Bible vs. Book of Mormon?

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, halconero said:

It's difficult, and I wish I could have this conversation with him, but I wish I could know what he meant by "scribes." He makes it seem as though there was some monolithic group of writers who were of one heart and one mind on the subject with the singular purpose of creating one book.

The Bible is an anthology, and especially in the New Testament era there was no singular guiding force developing either canon or books. Heck, it wasn't until Marcion (a guy later declared a heretic) that the idea of a canon even became popular. I would like to see the Matthean Jesus followers try to sit down and hash out their differences with a Lukan group.

Also, I wish I could ask if he's referring to a group of Hellenistic scribes in Alexandria content in meticulously transcribing the Greek Old Testament, or instead the Hebrew coming out of Babylon.

I'm not doing this to disparage the Bible, nor do I doubt the fulfillment of its prophecies given under revelation from God. What this man is doing though is sacrificing history for the sake the Evangelical doctrine of innerrancy. Just because he sounds smart doing so doesn't make it right.

I'm not tearing into you Tacenda. I know your biggest desire is to follow God, Christ and their words. Nor do I doubt this man's genuine faith. Half jokingly I do wonder if his ability to sell insurance is reflected in his ability to sell bad history.

bold mine...

He said his life's ambition is to share these things, insurance is secondary. But again, he does know his Bible, I'm afraid. Or good for him. But what he did was help me want to believe in Jesus and the Bible. I do have issues with how some Evangelicals come across and how they think we're not saved and all, but wonder why we don't place more faith in the idea that the Bible is there on a level with the Book of Mormon. How dare we call ourselves Christians if not. LDS can't deny the Book of Mormon is talked about more as far as reading it vs. the Bible, if we're being honest.

But will continue on my journey, I guess.   

 

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

The Bible is studied twice as much as the BoM in LDS Sunday School, so it is taken pretty seriously, not with doubt.  

It's probably more correct to say that the Bible is "studied" twice as much as the BoM. 

Learning about the Bible in an LDS Gospel Doctrine class is like learning about human psychology by reading Hallmark cards.

[Storm Rider]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I have been busy with school and haven't been able to post. My insurance man does know his Bible and was so very convincing. I was jotting down as fast as I could at what he was saying, but looking at my notes, they aren't readable. But again, so convincing, that the scribes were meticulous. And that there were so many prophesies come true. But to others, the Bible isn't as perfect, but nice for him to have such a faith in Jesus and the Word of God. 

I guess I'll have to start a Bible study course given me through his church that is provided online. But I'm usually all talk. I appreciate all of your comments thoroughly!

I always have to qualify my position when it comes to Evangelicals - I am not objective.  I grew up with them in the south and, as a group, they were evil, lying, deceitful people.  (I will get warmed up and really tell you how I feel in a moment. )  That experience has tainted my perceptions of Evangelicals in general.  

Yet, at the same time, their positions did not hold a lot of water and were easily answered or overcome.  I guess I should have been more forgiving in my youth toward them.  I guess if they had not been so silly in their attacks there would not be a ward in that very small southern town today and its been there for decades.  In many ways it can be said our best missionaries were the Evangelical preachers in the local churches.

Bart Ehman is not an ideal source - he was an Evangelical that lost his faith in the Bible and Jesus as he studied the scriptures.  However, his books are worth a read; just be cautious when reading them. 

Evangelicals are totally committed to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or "scripture alone".  It is a theological position that demands that the Bible alone is the supreme authority on all matters of doctrine.  Of course, the problem with that position is many-layered, but the one that screams loudest to me is that the scriptures, the Bible, does not speak to us.  It is interpreted by us and thus we have over 38,000 different Christian churches today all with different interpretations of the same book.

