One of the things most puzzling to me as an associate in this ministry is when I am told that I cannot truly understand the teachings of the LDS religion. Dozens of times Mormons have told me, “What you’re saying is not what we (Mormons) believe,” even though the doctrine I am describing normally comes straight from the standard works or the authoritative speeches and writings of the general authorities. What is the reason given for why my research ought to be invalidated? It’s because I’m not a Latter-day Saint, so apparently anything I say can be superseded by the opinions of those who might call themselves Mormon.
The postmodern idea that Latter-day Saints can interpret doctrine in their own way is quite common, even when these individual beliefs are contrary to the official teaching of the Mormon Church. Let it be said that I would never tell a Mormon what he or she personally believes because I don’t pretend to be omniscient. However, I think I’m capable of determining the basic idea of what Mormonism teaches, regardless of how a particular teaching might be spinned by the individual non-general authority, whether it is a professor at a church university or my next-door neighbor.
In the June 2007 Ensign, Seventy Jay Jensen and Apostle Jeffrey Holland, both of whom are LDS General Authorities, provided this exchange on page 96:
Elder Jensen: So far our discussion has concentrated on the four standard works. We do have other scripture.
Elder Holland: Yes. Do you want to say a word about the living prophets?
Elder Jensen: We do have good manuals, and we do have magazines and stories. Aren’t they powerful?
Elder Holland: We do have great material, to say nothing of the whole world of the living prophets and semiannual general conference broadcasts and publications that go to the Church. We have a wealth of the word of God available to us, and we ought to use it.
Notice what Jensen said: “We do have other scripture.” According to these GAs, the “other scripture” sources come through manuals, conference speeches, and other official church materials. Yet how often have I quoted from these sources and then been rebuffed because it’s different from what an individual Mormon might believe?
But let’s turn the tables. Why should I accept the Mormon’s individual interpretation about a particular doctrine as authoritative unless it can be fully supported by her scripture? Too often Christians let the Mormon off the hook—“after all,” we think, “she’s the Latter-day Saint and I’m not”—when the burden of proof should be placed upon individual Mormons. Let them support their beliefs by making reference to the authoritative words of the church and not just basing their ideas on feelings or what they feel is common sense. If I’m wrong, then show me; for example, did I take a particular teaching or quote out of context? But to say that I am not explaining Mormonism in an accurate manner merely because it’s different from a particular Mormon’s personal belief system is, as a friend of mine once termed it, “poppycock.”
Based on the above words of the two GAs, I don’t think it’s possible that the ideas of Mormonism belong to an esoteric postmodern camp. If so, then the only person who can truly follow this faith the way it was meant to be followed is each individual Latter-day Saint and the use of his or her own interpretation skills. If this is true, maybe the Mormon Church can save itself some time and money by no longer hosting conferences or producing its material for the membership. The church should then declare that its followers can interpret Mormonism any way they wish, just as long as they call themselves Mormons and pay their tithes.
I have a sneaking suspicion, however, that the leadership in Salt Lake City will never be willing to preach such a radical message from the conference pulpit. And think about it. Even if President Hinckley decided to turn this idea into doctrine, why should anyone accept it anyway? Quite the vicious circle, isn’t it?
rick b: But it does not Claim TO BE THE WORD OF GOD.
The Book of Mormon does indeed claim to be the Word of God. Where did you get the idea that it doesn’t? Have you even read the Book of Mormon?
Also, none of your attempted proof-texts seem to prove what you hope they will prove…
With all that has been said in the last few days, I come back to an earlier question and ask if any of the Mormons posting here will succinctly answer it:
Should the faithful Latter-day Saint believe the prophets when they are speaking from the conference pulpit or writing in church publications? If your answer is “no,” “not always,” or “depends” (as I’ve heard on this thread this weekend), then are you saying that I can understand what is truth merely based on my personal take of what they said? Any documentation from your current leadership would be greatly appreciated.
