Bible vs. Book of Mormon?

[Glenn101]

5 hours 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.

There is no manipulation of the text to disguise the fact that Mary had other children by Joseph. Matthew 13:55-56 notes several brothers, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, plus some sisters. Mark also tells the same story, albeit he names one brother Juda rather than Judas. In the Book of Jude, in the New Testament, Jude says that he is the brother of James. It is plausible that this Jude is the  Judas/Juda noted by Matthew and Mark.

I do not disagree that the James spoken of in Galatians is James the Just, brother of Jesus. James, the brother of John was beheaded by Herod, apparently sometime after Saul/Paul had his epiphany on the way to Damascus. However, it is not recorded by any of the synoptic Gospel authors that Jesus called his brother to the ministry as an apostle. His calling, most plausibly, came as a result of James losing his head to the sword of Herod. And that is probably the James the Just that Paul saw when he went to Jerusalem three years or so after his conversion.

I have not been able to find anywhere in the text of the Bible where James the Just was a bishop in Jerusalem before this. And I have found no reason to conclude that James was called as the chief apostle, since Jesus had already declared to Peter that he, Peter, would receive the keys of the Kingdom. The text that you are referring to is too ambiguous and unsupported by an other text to make a case for an ascendancy of James the Just to the position of chief apostle.

Glenn

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, halconero said:

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.

I like that you say this, rather than go with the believing every word of the Bible as some Evangelicals. Can you say that about the Book of Mormon? Do you think some were possibly not comprehending revelation and truth the same as God?

One thing my insurance guy told me was to look up the scripture in Revelations chapter 22 verse 15. A scripture that has me a little concerned about my hanging onto my heritage of being LDS. The other things he told me, I wrote down, but still struggling to read. It's chicken scratch. But read the verse in context below:

And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, andyielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

3And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

4And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

5And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

6And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

7Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

8And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

10And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

 

Me: Are some in the church in danger when loving a lie, when we don't know if the church is really true, but love the people and the way of life LDS have. If it's wrong, are we like the dogs, murderers, whoremongers, idolators, sorcerers etc?

[ksfisher]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

Me: Are some in the church in danger when loving a lie, when we don't know if the church is really true, but love the people and the way of life LDS have. If it's wrong, are we like the dogs, murderers, whoremongers, idolators, sorcerers etc?

It seems to me that not being sure that the church is true is different than "loving a lie."  God is merciful and recognizes that we are all learning and growing at a different pace.  That's part of life for everyone. 

Edited August 25, 2016 by ksfisher

[Danzo]

3 hours 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)

I am glad that you are starting to read from the scriptures daily again.  You will probably find that doing this will bring you more peace than just about anything else.

I love the scriptures! read from the book of 1st Peter today and read in Heleman as a family. For me the biggest benefit is that stuff that I read will pop into my mind when I need it, not just when I am reading it.

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

7Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

 

What does John mean by "this Book"?

[carbon dioxide]

On 8/23/2016 at 0:19 PM, Tacenda said:

 

It bothers me that Joseph Smith threw the Bible under the bus, by saying we believe it as far as it is translated correctly.

Would one prefer that Joseph Smith said that we believe the Bible when it is translated incorrectly?

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Would one prefer that Joseph Smith said that we believe the Bible when it is translated incorrectly?

I wish we could know Jesus' words, as He spoke them, having mostly likely been in a language different than what the gospels were initially written.  Losing in translation might be a pretty big factor in some of his teachings.  Luckily we don't have to be stuck relying on ancient texts though. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I like that you say this, rather than go with the believing every word of the Bible as some Evangelicals. Can you say that about the Book of Mormon? Do you think some were possibly not comprehending revelation and truth the same as God?

One thing my insurance guy told me was to look up the scripture in Revelations chapter 22 verse 15. A scripture that has me a little concerned about my hanging onto my heritage of being LDS. The other things he told me, I wrote down, but still struggling to read. It's chicken scratch. But read the verse in context below:

And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, andyielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

3And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

4And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

5And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

6And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

7Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

8And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

10And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

I am glad you are concerned with understanding the Scriptures. What does it mean the time is at hand for the prophecies in the book? Is it possible that the Book of Revelation is prophesying things which were also prophesied much earlier in Daniel, but are to start coming to pass? Does this mean the beast was to arise then? If so who is that beast who perverts the word of God and slays the followers of Jesus?

 

Quote

11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the  , and the bright and morning star.

It seems to me that Protestants read these words, and they do not understand them. Paul also says:

Romans 15:12

12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Isaiah 11:1  1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Quote

 

17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Does this mean the two witnesses to prophesy to Jerusalem are breaking the law by giving more revelation? Or is the canon incomplete? If the canon is incomplete will those who refuse to listen to new prophets be the ones who are living a lie or partial truth?

