Are The Scriptures Infallible?

[Calm]

Brigham Young once expressed the opinion that the creation story in Genesis was a fable and myth, but that didn't stop him from portraying it in the temple as a tool to teach the Plan of Salvation.

He even used the term "baby stories"

[Freedom]

I don't know why you didn't go ahead and provide a definition of scripture, yourself, but I'll give you one to chew on.

Infallibility refers to not having any weakness or problem, and fallibility refers to having some sort of weakness or problem.

Now can you see any weakness or problem with any words that were written by men as they were inspired by God to write them?

If knowing God or becoming like God or knowing what God thinks about something was as easy as reading the scriptures, heck, nobody who read them would have any problem understanding God or becoming as perfect as he is, but that's not what we see in this world. Lots of people have conflicting ideas about what the scriptures are saying, and some don't even know God inspired the people who wrote them.

This discussion is not what scripture is but rather if scripture is infallible. I know of no doctrinal foundation for such a claim. You have provided some interesting speculation on what infallibility is but no evidence that your opinion has any application to scripture. So again I would ask, where is the evidence that this question should even be asked?

[halconero]

He even used the term "baby stories"

You know what? I kind of like that...like...in a testimony strengthening way.

You tell stories to a child to comfort them, teach them morals, help them understand something. What we have in the scriptures and the temple is a story adapted for spiritual children. The story is a simplified version of truth, but helps us understand our selves and something beyond what we can comprehend.

[halconero]

This discussion is not what scripture is but rather if scripture is infallible. I know of no doctrinal foundation for such a claim. You have provided some interesting speculation on what infallibility is but no evidence that your opinion has any application to scripture. So again I would ask, where is the evidence that this question should even be asked?

Would the eighth article of faith work?

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

I might not be understanding where you're coming from, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you lumping in the parts that have been mistranslated, construed or corrupted in with scripture? If so, then yes, scripture is fallible. For myself personally I would only consider the writings in line with the word and will of God to be scripture, and if that is the case I would not consider it fallible.

I would also take D&C 1: 37-38 to be a declaration of infallibility with the regards to the fact that the spoken or written word of God will all be fulfilled, be it a prophecy, commandment or principle:

37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Edited June 26, 2013 by halconero

[Freedom]

Would the eighth article of faith work?

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

I might not be understanding where you're coming from, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you lumping in the parts that have been mistranslated, construed or corrupted in with scripture? If so, then yes, scripture is fallible. For myself personally I would only consider the writings in line with the word and will of God to be scripture, and if that is the case I would not consider it fallible.

I would also take D&C 1: 37-38 to be a declaration of infallibility with the regards to the fact that the spoken or written word of God will all be fulfilled, be it a prophecy, commandment or principle:

37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

None of these references say anything about infallibility. The scriptures are the word of God and they are true and faithful. I am true and faithful, but that does not make me infallible. If you are going to argue that the scriptures are infallible, you would have to provide a scripture that says they are infallible.

[Stroopwafel]

Let's use the following definition(s) of the term infallible:

1: incapable of error : unerring <an infallible memory>

2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain <an infallible remedy>

3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

So now, specifically asking about LDS scriptures (as does the OP), and holding that they are indeed not infallible: do we have instances (verses) to support this view?

Methinks we'll end up with something along the lines of this saying going around: "The pope is infallible, but no one believes it; the LDS president is fallible, but no one believes it."

P.S. Just pointing something out: when we say the scriptures are infallible, we are not at the same time saying they are inherent.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Stroopwafel

[3DOP]

Dr. Peterson recently wrote an article about Cardinal Newman, a well known Anglican convert to the Catholic Church, who at the time of the defining of papal infallibility, had misgivings, not about whether it was true, but about whether it would be understood correctly. Infallibility does not mean that everything is precisely true. Infallibility only means that nothing is certainly false. To be void of error is not the same as to be 100% full of truth.

The more ambiguous any data, the more difficult it is to propose error. Literature is by nature ambiguous. Is Homer fallible because he wrote about legends or myths? Is Shakespeare fallible because of poetic license? In mathematics it is easy to detect error because math is precise. If one looks for mathematical precision in non-mathematical documentation it might prove disappointing, but it doesn't prove error. It proves an incorrect approach to non-mathematical documents.