Geoff J,
Do you read what I write or simply skim it over, I clearly said, I READ ALL 4 STANDERD WORKS.
Also with out reposting all the Scripture, please provide me a list of as many Verses as possible from the BoM that claim the BoM is the word of God. If it is their, then I missed it. But if I missed it, that only proves I am not perfect, and I met many LDS, Where I said, the Bible says… But never gave chapter and verse, the LDS would reply, I never saw that, please provide Chapter and verse and I did. So If you could provide the list, that would be great. Rick b
rick b: I clearly said, I READ ALL 4 STANDERD WORKS.
I must have missed where you said that in this thread. But I’ll take your word on that one.
Here are some Book of Mormon passages that describe the record as the word of God:
That is from 2 Nephi 27 alone. There are scores of other passages I could quote for you too if you’d like. Perhaps you should consider giving the Book of Mormon another read through — it appears you missed some of the central messages of the record.
I need to get one thing out of the way, then I will go back to being polite and likable.
I, John C., a Mormon, have more belief in, knowledge of, respect for, and use for the truth than Aaron Shafovaloff has had, will have, or currently has (additionally, I am better looking). I base this claim on the exact amount of evidence and proof that Aaron bases his “many Mormons prefer the sayings of their leaders to the truth” claim. I defy anyone to prove me wrong.
That out of the way, back to the grindstone:
Eric, regarding a royal priesthood, quoting me the scripture doesn’t explain to me your interpretation (or, perhaps more importantly, how it differs from mine). Certainly, I could tell you that I want to be a savior on Mount Zion and I could point you to Obadiah 1:21, but I don’t think that would tell you what I meant. When you say that Christians have a royal priesthood, what do you mean?
Aaron,
To be clear, I don’t like you. [Personal attack removed by moderator.]. With that out of the way, I tend to read the tension in the quorum at the time as the tension between two very stubborn men, one an apostle and another the president of the church, both of whom assumed that they understood things that, to be completely frank, Mormons still don’t have a clear doctrinal handle on. In other words, we are still trying to work out the truth, using scripture, the interpretations (inspired to a greater or lesser degree) of these men, our own understanding, and God’s inspiration today. Its tough work, but we tend to enjoy it.
“What appears to be the precedent is that the flock blindly follows the shepherd, without looking at a roadmap to see if the direction the shepherd is going is correct.”
Daniel, we follow the shepherd, but not blindly. We try our best to integrate the new with the old, sometimes more successfully than others. It is a matter of faith in God, moreso than a matter of faith in men.
John C., 1 Peter 2:5 says that Christians belong to a “holy priesthood” and verse 9 adds that we belong to a royal priesthood. It means we don’t need a “Aaronic” and “Melchizedek” priesthood authority–the Bible is very clear in Hebrews that these were Old Testament offices, anyway, and that the only person who held both were Jesus Christ. When I pray to God, I pray directly to God through the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). And as far as you saying you’re better looking than Aaron…my, oh, my…may I ask what was asked in Alma 5:28??? Do I hear “pride” anyone?
Eric,
The Church has published a press release dealing with this concept recently. Among other things, that press release states:
A simple question: who makes the doctrine for the LDS church?>
Jesus Christ does.
Through the First Presidency of his restored church official doctrines are announced. The leaders of the church also have personal opinions on all sorts of things and they occasionally publicly state those as well. See the quote John F. just gave for more details.
Eric,
I don’t doubt your ability to quote scripture. You still haven’t said what belonging to a “royal priesthood” means to you (or even a “holy priesthood”). All you’ve said is that you belong to it. Further, the whole point of the priesthood in the Old Testament (and in other ancient Near Eastern religions) is to mediate between God and humanity. Why would Peter call us mediators, if we do not, to some degree, mediate? After all, there is a reason that Christ is called the great high priest in Hebrews.
I promise to stop insulting Aaron if he promises to stop making unfounded assertions without admitting that they are entirely unfounded.