Quote

20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

 

Me: Are some in the church in danger when loving a lie, when we don't know if the church is really true, but love the people and the way of life LDS have. If it's wrong, are we like the dogs, murderers, whoremongers, idolators, sorcerers etc?

What if those outside the church who murdered innocent Christians throughout the middle ages are those who are living and loving the lie? What if Christ thinks little of them? What if they have misled countless peoples into believing creeds that are unscriptural? 

I know the gospel as restored is true. It doesn't matter if people in the church are imperfect and leaders are sometimes mistaken. What if all those churches that are living different versions of the gospel are the ones who have been misled and are mistaken? If they are wrong are they like the murderers and idolators who loved the things of men over the things of God? What do they offer those who lived and never heard the words of Christ? No chance to follow Christ with baptism? Is it ok to teach people that all you have to do is utter and believe "I believe in Christ" and you are autosaved forever and one is free to go sin or is that a lie? Although the majority of Christians are good people, the lies being taught are astounding. I don't see those things in the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, but some people have "itching ears" and like being taught those things.

[bcuzbcuz]

22 hours ago, waveslider said:

point out one word that got corrected i personally havent seen one grammar on the other hand yes there have been a lot of corrections made because they wrote like i am writing in the gold plates they didn't write with punctuation it was all just one long sentence really lets see you many corrections you make while you try to decipher how this paragraph is supposed to be punctuated now figure out how many grammar changes would have to be made through a whole book of mormons worth of one long sentence as far as the bible well i think others have already addressed the issue of believing in a correct translation well enough to see that it isn't throwing the bible under the bus by saying we believe it as far as it has been translated correctly

Cute, but hardly correct. The changes go far beyond merely adding punctuation and and dividing in to chapters and verses. 

 

1Nephi 11:21	the Eternal Father	son of the Eternal Father
1 Nephi 11:32

1 Ne 13:40

the lamb of God is the Eternal Father

the lamb of God is the son of the Eternal Father

 

Another change involving the names Benjamin and Mosiah is found in the Book of Ether. On page 546 of the first edition of the Book of Mormon we read as follows:

• ". . . for this cause did king Benjamin keep them . . . " 
• In the 1964 edition, Ether 4:1, we read:". . . for this cause did king Mosiah keep them . . . "1981 2 Nephi 30:6 in the Book of Mormon taught that dark-skinned Lamanites (Indians) would eventually experience a change in the color of their skin should they embrace the Book of Mormon. This passage of Mormon scripture read: 

  "...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

  However, in 1981, the LDS Church decided to change "the most correct book on earth" and switched the word "white" with the word "pure." Some Mormons insist that this was a clarification since the word was never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would magically turn white based upon a conversion to the Mormon gospel; rather, it is claimed that the change referred to a cleaner state of heart. This assumption is definitely not supported in the Book of Mormon since 2 Nephi 5:21 says, 

  "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Cute, but hardly correct. The changes go far beyond merely adding punctuation and and dividing in to chapters and verses. 

 

1Nephi 11:21	the Eternal Father	son of the Eternal Father
1 Nephi 11:32

1 Ne 13:40

the lamb of God is the Eternal Father

the lamb of God is the son of the Eternal Father

Being that change was only in one book, it probably had to do with the scribe... and didn't JS himself make the changes?

[waveslider]

22 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Cute, but hardly correct. The changes go far beyond merely adding punctuation and and dividing in to chapters and verses. 

 

1Nephi 11:21	the Eternal Father	son of the Eternal Father
1 Nephi 11:32

1 Ne 13:40

the lamb of God is the Eternal Father

the lamb of God is the son of the Eternal Father

 

Another change involving the names Benjamin and Mosiah is found in the Book of Ether. On page 546 of the first edition of the Book of Mormon we read as follows:

• ". . . for this cause did king Benjamin keep them . . . " 
• In the 1964 edition, Ether 4:1, we read:". . . for this cause did king Mosiah keep them . . . "1981 2 Nephi 30:6 in the Book of Mormon taught that dark-skinned Lamanites (Indians) would eventually experience a change in the color of their skin should they embrace the Book of Mormon. This passage of Mormon scripture read: 

  "...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

  However, in 1981, the LDS Church decided to change "the most correct book on earth" and switched the word "white" with the word "pure." Some Mormons insist that this was a clarification since the word was never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would magically turn white based upon a conversion to the Mormon gospel; rather, it is claimed that the change referred to a cleaner state of heart. This assumption is definitely not supported in the Book of Mormon since 2 Nephi 5:21 says, 

  "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Thank you. Honorentheos already has shown me as well.