Tacenda, at some point you need to firm up your own spiritual foundation.  Until that happens you will always be easily susceptible by others.  It reminds me of the verse in Ephesians 4:14 - "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"

 

[boblloyd91]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I have been busy with school and haven't been able to post. My insurance man does know his Bible and was so very convincing. I was jotting down as fast as I could at what he was saying, but looking at my notes, they aren't readable. But again, so convincing, that the scribes were meticulous. And that there were so many prophesies come true. But to others, the Bible isn't as perfect, but nice for him to have such a faith in Jesus and the Word of God. 

I guess I'll have to start a Bible study course given me through his church that is provided online. But I'm usually all talk. I appreciate all of your comments thoroughly!

I am with you in wanting to be sincere and right in regards to worshipping God in spirit and truth. I just want to give you a warning from my own experience, which is that there are a multitude of different voices in Christianity and it's important that along with reading the bible to consider the different viewpoints there are besides simply LDS and Evangelical. I have developed a fondness for the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity, and have thoroughly enjoyed reading their perspectives. It's also illuminating to read Catholic and other perspectives too! And to be sure I also read a fair amount of Evangelical authors as well (Peter Enns, NT Wright, and Brian Zahnd being a few of my favorites).

I say this because of something I have learned in regards to my interactions with Evangelicals. I'm going to be very careful how I say this because I don't want to say this about all evangelicals, but they have a tendency often to act as though they are the sole authority on the bible and that they are "true biblical Christianity". Because they are often confident in their beliefs, and often vocal (or in many cases more loud) those that are less spiritually confident or haven't studied as much often take what they're saying at face value, and automatically assume they're right. I remember when I came off my mission and was exposed to Shawn McCraney, and being shocked that someone who was once a member could be so certain in their belief that the church was false, which caused me to doubt (though to be fair my doubts started on my mission regarding a few things). It was a tough time and I wouldn't want to but I'd catch myself watching the various other programs on channel 20, and being exposed to the world of Evangelicalism. This was about ten years ago and I've learned since then that many of those fears and concerns I first developed have changed, or gone away due in large part to continued study. In some ways my faith has grown in other ways my doubts have grown deeper. Nevertheless I've learned that truth isn't found in the confident convictions of others, because people can be sincerely wrong (see the Dunning Kruger effect for what I mean). For example Shawn McCraney no longer has his show as he began disputing tenets central to Evangelical Christianity, yet at one point in time he projected an air of knowing quite a bit.

I tell you all this because I feel my journey has been very similar to yours, and many doubts you mention I have had, or even still have. I admire your efforts to seek truth as I myself am on this journey too!

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's probably more correct to say that the Bible is "studied" twice as much as the BoM. 

Learning about the Bible in an LDS Gospel Doctrine class is like learning about human psychology by reading Hallmark cards.

I wish we studied it verse by verse or chapter by chapter. But I guess we don't do this with the BoM either. It's up to individuals to do this at home. And when we have two books vs. one, it is harder to concentrate. And add in the other scriptures such as the Doctrine and Covenants, worsens the chances of contextual reading.

[halconero]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

bold mine...

He said his life's ambition is to share these things, insurance is secondary. But again, he does know his Bible, I'm afraid. Or good for him. But what he did was help me want to believe in Jesus and the Bible. I do have issues with how some Evangelicals come across and how they think we're not saved and all, but wonder why we don't place more faith in the idea that the Bible is there on a level with the Book of Mormon. How dare we call ourselves Christians if not. LDS can't deny the Book of Mormon is talked about more as far as reading it vs. the Bible, if we're being honest.

But will continue on my journey, I guess.   

 

Don't take my selling comment as something pejorative. All I mean to say is that he sounds really good at sharing his idea of the Bible. I would also say that knowing chapter and verse is not necessarily equivalent to knowing the Bible. My cousin is a pastor in the Alliance Church, and knows his Bible stories, chapters, and verses forwards and backwards, but is somewhat annoyingly willfully ignorant of the Bible's development.

Again, his description of the scribal development of the Bible sounds good. But from the tidbits you share it's generally bad history.

