halconero Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Just a thought I had as I was studying the scriptures the other day, and more specifically the Book of Mormon. Often times we as a people will scoff at the Protestant view of the Bible as the inerrant and complete Word of God. Are we not guilty at times of being open to errors in that canonical work, but not in the others? I fear that we treat the Book of Mormon, or the other revelations that we have included in the Standard Works as perfect, complete and whole. What's ironic is that the books themselves do not make that same claim. The Book of Mormon adds a clause to its preface stating that if there are errors in the book, they are not the errors of God, but man. This leaves ample room to accept an incomplete, imperfect scripture. 3
carbon dioxide Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Just a thought I had as I was studying the scriptures the other day, and more specifically the Book of Mormon. Often times we as a people will scoff at the Protestant view of the Bible as the inerrant and complete Word of God. Are we not guilty at times of being open to errors in that canonical work, but not in the others? I fear that we treat the Book of Mormon, or the other revelations that we have included in the Standard Works as perfect, complete and whole. What's ironic is that the books themselves do not make that same claim. The Book of Mormon adds a clause to its preface stating that if there are errors in the book, they are not the errors of God, but man. This leaves ample room to accept an incomplete, imperfect scripture.That may happen sometimes but I think generally we are far more accepting of errors in the scriptures here and there than the Bible inerrant people. We don't have to fear the thought that if there is an error found in the scriptures that it brings the whole house down. It like if we find an error in a math book on page 48, does that mean the whole math book is junk and we throw the whole out? We note the error, accept its existence, and still use the book. We however should examine the claim in full and not just accept it is an error because someone claims it is. It still needs to be proven that its an error. Edited January 18, 2015 by carbon dioxide
Stroopwafel Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Interesting! Members collectively do tend to treat the standard works (minus the Bible) as you're suggesting (perfect, complete, and whole), and "treat" seems like the right word, in that it highlights the implicit nature of that attitude. It is one thing to hold that there may be errors and mistakes in the scriptures, and it is another to actually recognize and admit the particular errors and mistakes. To me, the next question of interest would be: what kind of error, incomplete information, and imperfection are members then ready to acknowledge? Are we talking doctrine wise, or about mistakes in the account of events (such as errors in numbers, or in names, or in the description of events...). 1
Calm Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Just a thought I had as I was studying the scriptures the other day, and more specifically the Book of Mormon. Often times we as a people will scoff at the Protestant view of the Bible as the inerrant and complete Word of God. Are we not guilty at times of being open to errors in that canonical work, but not in the others? I have thought we should just include all scripture with the Bible in the Article of Faith that talks about it rather than treating the BoM as a different standard in regard to translation. When I am teaching that Article of Faith I point out what you have mentioned about the errors of men, etc. Granted the Bible went through a different process, but all the books are the Word of God only in as far as they are translated correctly…there may be less errors in the BoM and others because there was less times they had to be updated, but the qualification applies whether a scripture has been worked on by hundreds or thousands of people over thousands of times or one time by one man.
thesometimesaint Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Interesting! Members collectively do tend to treat the standard works (minus the Bible) as you're suggesting (perfect, complete, and whole), and "treat" seems like the right word, in that it highlights the implicit nature of that attitude. It is one thing to hold that there may be errors and mistakes in the scriptures, and it is another to actually recognize and admit the particular errors and mistakes. To me, the next question of interest would be: what kind of error, incomplete information, and imperfection are members then ready to acknowledge? Are we talking doctrine wise, or about mistakes in the account of events (such as errors in numbers, or in names, or in the description of events...). It's a two edged swords. If you don't recognize the errors then you're an inerrantist. Definitely something the LDS aren't. If you recognize the errors and point them out, you're an atheist. Edited January 18, 2015 by thesometimesaint
JLHPROF Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 I posted something about this spectrum of members in another thread. We have those who cling to the inerrancy of the four standard works as though the prophets who wrote them were more perfect and accurate than those today. We have those who would follow the living prophet even to the point of ignoring a contradictory scripture. Personally I like to dance around the middle - prophets in the scriptures had opinions and made mistakes/prophets today have opinions and made mistakes. What we are looking for is the consistency of teaching.