[cdowis]

53 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Cute, but hardly correct. The changes go far beyond merely adding punctuation and and dividing in to chapters and verses. 

 

1Nephi 11:21	the Eternal Father	son of the Eternal Father
1 Nephi 11:32

 

1 Ne 13:40

the lamb of God is the Eternal Father

the lamb of God is the son of the Eternal Father

 

Christ has multiple titles, including (Eternal) Father and Son, so these scriptures are factually correct, but were corrected to avoid misunderstanding.  

I am a father, a son, a brother.  All of these are factually true.

 

Another change involving the names Benjamin and Mosiah is found in the Book of Ether. On page 546 of the first edition of the Book of Mormon we read as follows:

• ". . . for this cause did king Benjamin keep them . . . " 
• In the 1964 edition, Ether 4:1, we read:". . . for this cause did king Mosiah keep them . . . "1981 2 Nephi 30:6
  Appears that the writer of the plates made a mistake, and the editors caught it.
  in the Book of Mormon taught that dark-skinned Lamanites (Indians) would eventually experience a change in the color of their skin should they embrace the Book of Mormon. This passage of Mormon scripture read: 

• "...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."
  
   

• However, in 1981, the LDS Church decided to change "the most correct book on earth" {your mocking sarcasm is noted} and switched the word "white" with the word "pure." Some Mormons insist that this was a clarification since the word was never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would magically turn white based upon a conversion to the Mormon gospel; rather, it is claimed that the change referred to a cleaner state of heart. This assumption is definitely not supported in the Book of Mormon since 2 Nephi 5:21 says, 

  "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

• The definition of "white" in Webster"s 1828 edition, "In a scriptural sense, purfied from sin."

 

I find that a dictionary is handy in discussions with the antiMormons.  May I suggest that you may find it handy {my mocking sarcasm}

Edited August 25, 2016 by cdowis

[UtahTexan]

I am not sure why the similarities are troubling.

I have trained young attorneys.  I bet if they each told you what I taught them, it would sound awfully similar.  My teaching points have always been the same........my training methods have remained fairly consistent.....

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

And these very same critics generally accept the doctrine of the "one substance entity" or homoousia of the Nicene Creed, and their interpretation of such phrases as "one God" in the BOM is framed in the context of that heretical doctrine.  

That phrase actually refers to the meaning found in John 17:19-23.  When I point that out to them (among other scriptures) their response is simply silence.

Edited August 25, 2016 by cdowis

[halconero]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I like that you say this, rather than go with the believing every word of the Bible as some Evangelicals. Can you say that about the Book of Mormon? Do you think some were possibly not comprehending revelation and truth the same as God?

One thing my insurance guy told me was to look up the scripture in Revelations chapter 22 verse 15. A scripture that has me a little concerned about my hanging onto my heritage of being LDS. The other things he told me, I wrote down, but still struggling to read. It's chicken scratch. But read the verse in context below:

And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, andyielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

3And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

4And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

5And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

6And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

7Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

8And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

10And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

 

Me: Are some in the church in danger when loving a lie, when we don't know if the church is really true, but love the people and the way of life LDS have. If it's wrong, are we like the dogs, murderers, whoremongers, idolators, sorcerers etc?

Whoa whoa. I wasn't even talking about the Bible when I referred to the "glass darkly" part. I was referring to us as humans. I have zero problem with believing the Book of Mormon to have been written by mortal men looking through a glass darkly, to keep using the Pauline phrase. They themselves admit their imperfections.

Where I feel slightly uncomfortable is the notion that somehow I think the Bible has less value because of the way it came together. I can acknowledge its history of compilation, and the additions, errors, and mistranslations that come in without devaluing it. If anything a belief in inerrancy takes on a form of idolatry.

With regards to the other quote, I don't disagree. I think loving lies is damnable. At the same time, I think that the honest seeker of truth, who loves searching it, is covered by the grace of God. In that sense, perhaps I'm a stronger believer in grace than some Evangelicals.

[Honorentheos]

11 hours ago, halconero said:

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.

I was first turned onto this argument through one of my favorite members of this board, J Green. Don't know if he posts here anymore. That introduction came by way of the recommendation to read Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus. It's a problematic book, not least for it's editing. But the arguments he makes in illustrating how the various convoluted James' and other siblings of Christ in relation to the texts from which they are known make fair argument that Catholicism had good reason to muddy the water around Mary not being viriginal throughout life and Peter not being the first among the apostles but rather subordinate to James. Since then I've picked up on other hints but I understand why it wouldn't be a particularly popular or demanding proposition on the face of it.