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, halconero said:

Don't take my selling comment as something pejorative. All I mean to say is that he sounds really good at sharing his idea of the Bible. I would also say that knowing chapter and verse is not necessarily equivalent to knowing the Bible. My cousin is a pastor in the Alliance Church, and knows his Bible stories, chapters, and verses forwards and backwards, but is somewhat annoyingly willfully ignorant of the Bible's development.

Again, his description of the scribal development of the Bible sounds good. But from the tidbits you share it's generally bad history.

Tomorrow I'll share some other stuff and please weigh in like you've done so far, you amaze me with your knowledge Hal!

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Did you know that there is pretty clear evidence in the NT that Peter was subordinate to James? That this is likely a product of a particular perspective being imposed on the text by the "victor" among the many competing forms of Christianity around in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE? Check out Galatians 2 for one such remnant in the text, for fun.

Of which James do you speak?

Thanks,

Glenn

[waveslider]

4 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

The 1837 edition made many corrections. Perhaps the most meaningful are from 1 Nephi where the phrase "the son of" was inserted in places previously referencing Jesus as "God".

You can check out Fair for a source if you'd like: 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/"the_Son_of"

Thank you. I haven't ever seen that.

[halconero]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Tomorrow I'll share some other stuff and please weigh in like you've done so far, you amaze me with your knowledge Hal!

For sure!! I'm actually interested in what he has to say!!

You amaze me with your faith, Tacenda!

[Honorentheos]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Of which James do you speak?

Thanks,

Glenn

There's a great question, and one that the more a person gets into, the more they begin to realize that there is likely manipulation in the NT writings to disguise the fact that Mary had children besides Jesus including a James. Some argue that the list of apostles in Matthew put James as the brother of John at the center of the apostleship with Peter at the head. But matching up the various James' in the NT gets to be a bit of a challenge not resolved decisively. 

It seems that the James at the beginning of Galatians, bishop of Jerusalem, and James the Just and brother of Jesus, was the leader of the Church after the death of Jesus. I don't think it's that much of a mystery why a particular branch of Christianity that takes it's claims of leadership from a different apostle and bishop of a different city who essentially won control of western Christian history, might dispute this. Were the waters intentionally muddied? Or is it merely a result of multiple, disparate authors who are writing second or third hand accounts and not familiar enough to correct inaccuracies? Who knows.

[snowflake]

Quote

 

When I read the BOM and compare it to the Bible, I struggle to find knowledge that isn't already in the Bible.  The claim that the BOM contains "the fullness of the everlasting gospel", where is that part? The BOM just reads like a phony, uninspired modern knock off of the Bible.  

[Kevin Christensen]

1 minute ago, snowflake said:

When I read the BOM and compare it to the Bible, I struggle to find knowledge that isn't already in the Bible.  The claim that the BOM contains "the fullness of the everlasting gospel", where is that part? The BOM just reads like a phony, uninspired modern knock off of the Bible.  

A rather different perspective comes from Richard L. Anderson in this essay: "Imitation Gospels and Christ's Book of Mormon Ministry" who compares and contrasts the 3 Nephi account with a range of modern attempts to supplement the Bible.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=939

And this from Hugh Nibley, comparing the 3 Nephi account to Old World accounts of the Post Resurrection Teaching:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=21

And even this by yours truly, on NDE research and the Book of Mormon, of interest because the Bible contains remarkably little about the afterlife:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=2

It's important too, to understand what fullness of the gospel means, to set expectations properly:

Quote

The “doctrine” of Jesus Christ is declared by him to consist of the following: “And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned” (3 Nephi 11:33-34). The Book of Mormon, of course, contains more information about both human and divine things than the fulness of the gospel, which is the doctrine of Jesus Christ. But the additional historical information, as well as the norms, descriptions, emblems, figures, images, tenets, categories, and instructions are never identified as “doctrine.” That word is reserved for the core message that Jesus is the Christ–the Messiah, the Redeemer of mankind. Everything else is strictly subordinated to the one “doctrine of Christ,” by which we may “know how to come unto Christ and be saved” (see 1 Nephi 15:14), for it is the Redeemer who is the way of salvation, the way, truth, life, light, and so forth–that being the one and only doctrine identified as such in the Book of Mormon.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1424&index=12

