, that I probably am.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Tacenda

[danielwoods]

You here pointedly ignore my point that within the Bible itself we have a plethora of conflicting commands from God, including plural marriage is O.K. in one part of the Bible but not in a later part (according to your own interpretation). The same applies in Mormon doctrine -- plural marriage is O.K. if and only if God says it is, and it is not, when He says it is not. A sense of perspective is very important in doing exegesis, Daniel.

What you have interpreted as ignoring, actually is my active attempt at staying focused on the topic at hand.

I disagree that there are a plethora of conflicting commands from God, but that isn't the topic. So I haven't responded to that. I have pointed out that even in the LDS history, the latter revelation is preferred over the previous, if they conflict. And so this appears to me to be the core of the disagreement between LDS and Non-LDS interpretations of scripture.

For example, how we approach prophecies or new teachings is completely different based on this principle.

If someone stated that polygamy was now commanded by God, non-LDS Christians would not accept it. Even if this person claimed to be a prophet of God, and even if they did miracles and signs and wonders. Why is that? It's very simple. It conflicts with already understood and know teaching from God. New prophecies or teachings that conflict with the old are not true.

Now, if this particular someone was an LDS prophet, then the LDS would follow said prophet and his teachings, because of the principle of the latter revelation being preferred.

That in a nut shell is the reason we have the statements we have, like the one in the OP.

[danielwoods]

If he can contradict the practices he commanded prior to his mortality, when he was mortal, why can't he contradict himself now that he is immortal again? Is he somehow less of an authority or less inspirational or has less knowledge and desire to help mankind then when he was on earth? Why would a change in his current status make a difference if it didn't make a difference in the past.

It's an interesting question. And I think it gets the to the core of our differences.

What I understand is that Jesus established a new covenant with his blood. The whole, "Don't pour new wine into old wine skins" analogy, so in that case, Jesus did create a new system that conflicts with the old, with "You have heard that..., But I say..." statements in the sermon on the mount. However, in order for your argument to hold water, you'd have to say that each time Jesus/God gives a conflicting command/teaching/prophecy that he's creating a new covenant each time.

[danielwoods]

But Christ was no longer on the earth when Paul gave this statement so why are his words counted as revelation and later prophets are not?

Non-LDS view Paul as a prophet/teacher, "later prophets" who teach conflicting things are not seen as prophets.

Is it a conflict if you teach your children early in their lives to abstain from sex, but later on teach them it is okay in the context of marriage?

Of course not.

Edited June 19, 2013 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

But do you follow the Jesus who is the Messiah of the OT, the Jesus of the first part of the NT, the Christ of the second part of the NT after his death, or the Son of God that reigns in this day and age....or do you follow him at all times and if so, why do you privilege some of his commandments over others?

I'm thinking the question leads to another topic. I follow Jesus as best as I know how. That's all I know.

Because God stated you shall engage in plural marriage only when I command it, he wants us to listen to him when he speaks, not just go back and dig up his words to past cultures and individuals. He wants to have a relationship with us as well as with them. In Moses' time, he commanded them to practice it when necessary for levirate marriages, in Jacob of the BoM's time, he commanded them not to...so they didn't or were chastised by the prophets of their time; in Joseph Smith's time, he commanded them to do so, and those who didn't he chastised, and in our time, he has commanded us not to, so those that do are usually excommunicated.

I'm not familiar with God commanding polygamy to Moses? Can you provide a reference if you have time?

You have described the difference that I've pointed to. You state, "he wants us to listen to him when he speaks, not just go back and dig up his words to past cultures and individuals. He wants to have a relationship with us as well as with them."

I disagree that learning the scriptures, digging up his words in the past precludes one from having a relationship with him.

I was curious where the teaching comes from where in a conflict, the latter revelation is preferred?

[tagriffy]

What you have interpreted as ignoring, actually is my active attempt at staying focused on the topic at hand.

I disagree that there are a plethora of conflicting commands from God, but that isn't the topic. So I haven't responded to that. I have pointed out that even in the LDS history, the latter revelation is preferred over the previous, if they conflict. And so this appears to me to be the core of the disagreement between LDS and Non-LDS interpretations of scripture.

For example, how we approach prophecies or new teachings is completely different based on this principle.

If someone stated that polygamy was now commanded by God, non-LDS Christians would not accept it. Even if this person claimed to be a prophet of God, and even if they did miracles and signs and wonders. Why is that? It's very simple. It conflicts with already understood and know teaching from God. New prophecies or teachings that conflict with the old are not true.

Now, if this particular someone was an LDS prophet, then the LDS would follow said prophet and his teachings, because of the principle of the latter revelation being preferred.

That in a nut shell is the reason we have the statements we have, like the one in the OP.

The topic at hand is whether LDS doctrine contradicts the Bible. The conflicts within the Bible itself is an appropriate subtopic since those have to be addressed in assessing that question. You have also admitted that latter revelation is to be preferred in conflicts between Old and New Testaments yourself. Thus, the conflict isn't really between whether latter revelation is to be preferred. The real difference is between when LDS and non-LDS say revelation has ended.