[thesometimesaint]

First thought coming to mind upon reading the question: the scriptures are not infallible.

Now, thinking a bit more about this... What do we mean exactly by infallible? or rather, do we understand what this entails?

I'd ask, for those saying that the scriptures are not infallible (that includes myself!): CFR!

If the scriptures are indeed fallible, then one would think there would be some instances, i.e., actual verses, where we can say "this particular scripture here is definitely in error".

Haven't yet looked up for examples, but from the onset, I'd say it will be hard to find one where everyone will agree it is completely in error. Well, maybe not so hard if it comes from the Bible, as we know it has factual errors and some other quirks and stuff. But from the standard works, well, I'd be curious what passage from the BofM/D&C/PofGP could be considered to actually be "in error".

The Bible makes no such claim for itself, and there are plenty of errors in it.

http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/12/30/bible-errors-and-contradictions/

LDS Scriptures allows for the errors of men.

See Title Page of Book of Mormon

...And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

And Articles of Faith.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

[Ahab]

This discussion is not what scripture is but rather if scripture is infallible. I know of no doctrinal foundation for such a claim. You have provided some interesting speculation on what infallibility is but no evidence that your opinion has any application to scripture. So again I would ask, where is the evidence that this question should even be asked?

That was interesting. I suppose I wrote the word "scripture" instead of "infallibility" because my mind was on the question of whether or not the scriptures are infallible, but everything I said is applicable if you substitute the word "infallible" for the first instance that I used the word "scripture".

I don't know why you didn't go ahead and provide a definition of scripture infallible, yourself, but I'll give you one to chew on.

Infallibility refers to not having any weakness or problem, and fallibility refers to having some sort of weakness or problem.

Now can you see any weakness or problem (fallibility) with any words that were written by men as they were inspired by God to write them?

If knowing God or becoming like God or knowing what God thinks about something was as easy as reading the scriptures, heck, nobody who read them would have any problem understanding God or becoming as perfect as he is, but that's not what we see in this world. Lots of people have conflicting ideas about what the scriptures are saying, and some don't even know God inspired the people who wrote them.

[Stroopwafel]

The Bible makes no such claim for itself, and there are plenty of errors in it.

http://www.freethoug...contradictions/

LDS Scriptures allows for the errors of men.

See Title Page of Book of Mormon

...And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

And Articles of Faith.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

No problem with what you're saying.

However, although that article of faith is explicitely allowing for errors of men with regards to the Bible, it doesn't with the BofM.

Granted we allow for the errors of men, but do we actually have instances of where such errors are committed in, let's say for our purpose, the Book of Mormon?

First, what kind of "mistakes" is the title page referring to?

Then, if there are, what are they?

Also, if there are but we don't know where/what they are, will we ever know? (that would be important)

And finally, if there are none, then why do we still hold that the BofM is not infallible?

I know we say we allow for the errors/mistakes of men, but if it has been shown that nowhere in the BofM is a passage that we could definitely identify as "a mistake of men", then why continue saying it? What I'm interested in is a genuine example of a "mistake of men" in the scriptures so that we can make this statement not an empty one.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Stroopwafel

[thesometimesaint]

I'm fine with God that provides inspiration, but inspiration doesn't equate to infallible. Nothing man touches is infallible even if God inspired. IE; I believe God inspired Beethoven, but Beethoven wasn't infallible.

[thesometimesaint]

No problem with what you're saying.

However, although that article of faith is explicitely allowing for errors of men with regards to the Bible, it doesn't with the BofM.

Granted we allow for the errors of men, but do we actually have instances of where such errors are committed in, let's say for our purpose, the Book of Mormon?

First, what kind of "mistakes" is the title page referring to?

Then, if there are, what are they?

Also, if there are but we don't know where/what they are, will we ever know? (that would be important)

And finally, if there are none, then why do we still hold that the BofM is not infallible?