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[halconero]

55 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

There's a great question, and one that the more a person gets into, the more they begin to realize that there is likely manipulation in the NT writings to disguise the fact that Mary had children besides Jesus including a James. Some argue that the list of apostles in Matthew put James as the brother of John at the center of the apostleship with Peter at the head. But matching up the various James' in the NT gets to be a bit of a challenge not resolved decisively. 

It seems that the James at the beginning of Galatians, bishop of Jerusalem, and James the Just and brother of Jesus, was the leader of the Church after the death of Jesus. I don't think it's that much of a mystery why a particular branch of Christianity that takes it's claims of leadership from a different apostle and bishop of a different city who essentially won control of western Christian history, might dispute this. Were the waters intentionally muddied? Or is it merely a result of multiple, disparate authors who are writing second or third hand accounts and not familiar enough to correct inaccuracies? Who knows.

Eh, I've heard the James the Just > Peter argument and I find that it doesn't really hold water with any of the accounts or even the epistles. I'll have to dig up my old research papers with John Kloppenborg, but he tends to agree that the Gospel accounts, even the Markan one, depict a church headed by Peter.

Now, don't get me wrong, I completely agree that James was the head of the Jerusalem faction, and the Bishop of the city. At the same time, there is literary and historical evidence for a church that tried to maintain connections of doctrine and gift-giving across Asia Minor, Antioch, and the Greek City States, and that all these generally at least recognized the place Peter had in that. Even Paul, in his Apostleship to the Gentiles, shows respect to Peter in that capacity. So was their tension between these factions? Absolutely. Are their indications that of argument of familial relationship to Jesus taking precedence over the apostles? For sure. Peter remains a consistent figurehead though throughout, even from those whose with whom he had issues.

I would 100% agree that following the death of the apostles that these fissures and factions became far more divided, with the Jerusalem faction following a largely Jewish Gospel as formulated by James, the Pauline Gentiles/Jews, and probably a Petrine or Thomasine group as well. While the tension is there, the full-blown factionalism isn't during the time of the apostles.

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Also, the evidences of prophecies that came true in the Bible, verse Joseph Smith's prophesies coming true. How can we not take the Bible more seriously than we do, and why would we place doubt in it? 

http://www.gospelway.com/god/evidences-prophecy.php

I thought we take it too seriously and don't doubt it enough.  There's far more to deal with regarding the Bible than whether some scribes were meticulous in copying it or not.  But that's just being overly critical, I guess, because there is some good things to get out of the composed work.  I don't see the BoM different though.  We often treat the BoM as perfect and the Bible with some amount of suspicion all because the BoM went through some filters to get to Joseph Smith, as if God made it better than it is.  They each carry value.  Let's leave it at that.

[snowflake]

48 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

A rather different perspective comes from Richard L. Anderson in this essay: "Imitation Gospels and Christ's Book of Mormon Ministry" who compares and contrasts the 3 Nephi account with a range of modern attempts to supplement the Bible.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=939

And this from Hugh Nibley, comparing the 3 Nephi account to Old World accounts of the Post Resurrection Teaching:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=21

And even this by yours truly, on NDE research and the Book of Mormon, of interest because the Bible contains remarkably little about the afterlife:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=2

It's important too, to understand what fullness of the gospel means, to set expectations properly:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1424&index=12

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

3rd Nephi sounds exactly like it was lifted right out of the NT. I just don't see any new information that the LDS claim makes the BOM to be so much better than the Bible.  The BOM doesn't even have the priesthood in it which is so important to the LDS faith.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, snowflake said:

3rd Nephi sounds exactly like it was lifted right out of the NT. I just don't see any new information that the LDS claim makes the BOM to be so much better than the Bible.  The BOM doesn't even have the priesthood in it which is so important to the LDS faith.