[tagriffy]

I'm thinking the question leads to another topic. I follow Jesus as best as I know how. That's all I know.

I'm not familiar with God commanding polygamy to Moses? Can you provide a reference if you have time?

Deuteronomy 5:5 commands that the brother of deceased man without children marry the widow. If that person were already married, the other marriage would be polygamous.

[volgadon]

I was in a hurry and needed to show that there is a contradiction in my view. The bible doesn't talk about Kolob and men becoming Gods. Therefore the snarky comment.

We need to realise that there are contradictions and then there are things unmentioned, but which do not contradict. If you'll forgive me the earthiness of this example, none of the gospels describe Jesus as defecating. We can all accept that he did- life is life- and this would not be considered a contradiction.

I did show that in one of my replies that I was wrong about it showing wives in the Abraham scripture.

Which I think does you credit, at least in my book.

[Kenngo1969]

I gave you a rep point for this post... but I meant the "cherry picked/out of context" part... in fairness to Tacenda, the quotes do represent statements made in the past and have elements of doctrine... for instance the statement by Joseph Smith that if we remain faithful Mormons (i.e., living the gospel fully) we have the potential to become a god...

In our Gospel Principles manual, the chapter on Exaltation, page 277, lists the blessings of exaltation, including living eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Christ (D&C 76:59), becoming gods (D&C 132:20-23, being united with righteous family members, receiving a fulness of joy, and having everything our Heavenly Father and Jesus have.

GG

Perhaps this is a distinction without a difference, but I said we don't accept the sources as doctrine, not that we don't accept the teachings as doctrine. There's a difference. If, for example, the current Gospel Principles manual quotes something Brigham Young said, and sources it to the Journal of Discourses, then we accept the teaching as doctrinal but not the source as doctrinal.

[Robert F. Smith]

Non-LDS view Paul as a prophet/teacher, "later prophets" who teach conflicting things are not seen as prophets.

I understand where you're coming from However, great non-LDS scholars such as Eduard Meyer and Harold Bloom do consider Joseph Smith to be a prophet in the Classical OT tradition, just as some Jewish scholars (Claude Montefiore) see Jesus as a traditional OT prophet. Such estimates are often in the eye of the beholder, and even more often depend on apriori assumptions. One really needs to define what a prophet is and does.

[danielwoods]

The topic at hand is whether LDS doctrine contradicts the Bible. The conflicts within the Bible itself is an appropriate subtopic since those have to be addressed in assessing that question. You have also admitted that latter revelation is to be preferred in conflicts between Old and New Testaments yourself. Thus, the conflict isn't really between whether latter revelation is to be preferred. The real difference is between when LDS and non-LDS say revelation has ended.

Volumes have been written on the topic of apparent biblical contradictions or conflicts. For me to attempt to answer them all would be a fools errand.

What I have admitted is that I follow the teachings of the Jesus, contained and explained by the writers of the NT. They contradict and conflict with the OT on many points. Again, not relevant to the idea of preferring a latter revelation.

Non-LDS also believe in revelation, just not revelation that contradicts the teachings found in the NT. So no, I disagree with your final point.

[volgadon]

What I have admitted is that I follow the teachings of the Jesus, contained and explained by the writers of the NT. They contradict and conflict with the OT on many points. Again, not relevant to the idea of preferring a latter revelation.

What are they, then, if not later revelations?

[danielwoods]

Deuteronomy 5:5 commands that the brother of deceased man without children marry the widow. If that person were already married, the other marriage would be polygamous.

Thanks. It's actually 25:5.

The interesting thing is that it isn't polygamy that is being commanded, but the "brother in law's duty" for the purpose of continuing the dead man's family name.

[tagriffy]

Volumes have been written on the topic of apparent biblical contradictions or conflicts. For me to attempt to answer them all would be a fools errand.

You're right about that.

What I have admitted is that I follow the teachings of the Jesus, contained and explained by the writers of the NT. They contradict and conflict with the OT on many points. Again, not relevant to the idea of preferring a latter revelation.

How is it not relevant? If you follow the teachings of Jesus over its contradictions to the Old Testament, then you are clearly preferring a latter revelation. If you really judged the new by the old, you'd stick to Torah--and probably not much else.

Non-LDS also believe in revelation, just not revelation that contradicts the teachings found in the NT. So no, I disagree with your final point.

Disagree all you want; doesn't make it any less true.

[tagriffy]

Thanks. It's actually 25:5.

The interesting thing is that it isn't polygamy that is being commanded, but the "brother in law's duty" for the purpose of continuing the dead man's family name.

Sorry about the typo; I should have double checked before posting. In any case, that brother-in-law's duty could wind up forcing polygamy on the man. That was calmoriah's point.

[danielwoods]

I understand where you're coming from However, great non-LDS scholars such as Eduard Meyer and Harold Bloom do consider Joseph Smith to be a prophet in the Classical OT tradition, just as some Jewish scholars (Claude Montefiore) see Jesus as a traditional OT prophet. Such estimates are often in the eye of the beholder, and even more often depend on apriori assumptions. One really needs to define what a prophet is and does.