BCSpace Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 This leaves ample room to accept an incomplete, imperfect scripture. The only problem is deciding on one's own what might be faulty and teaching it for doctrine, 1
Freedom Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Just a thought I had as I was studying the scriptures the other day, and more specifically the Book of Mormon. Often times we as a people will scoff at the Protestant view of the Bible as the inerrant and complete Word of God. Are we not guilty at times of being open to errors in that canonical work, but not in the others? I fear that we treat the Book of Mormon, or the other revelations that we have included in the Standard Works as perfect, complete and whole. What's ironic is that the books themselves do not make that same claim. The Book of Mormon adds a clause to its preface stating that if there are errors in the book, they are not the errors of God, but man. This leaves ample room to accept an incomplete, imperfect scripture.The reality is, the English version of the Book of Mormon is an original source document, as is the Doctrine and Covenants. The Bible, as we have it today is not. I am not aware of any doctrinal errors in the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants. The Book of Mormon is considered to be, at last when it was published, the most correct book. These was in reference to the precepts it teaches. Can you provide an example of a doctrinal error in the Book of Mormon?
CV75 Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Just a thought I had as I was studying the scriptures the other day, and more specifically the Book of Mormon. Often times we as a people will scoff at the Protestant view of the Bible as the inerrant and complete Word of God. Are we not guilty at times of being open to errors in that canonical work, but not in the others? I fear that we treat the Book of Mormon, or the other revelations that we have included in the Standard Works as perfect, complete and whole. What's ironic is that the books themselves do not make that same claim. The Book of Mormon adds a clause to its preface stating that if there are errors in the book, they are not the errors of God, but man. This leaves ample room to accept an incomplete, imperfect scripture.I don’t think viewing latter-day scripture as inerrant or not has any bearing on how well we apply it by the Gift of the Holy Ghost—people obviously go overboard in either direction to their own peril. Even at best, our view is limited by the lines and precepts we have been able to endure. In any case, by the grace of God our view is tolerated by Him so that we can eventually benefit from the word (which proceedeth forth from the mouth of God) that we actually garner by virtue of the power and Gift of the Holy Ghost. The Book or Mormon and other latter-day scripture do offer and provide a fuller message of the gospel for this dispensation. This "fulness" is delivered not only through the text (no matter how one views it as errant or inerrant), but through the testimony of the Spirit, and through the covenants of salvation and exaltation they lay out.
The Nehor Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Just a thought I had as I was studying the scriptures the other day, and more specifically the Book of Mormon. Often times we as a people will scoff at the Protestant view of the Bible as the inerrant and complete Word of God. Are we not guilty at times of being open to errors in that canonical work, but not in the others? I fear that we treat the Book of Mormon, or the other revelations that we have included in the Standard Works as perfect, complete and whole. What's ironic is that the books themselves do not make that same claim. The Book of Mormon adds a clause to its preface stating that if there are errors in the book, they are not the errors of God, but man. This leaves ample room to accept an incomplete, imperfect scripture.No, I don't do that. The Nehor Translation of the Book of Mormon is perfect of course but the world is not yet ready. 3
Stroopwafel Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 It's a two edged swords. If you don't recognize the errors then you're an inerrantist. Definitely something the LDS aren't. If you recognize the errors and point them out, you're an atheist. Well, being called an atheist for that would be far fetched, it seems to me. However, I'd say "anti-mormon" would be a more likely accusation.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) ............................................................. ..............................................Can you provide an example of a doctrinal error in the Book of Mormon?Perhaps not so much a doctrinal error as divergent interpretations of what it says: For example, Matt Slick over at CARM has claimed that the BofM contains nothing more than the theology of traditional Christianity ("A Quick Look at the Book of Mormon," online at http://C***.org/ quick‑look‑at‑book‑of‑mormon ), while Joe Spencer, John Tvedtnes, Gordon Thomasson, and Jack Welch have shown that it contains the complete LDS Plan of Salvation, ancient Jewish festivals, and esoteric Israelite temple liturgy -- including the endowment. Joe Spencer sees Remnant Theology in the book, while Dennis Potter sees Liberation Theology. At the same time, Joe Spencer strongly differentiates the theologies of Nephi (the higher, covenantal law) and Abinadi (the lower, soteriological law), which are only reconciled in Third Nephi. Joseph Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology (Salt Press, 2012), xii-xiii, 96, 107, 164-169, 173-175. We have in the BofM two very different epistemologies: That of Alma 32, and that of Moroni 10:3-5. Which is correct? Indeed, some mainstream Christians have even adopted a very Mormon approach -- Fernando Canale, Back to Revelation-Inspiration: Searching for the Cognitive Foundation of Christian Theology in a Postmodern World (Univ. Press of America, 2001). If that weren't enough, we also have Joe Spencer's pointing out temporal versus spiritual knowledge in Alma 36, suggesting as it does the Thomistic question & answer approach typical of the systematic theology in the Summa Theologiae, but which also looks very much like typical Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Mormon catechism. Grant Hardy sees that Nephi gives more weight “to visions of the distant future“ than to history, while Moroni gives more weight to “the witness of the Spirit,“ i.e., “Mormon organizes his material to provide a rational, evidentiary basis for faith,“ but “then . . . Moroni comes to reject that model of belief.“ Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 28, 92. So, who is correct? Or is the Book of Mormon very much like the Bible in containing such diversity of views and divergent theologies? I provide a much more detailed look at these issues in my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH . Edited January 19, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 1
mfbukowski Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Just a thought I had as I was studying the scriptures the other day, and more specifically the Book of Mormon. Often times we as a people will scoff at the Protestant view of the Bible as the inerrant and complete Word of God. Are we not guilty at times of being open to errors in that canonical work, but not in the others? I fear that we treat the Book of Mormon, or the other revelations that we have included in the Standard Works as perfect, complete and whole. What's ironic is that the books themselves do not make that same claim. The Book of Mormon adds a clause to its preface stating that if there are errors in the book, they are not the errors of God, but man. This leaves ample room to accept an incomplete, imperfect scripture.YepWe need to be consistent. Believing that scriptures are inerrant leads to all kinds of problems 2
ERayR Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Just a thought I had as I was studying the scriptures the other day, and more specifically the Book of Mormon. Often times we as a people will scoff at the Protestant view of the Bible as the inerrant and complete Word of God. Are we not guilty at times of being open to errors in that canonical work, but not in the others? I fear that we treat the Book of Mormon, or the other revelations that we have included in the Standard Works as perfect, complete and whole. What's ironic is that the books themselves do not make that same claim. The Book of Mormon adds a clause to its preface stating that if there are errors in the book, they are not the errors of God, but man. This leaves ample room to accept an incomplete, imperfect scripture. Speak for yourself I don't. But when I am reading in the scriptures I have tendency to meditate over troublesome passages.
mass168 Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 The reality is, the English version of the Book of Mormon is an original source document, as is the Doctrine and Covenants.I agree with this. I am puzzled when I see people try to treat them the same as the Bible, in terms of human error.
Calm Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I agree with this. I am puzzled when I see people try to treat them the same as the Bible, in terms of human error. It is because humans are involved.
mass168 Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 It is because humans are involved.A much lesser number though. If anything could ever come close to being "proved" as God-Breathed, BOM and D&C would high on the list.
The Nehor Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I agree with this. I am puzzled when I see people try to treat them the same as the Bible, in terms of human error. I don't. I consider the Bible to have a lot more errors.
Calm Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) A much lesser number though. If anything could ever come close to being "proved" as God-Breathed, BOM and D&C would high on the list.If you mean in the likelihood of number of errors, such as the Nehor states, I think you are misperceiving their positions for many. Given the transmission history, I too consider the Bible to be more prone to error than the BoM, etc. This does not mean I don't trust the Bible, I trust what the Spirit reveals to me about the Bible in the same way as the BoM, etc. I just don't assume any scripture is without error. Edited January 19, 2015 by calmoriah
mass168 Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) If you mean in the likelihood of number of errors, such as the Nehor states, I think you are misperceiving their positions for many. Given the transmission history, I too consider the Bible to be more prone to error than the BoM, etc. This does not mean I don't trust the Bible, I trust what the Spirit reveals to me about the Bible in the same way as the BoM, etc. I just don't assume any scripture is without error.At the risk of sounding like I'm telling you what you believe again... Sigh.. It is logically reasonable to say that the Bible is prone to more errors than the others, based on how it was transmitted AND translated. Multiple languages, many generations. Side note: Of course, my personal belief is God protected and conveyed exactly what he meant despite all that. If you read about how the others came to us, BOM for example, they sound to ME more like what I would imagine as God breathed. J.S. Covering his face with the hat etc. In other words, it wasn't so much a physical act as a spiritual one. And based on this I personally think it logically follows that they are allowed practically zero errors. Source documents, revealed directly from an unknown language, to our native language (assuming you are american). And not really copied that often. It sounds like an act of God, not man. So to say that humans were involved, sounds like backtracking on what is used by missionaries as a unique benefit of the LDS system. Edited January 19, 2015 by mass168