I'd agree the BoM is not so much better than the Bible.  But I'd disagree that there's no value in it.  I think Kevin's links are a great starting point to discuss this stuff. If you're not interested, I'm sure that's fine too. 

[boblloyd91]

26 minutes ago, snowflake said:

3rd Nephi sounds exactly like it was lifted right out of the NT. I just don't see any new information that the LDS claim makes the BOM to be so much better than the Bible.  The BOM doesn't even have the priesthood in it which is so important to the LDS faith.

Alma 13 would disagree with you....

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

3rd Nephi sounds exactly like it was lifted right out of the NT. I just don't see any new information that the LDS claim makes the BOM to be so much better than the Bible.  The BOM doesn't even have the priesthood in it which is so important to the LDS faith.

I'm seeing things in 3 Nephi that you are not, probably because we all start with what is familiar because it is familiar.  It takes a little more effort to recognize and uncover what is not familiar, but that is there as well in 3 Nephi, and elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.  It's safe, I think, for me to suppose that I have spent more time on the question than you have.  I'm 62 and a lifetime member, and have been pursuing scholarship since 1974.  John Welch's book on Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount is another very good resource, for those who want to know.   Margaret Barker was so impressed that she invited Welch to apply the insights from the Book of Mormon account to Matthew for a general Christian readership, and the result was this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Sermon-Temple-Society-Testament-Monographs/dp/0754651649

The Book of Mormon does discuss priesthood and authority at length.  Alma 13 is famous for it in LDS circles  From a recent essay of mine:

Quote

3 Nephi 12:1 refers to 12 “who had been called, and received power and authority to baptize,” and providing this authority is almost one of the first things that the risen Christ does (3 Nephi 11:21–23). In 3 Nephi 18:5 Jesus says “Behold there shall be one ordained among you, and to him I will give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church.” Third Nephi 18:37 tells of how “the disciples bear record that he gave them power to give the Holy Ghost.” Immediately thereafter, the disciples baptize each other and the multitude (3 Nephi 19:11–13) and 3 Nephi 27:1 later describes “the disciples … baptizing in the name of Jesus.” In 4 Nephi 1 we learn how “the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ. … And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.” Moroni later makes it clear that priesthood authority even in his day was passed on by ordination (Moroni 3). It is also clear that not all priesthood authorities had the right to conduct all ordinances — priests and teachers are ordained by elders, while only elders and priests administer the sacrament (Moroni 4:1).

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/#more-7755

Daniel Peterson did a detailed study of Authority in the Book of Mosiah:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=114

In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus explains how the same seeds (words, he explains) can produce vastly different yields depending on the soil, nurture, and patience.  "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?" 

Much in the Book of Mormon is consistent and often shared with the Bible, which is the point.  It's a supplement, not a replacement.  It does have some important extra information (2 Nephi 2 is a good example), and as described in 1 Nephi 13, which towards the end, tells a story remarkably like the one here, on the transmission of the Bible, by Methodist Bible scholar, Margaret Barker.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 24, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wish we studied it verse by verse or chapter by chapter. But I guess we don't do this with the BoM either. It's up to individuals to do this at home. And when we have two books vs. one, it is harder to concentrate. And add in the other scriptures such as the Doctrine and Covenants, worsens the chances of contextual reading.

The Standard Works of the Church have been correlated by footnotes. You can go down to you local Deseret Books and buy one, or order it online.

[Danzo]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wish we studied it verse by verse or chapter by chapter. But I guess we don't do this with the BoM either. It's up to individuals to do this at home. And when we have two books vs. one, it is harder to concentrate. And add in the other scriptures such as the Doctrine and Covenants, worsens the chances of contextual reading.