I know we say we allow for the errors/mistakes of men, but if it has been shown that nowhere in the BofM is a passage that we could definitely identify as "a mistake of men", then why continue saying it? What I'm interested in is a genuine example of a "mistake of men" in the scriptures so that we can make this statement not an empty one.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=768

[Freedom]

I don't know why you didn't go ahead and provide a definition of scripture infallible, yourself, but I'll give you one to chew on.

Infallibility refers to not having any weakness or problem, and fallibility refers to having some sort of weakness or problem.

It is not possible to provide a definition in relationship to the scriptures if one does not exist. If we are going to apply a standard of infallibility to the scriptures, we must turn to the scriptures to find out how it would be defined. The scriptures claim the complete opposite. So it comes back to my example of whether the scribes were left or right handed. The scriptures are silent in the issue so making assumptions amounts to a personal opinion without any any evidence. This is an example of the apostate religions fabricating a doctrine to justify their existence. If the bible is fallible, the entire protestant movement falls apart. Because the true religion includes revelation through living prophets, there is no need for infallibility.

[Ahab]

It is not possible to provide a definition in relationship to the scriptures if one does not exist. If we are going to apply a standard of infallibility to the scriptures, we must turn to the scriptures to find out how it would be defined. The scriptures claim the complete opposite. So it comes back to my example of whether the scribes were left or right handed. The scriptures are silent in the issue so making assumptions amounts to a personal opinion without any any evidence. This is an example of the apostate religions fabricating a doctrine to justify their existence. If the bible is fallible, the entire protestant movement falls apart. Because the true religion includes revelation through living prophets, there is no need for infallibility.

The question is simply: Are the scriptures infallible?

My answer to that is that No they are not, because the words which constitute scripture have multiple meanings which allow for misunderstandings/misinterpretations, and to get past that problem requires something more than only the words in the scriptures, alone. That is the problem/weakness with the scriptures, and it is what makes them fallible. Not because people can be in error, but because the words have multiple meanings and we need some way to know how to understand the words which are used to convey what God had in mind when he inspired the various people who wrote those words.

[Bikeemikey]

The question is simply: Are the scriptures infallible?

My answer to that is that No they are not, because the words which constitute scripture have multiple meanings which allow for misunderstandings/misinterpretations, and to get past that problem requires something more than only the words in the scriptures, alone. That is the problem/weakness with the scriptures, and it is what makes them fallible. Not because people can be in error, but because the words have multiple meanings and we need some way to know how to understand the words which are used to convey what God had in mind when he inspired the various people who wrote those words.

Isnt that wresting the scriptures?

Is it not easier to say that given prophets are fallible it is also possible what they write down could be fallible also? Or is a fallible prophet always in fallible in writing?

[Ahab]

Isnt that wresting the scriptures?

Is it not easier to say that given prophets are fallible it is also possible what they write down could be fallible also? Or is a fallible prophet always in fallible in writing?

Words, themselves, are fallible, and there is no such thing as an infallible word because all words can be misunderstood.

That doesn't mean God doesn't mean what he means when he says what he says, though. It's just that we need more than words to understand what he means when he says what he says.

[Bikeemikey]

Words, themselves, are fallible, and there is no such thing as an infallible word because all words can be misunderstood.

That doesn't mean God doesn't mean what he means when he says what he says, though. It's just that we need more than words to understand what he means when he says what he says.

So Prophets are not fallible they may just use the wrong words, or use words that we misunderstand... so prophets are infallible, though they seem fallible due to weakness on the part of the audience?

[Ahab]

So Prophets are not fallible they may just use the wrong words, or use words that we misunderstand... so prophets are infallible, though they seem fallible due to weakness on the part of the audience?

Rephrase, please. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

What I'm saying is that words, themselves, are not perfect or complete in allowing people to share their thoughts with each other, so we need something more than only words, like common experiences, wisdom, and intelligence. Good grammar techniques also helps some people sometimes, too.

[Bikeemikey]

Rephrase, please. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

What I'm saying is that words, themselves, are not perfect or complete in allowing people to share their thoughts with each other, so we need something more than only words, like common experiences, wisdom, and intelligence. Good grammar techniques also helps some people sometimes, too.