The Nehor Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 At the risk of sounding like I'm telling you what you believe again... Sigh.. It is logically reasonable to say that the Bible is prone to more errors than the others, based on how it was transmitted AND translated. Multiple languages, many generations. Side note: Of course, my personal belief is God protected and conveyed exactly what he meant despite all that. If you read about how the others came to us, BOM for example, they sound to ME more like what I would imagine as God breathed. J.S. Covering his face with the hat etc. In other words, it wasn't so much a physical act as a spiritual one. And based on this I personally think it logically follows that they are allowed practically zero errors. Source documents, revealed directly from an unknown language, to our native language (assuming you are american). It sounds like an act of God, not man. So to say that humans were involved, sounds like backtracking on what is used by missionaries as a unique benefit of the LDS system.This would make sense if:1) The English language was capable of absolute precision and immune to error. (It is not)2) That the source documents were perfect. (No, the writers admit they may have erred)3) The translator was capable of perfectly reflecting what was said. (Nope, Joseph admitted he could make errors)Of course the Bible is much more likely to contain errors but if you want perfection you will probably have to wait for a better world. 2
Calm Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) I don't believe that human language itself can convey perfectly any thought. It is an imperfect medium so how can it convey a perfect thought perfectly? Math may come the closest, but there are still the fundamental assumptions we can't prove are Truth but just assume it. What if those assumptions are wrong? Plus math is limited in only what formulations are now being used. The math someone used in 2000 BC may mean something different than the math used in 2000 AD because of new formulations. God's thoughts may be perfect and he may convey his thoughts perfectly to someone, but human speech and understanding is incapable of perfectly understanding him so there is an inherent error in anything a mortal human is involved with. Don't you believe that no man can be perfect? How then can a man produce something that is perfect and without error? God is not the one who is writing the words, not the one who created the language itself that is being used, not the one who is the publisher/copyist…these were all human men and women who in their very actions have error and imperfection involved. Yes, God has the power to create something perfect, but he would have to turn men into robots/unthinking machines and create their very language for them (if by some chance a finite language could convey his thoughts) in order to have his words that convey his thoughts perfectly written out by a scribe. He chooses, imo, not to turn mankind into something less than an insect. As should be obvious imo by how many different interpretations of the same words exist. Edited January 19, 2015 by calmoriah 2
mass168 Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 This would make sense if:1) The English language was capable of absolute precision and immune to error. (It is not)2) That the source documents were perfect. (No, the writers admit they may have erred)3) The translator was capable of perfectly reflecting what was said. (Nope, Joseph admitted he could make errors)Of course the Bible is much more likely to contain errors but if you want perfection you will probably have to wait for a better world.Would I be correct in saying you don't think you have ever actually found an error in the BOM or D&C? These are just hypothetical points right?
The Nehor Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Would I be correct in saying you don't think you have ever actually found an error in the BOM or D&C? These are just hypothetical points right? Well, I am selling the Nehor's Revised Translation of the Triple Combination for $199.99 if you want to see where I think it could be improved. 2
mass168 Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I don't believe that human language itself can convey perfectly any thought. It is an imperfect medium so how can it convey a perfect thought? Math may come the closest, but there are still the fundamental assumptions we can't prove are Truth but just assume it. What if those assumptions are wrong? God's thoughts may be perfect and he may convey his thoughts perfectly to someone, but human speech and understanding is incapable of perfectly understanding him so there is an inherent error in anything a mortal human is involved with. Don't you believe that no man can be perfect? How then can a man produce something that is perfect and without error? God is not the one who is writing the words, not the one who created the language itself that is being used, not the one who is the publisher/copyist…these were all human men and women who in their very actions have error and imperfection involved. As should be obvious imo by how many different interpretations of the same words exist.This is a much deeper religious question I feel. Did God create language? If he could reveal anything he wanted, could he do so by choosing words and sentences that would not cause confusion that leads anyone away from himself? I think the answer to both questions is yes. And yes before you call me out, I realize that raises the question of why does the Bible seem to be so confusing to some people. I'm not entirely sure I have answered that question for myself, but I know that the EV system has AN answer to it.
Recommended Posts