Of the two most prominent, I like the Galatians example more than the Acts 15 example because it has Peter getting sheepish once James comes in and catches Peter playing the gentile. The dynamic between Paul and James is one of those human dramas made for cable television contests for power that we never talk about but is evident when one steps away from the text as scripture and tries to sort out the real people behind them.

Anyway, we'll perhaps disagree but I think the evidence remaining that James had authority over Peter is fairly clear even in the bits remaining, and we only accept Peter as the Rock on which Christ would build his Church because the victors controlled the history. It's funny to me that I had arrived as this conclusion early enough on that I was still partispating in the LDS faith out of belief in it's innate goodness if not literal existance as Christ's true church so the times it would come up struck me as unfortunate examples of how little was actually changed in the restoration. Anyway, another topic perhaps for another thread.

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, halconero said:

Whoa whoa. I wasn't even talking about the Bible when I referred to the "glass darkly" part. I was referring to us as humans. I have zero problem with believing the Book of Mormon to have been written by mortal men looking through a glass darkly, to keep using the Pauline phrase. They themselves admit their imperfections.

Where I feel slightly uncomfortable is the notion that somehow I think the Bible has less value because of the way it came together. I can acknowledge its history of compilation, and the additions, errors, and mistranslations that come in without devaluing it. If anything a belief in inerrancy takes on a form of idolatry.

With regards to the other quote, I don't disagree. I think loving lies is damnable. At the same time, I think that the honest seeker of truth, who loves searching it, is covered by the grace of God. In that sense, perhaps I'm a stronger believer in grace than some Evangelicals.

bold mine...

Yes you are, to the bold comment!

Edited August 25, 2016 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I wish we could know Jesus' words, as He spoke them, having mostly likely been in a language different than what the gospels were initially written.  Losing in translation might be a pretty big factor in some of his teachings.  Luckily we don't have to be stuck relying on ancient texts though. 

I like that the LDS church isn't stuck with that or damned for not believing in some.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

What does John mean by "this Book"?

Is John talking about the book of revelations? Or not...

[Calm]

Just an FYI, common mistake...it is Book of Revelation (not plural)

[mapman]

14 hours 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.  

This is actually a question that is pretty important to me. Something that I only realized a couple of years ago (and which totally changed how I viewed the Book of Mormon) is that the Book of Mormon is actually very explicit about what the fullness of the Gospel is. It is carefully defined in three different chapters: 2 Nephi 31, 3 Nephi 11, and 3 Nephi 27, and referenced throughout the book. The 4th Article of Faith is a summary of what it is: In order to be saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ, a person needs to have faith, repent, be baptized, and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. They then need to endure to the end in the Gospel. All of these things are mentioned in the Bible, but are not as clearly explained, or put together in that order. This is why there are so many different ways that Christians understand the order of salvation. Some think you just need to have faith and confess, or that you need to be convicted of your sins and be infused with grace, go through all the sacraments of the church, etc. Only Mormons believe in this understanding of salvation (the Restorationist preacher Walter Scott preached something very similar in the 1830s, but it wasn't quite the same). Nowadays the way that we use the word "gospel" kind of muddles things, but in the early days of the church it just meant the first principles of the Gospel, not all truth or church doctrine.

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just an FYI, common mistake...it is Book of Revelation (not plural)

Thank you, showing my lack of scripture study, right off the bat!

[mfbukowski]

On 8/23/2016 at 7:47 PM, 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!

It doesn't matter how well the scribes transmitted the words if we don't know who wrote them or if they were not from God

The only way we can know if they are from God is through testimony

I mean there were Zoroastrian scribes and Buddhist scribes and Hindu scribes and Shinto scribes and.....

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, snowflake said:

  The BOM doesn't even have the priesthood in it which is so important to the LDS faith.

Guess again

Quote

 

1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

 2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.

 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, arecalled with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

 4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts andblindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

 5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the samestanding with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

 6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest—

 7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—

 8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—

 9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full ofgrace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.

 10 Now, as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish;

 11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

 12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

 13 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest.

 14 Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever.

 15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.

 16 Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.

 17 Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness;

 18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to theholy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

 19 Now, there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater; therefore, of him they have more particularly made mention.

 20 Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.

 

Alma 13

 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It doesn't matter how well the scribes transmitted the words if we don't know who wrote them or if they were not from God

The only way we can know if they are from God is through testimony

I mean there were Zoroastrian scribes and Buddhist scribes and Hindu scribes and Shinto scribes and.....

and LDS scribes....