Are you shifting the fallibility of prophets to a more general idea inherent language fallibility? That is, are you saying prophets are never fallible in substance of their expression, only in the quality of the expression itself?

[Ahab]

Are you shifting the fallibility of prophets to a more general idea inherent language fallibility? That is, are you saying prophets are never fallible in substance of their expression, only in the quality of the expression itself?

No, I wasn't saying that. I was talking about the fallibility of the words in the scriptures, themselves.

Prophets, by definition, are people who speak for God by the power of the inspiration God gives them, and to correctly understand what they mean when they say what they say it is necessary to correctly understand what God meant when he inspired a prophet to speak for him.

The only common link I see between both prophets and scripture is that words alone are not enough to correctly understand them.

[Bikeemikey]

No, I wasn't saying that. I was talking about the fallibility of the words in the scriptures, themselves.

Prophets, by definition, are people who speak for God by the power of the inspiration God gives them, and to correctly understand what they mean when they say what they say it is necessary to correctly understand what God meant when he inspired a prophet to speak for him.

The only common link I see between both prophets and scripture is that words alone are not enough to correctly understand them.

I fully agree with your thoughts on this.

I also think Prophets can also be fallible by writing down or saying something that God has not said. They do so when they speak their opinions. The challenge is they may not always be aware when they are doing this.

[Ahab]

I also think Prophets can also be fallible by writing down or saying something that God has not said. They do so when they speak their opinions. The challenge is they may not always be aware when they are doing this.

When they do that they're not acting as prophets, though.

Again, by definition, prophets are people who speak for God by the power of the inspiration God gives them. If they're giving their personal opinion, and it's not something God has inspired them to share as his thoughts or opinion, then they're only speaking as men and not for God and thus they are not speaking as a prophet.

[Bikeemikey]

When they do that they're not acting as prophets, though.

Again, by definition, prophets are people who speak for God by the power of the inspiration God gives them. If they're giving their personal opinion, and it's not something God has inspired them to share as his thoughts or opinion, then they're only speaking as men and not for God and thus they are not speaking as a prophet.

Yes, I also agree with this. The question of relevance to religious believers is not can the mantle (role) of prophet be fallible. That is a tautology in some respects, as the mantle of prophet is about speaking for God. The question is can the person who is prophet be fallible in two senses: A) can they be fallible when they are not speaking as a prophet and B) can they think they are speaking as a prophet and not be.

I believe the answer to both is yes.

Added to that is your already stipulated belief that even when they are speaking as prophets there is still the barrier of language that layers additional issues of fallible perception.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Ahab]

Yes, I also agree with this. The question of relevance to religious believers is not can the mantle (role) of prophet be fallible. That is a tautology in some respects, as the mantle of prophet is about speaking for God. The question is can the person who is prophet be fallible in two senses: A) can they be fallible when they are not speaking as a prophet and B) can they think they are speaking as a prophet and not be.

I believe the answer to both is yes.

Added to that is your already stipulated belief that even when they are speaking as prophets there is still the barrier of language that layers additional issues of fallible perception.

I think we're pretty much in total agreement, but that barrier you're talking about can be overcome as we receive the same inspiration the prophet received from God when God inspired them to write what they wrote. And thus we become prophets too by sharing what God has told us, even though someone may still not correctly understand what we meant.

[Freedom]

The question is simply: Are the scriptures infallible?

My answer to that is that No they are not, because the words which constitute scripture have multiple meanings which allow for misunderstandings/misinterpretations, and to get past that problem requires something more than only the words in the scriptures, alone. That is the problem/weakness with the scriptures, and it is what makes them fallible. Not because people can be in error, but because the words have multiple meanings and we need some way to know how to understand the words which are used to convey what God had in mind when he inspired the various people who wrote those words.

But of course this your own definition of fallibility. If we rely on revelation and the teachings of modern prophets, your position weakens because we are provided the proper context. I just don't think it is a point of view that can be argued any more than we can argue through the scriptures the veracity of the theory of evolution. The book of Mormon, for example, is considered the most correct books in terms of precepts. We could go after the grammar, punctuation, chronology and all sorts of possible errors, but this is like taking a bicycle and calling it fallible because it does not float.