Just curious,

How much time do you devote to scripture study on a daily (or even weekly) basis?

 

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Just curious,

How much time do you devote to scripture study on a daily (or even weekly) basis?

 

Last night was the first time in a long time, I read last night with my husband, he was my commentary as I read. He knows his bible also, but I guess I didn't care much about it in the past. Scriptures are my downfall, but read the church magazines cover to cover for years.

I don't like repetition in the BoM and the Bible, drives me insane. But having my husband comment, helped put it in prospective. We read from this plan...http://www.backtothebible.org/reading-guide/15

And how do I know if what I'm reading is true or false? I read over on Bill's thread "Navigating Truth and Error", this quote by Brigham Young. How is anyone to know if it's not all made up by man? I don't trust easily I guess, not since my faith crisis in the LDS church began especially. 

BY's quote:

I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, “You have never read the Bible, have you?” “O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God.” Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth. The doctrines contained in the Bible will lift to a superior condition all who observe them; they will impart to them knowledge, wisdom, charity, fill them with compassion and cause them to feel after the wants of those who are in distress, or in painful or degraded circumstances. Journal of Discourses13:175 (May 29, 1870)

[cdowis]

FWIW.  in my many discussions of the nature of the Godhead with the critics, I have never found it necessary to go outside of the Bible.  Within its pages, it contains the most complete description of that doctrine.

Edited August 24, 2016 by cdowis

[halconero]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Last night was the first time in a long time, I read last night with my husband, he was my commentary as I read. He knows his bible also, but I guess I didn't care much about it in the past. Scriptures are my downfall, but read the church magazines cover to cover for years.

I don't like repetition in the BoM and the Bible, drives me insane. But having my husband comment, helped put it in prospective. We read from this plan...http://www.backtothebible.org/reading-guide/15

And how do I know if what I'm reading is true or false? I read over on Bill's thread "Navigating Truth and Error", this quote by Brigham Young. How is anyone to know if it's not all made up by man? I don't trust easily I guess, not since my faith crisis in the LDS church began especially. 

BY's quote:

I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, “You have never read the Bible, have you?” “O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God.” Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth. The doctrines contained in the Bible will lift to a superior condition all who observe them; they will impart to them knowledge, wisdom, charity, fill them with compassion and cause them to feel after the wants of those who are in distress, or in painful or degraded circumstances. Journal of Discourses13:175 (May 29, 1870)

Just a suggestion, have you thought about study by topic rather than chapter after chapter? I decided a month ago after finishing my most recent study to begin understanding Church Administration. Aside from the Handbook, I decided to look up scriptures from the topical guide on the Early Church, the Organization of the Church, etc. Taking the time to cross-reference, ponder, write down the scriptures in my own words has been time consuming, but very worth wile and revelatory.

With regards to your second question, I think it might be relieving to just let go of what can be a false dichotomy of truth and error. Don't get me wrong, I think it's vital to try to discern the intent and truth of God, but what I'm trying to get at is in our worry of being misled we can sometimes forget that God is graceful. WE as mortals are the "glass darkly" to paraphrase Paul. Our fallen nature, our biological limitations, and other imperfections prevent us from comprehending revelation and truth in the same way God does. Fortunately, being a clear glass isn't a requirement fro revelation or salvation. As we hold to some fundamentals which are common among all the prophets, all the apostles and all the scriptures, such as God being in the Heavens, Jesus being the Christ, their extension of repentance and mercy to God's children, we receive light sufficient enough to both have faith and progress.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

FWIW.  in my many discussions of the nature of the Godhead with the critics, I have never found it necessary to go outside of the Bible.  Within its pages, it contains the most complete description of that doctrine.

I don't know...It seems to me some critics with some amount of credibility have suggested the BoM's description of the nature of God to be very orthodox Christian.  One might if given only those two sources arrive at a very traditional Christian concept of God.  It seems like the other descriptions accompanying the two works was what was needed for us to arrive at what is our more completely description.