It's always important to challenge ones own assumptions. I don't, however think the definition of a prophet is that difficult. He/She speaks for God. If they don't speak the words of God (as evidenced by their fruits or teaching error which conflicts with known truth) then they aren't who they claim to be.

[danielwoods]

What are they, then, if not later revelations?

They are, but that's not all they are. They are an establishment of a new covenant.

[danielwoods]

You're right about that.

How is it not relevant? If you follow the teachings of Jesus over its contradictions to the Old Testament, then you are clearly preferring a latter revelation. If you really judged the new by the old, you'd stick to Torah--and probably not much else.

Disagree all you want; doesn't make it any less true.

Not entirely sure I'm communicating effectively.

If I really judged the new by the old, I'd stick to the Torah. Uh... right. If I was Jewish, then you'd have a point.

[tagriffy]

Not entirely sure I'm communicating effectively.

If I really judged the new by the old, I'd stick to the Torah. Uh... right. If I was Jewish, then you'd have a point.

We may not be. I just don't see any effective difference between preferring the NT over the old and preferring modern revelation over the ancient.

[Robert F. Smith]

What you have interpreted as ignoring, actually is my active attempt at staying focused on the topic at hand.

I see it as a wiley attempt to avoid the reductio ad absurdum which is your basic argument. You ignore any evidence which damages your false claims.

I disagree that there are a plethora of conflicting commands from God, but that isn't the topic. So I haven't responded to that.

How convenient. Such a position enables you to make a false statement and not have to support it, while you know very well that this is a major issue in evangelicalism -- my booklist above should have made that plain.

I have pointed out that even in the LDS history, the latter revelation is preferred over the previous, if they conflict. And so this appears to me to be the core of the disagreement between LDS and Non-LDS interpretations of scripture.

False. The debate and decision is always based on the will of the Lord in Mormonism, and this was the same rule in ancient Israel, as well as in the NT Church. Sequential order does not pertain, although it may accompany such decision-making. Thus, St Peter is not concerned with whether the new rule on what may be eaten is the latest revelation, but on whether it is the will of the Lord. Naturally those who favor observance of Jewish kashrut will attack him for following the latest revelation (in their view a false revelation), but that is not what he is doing. This applies as well to circumcision, or any other rite or observance which the Lord orders be placed in abeyance. The Lord's prophets are always concerned first and foremost with obedience to the Lord, not with sequence of commands.

For example, how we approach prophecies or new teachings is completely different based on this principle.

If someone stated that polygamy was now commanded by God, non-LDS Christians would not accept it. Even if this person claimed to be a prophet of God, and even if they did miracles and signs and wonders. Why is that? It's very simple. It conflicts with already understood and know teaching from God. New prophecies or teachings that conflict with the old are not true.

.

In other words, the first objective of today's false "christians" is not obedience, but adherence to some set orthodoxy. The Classical OT prophets constantly inveighed against just such an establishmentarian view. Likewise for Jesus and his Apostles. They put obedience to God first, and the regulations of the scribes and pharisees second.

Now, if this particular someone was an LDS prophet, then the LDS would follow said prophet and his teachings, because of the principle of the latter revelation being preferred.

Brother Brigham didn't like the sheeplike attitude of followers. He stated publicly that the Mormon people had to know of themselves what the will of God was on any particular matter. He preferred that the people seek confirmation through the Holy Spirit of any revelation or policy. I recommend that you visit an LDS congregation on the first Sunday of the month and observe the Fast & Testimony Meeting. No one ever talks about following the latest revelation, but rather they bear testimony of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and express thankfulness for modern prophets of God. I Sam 15:22, "To obey is better than sacrifice," i.e., the Lord would prefer an obedient people than to have burnt offerings made in His name -- even though He Himself ordered those sacrifices. Obedience to the Lord is uppermost in the LDS mind and heart. The Mormons have paid dearly for that commitment through persecutions by so-called "chrsitians" which continue even today.

[danielwoods]

Sorry about the typo; I should have double checked before posting. In any case, that brother-in-law's duty could wind up forcing polygamy on the man. That was calmoriah's point.

Right. I understood that was the intended point. I disagree that it actually is commanding polygamy for the sake of polygamy, as established by Joseph Smith, and then rescinded. In other words, the intent was much different. The polygamy that might have resulted, wasn't the goal of the command.

[danielwoods]

We may not be. I just don't see any effective difference between preferring the NT over the old and preferring modern revelation over the ancient.

That is interesting.

The difference between the OT and the NT is Jesus is the Messiah or not. Jewish faith certainly rejects Jesus as Messiah.

The difference between the LDS and Non-LDS is modern revelation (that comes from the LDS) true or not? IF all christians thought the LDS prophets were true, they'd be LDS.

[tagriffy]

Right. I understood that was the intended point. I disagree that it actually is commanding polygamy for the sake of polygamy, as established by Joseph Smith, and then rescinded. In other words, the intent was much different. The polygamy that might have resulted, wasn't the goal of the command.

Neither calmoriah nor I asserted as much. As I read it, calmoriah was more or less just discussing the history of God's commandments related to polygamy. I just provided the (mistyped) reference you asked for.