“Can we trust your prophet, or do we need the Scriptures.”
Rick, the LDS response to that (or, at least, my LDS response to that) is yes. You can trust our Prophet and you do need scripture. Just like us 🙂
“Should the faithful Latter-day Saint believe the prophets when they are speaking from the conference pulpit or writing in church publications?”
Wait, do you mean current prophets? This is, as I am sure you know, an important caveat.
Finally, we have the following from Elder Dallin H. Oaks:
As a General Authority, it is my responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.
The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this same thing in another way. When he was asked how he governed such a diverse group of Saints, he said, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves”
My guess is that John C. was being facetious with that comment.
As far as the “Royal Priesthood” issue, quoting the scripture and then repeating its content is neither good hermeneutics nor a meaningful response to John C.’s question.
Not true, john f. I was being angry.
Geoff, in my Long reply to John C I said: I searched the Scriptures, Read all the Standerd works, Only the Bible makes these claims about it’s self.
So Yes I said it, and Yes you Missed it. Rick B
Rick,
He understands that. Please note that he also quoted the Book of Mormon declaring itself the word of God.
(To john f.)
I’m going to assume that you missed Eric’s explanation to the passage he posted (which, ironically, began in the very next sentence). Here is part of his post with the important part in bold:
“1 Peter 2:5 says that Christians belong to a “holy priesthood” and verse 9 adds that we belong to a royal priesthood. It means we don’t need a “Aaronic” and “Melchizedek” priesthood authority–the Bible is very clear in Hebrews that these were Old Testament offices, anyway, and that the only person who held both were Jesus Christ.
The LDS Church’s Priesthood claims to be the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood’s of old. All Eric is stating is that there is no present-day need for these priesthoods due to Christ’s earthly ministry (and, more importantly, His eternal sacrifice on the cross).
Now please explain to me just how the Bible was assembled and who decided which books were included?
Also just how many years after the death of Christ did this take place?
Just how many times has it been translated and by whom and from what languages?
How far from the original source is the Bible you quote from and take so literally?
John C said Rick,
He understands that. Please note that he also quoted the Book of Mormon declaring itself the word of God.
If Geoff understands that, then why did he say he missed it? Why are you speaking for him saying he knew that when that was not what he said?
Then Geoff and John, those verses saying the BoK of mormon are the word of god, they are so vague it really does not look to me like that is speaking about the BoM, it looks like it could be speaking about any book. But thats just me. Rick b
Apparently, if a book says of itself that it is the Word of God, then it is, because only a book that really is the Word of God would actually say so somewhere between the front and back cover.
D asks some questions:
“Now please explain to me just how the Bible was assembled and who decided which books were included?”
Old or New Testament? Let’s stay with New. Compiled, the books were listed by early church fathers in the second century; canon completed by the end of the 4th century. All but 7 NT verses were quoted by church fathers during the second century of church in their writings.
“Also just how many years after the death of Christ did this take place?”
I’m thinking you mean when were they written. Depends if you listen to the Jesus Seminar folks, but I believe John wrote last in the 90s. Most of the work was completed, though, before AD 70. Compiled from the 1st century on through until finalized at the Council of Carthage in 397.
“Just how many times has it been translated and by whom and from what languages?”
Thousands of times into many languages. Why, English has dozens and dozens of translations, even some being published today. Would you say “translating” the scriptures this many times somehow takes away from its authenticity? Why would it? We can go back to the earliest and most reliable of texts to verify what was said–much better than the BOM, which we have nothing (“Reformed Egyptian”) to compare it. So how do we know the thousands of BOM changes–albeit, mostly grammatical, though admittedly major issues were changed)–had any authority from God. For instance in 2 Nephi, how do we know the word should read “pure” and not “white” since Smith would not receive further revelation unless the previous word’s translation was correct?
“How far from the original source is the Bible you quote from and take so literally?”
Almost 2 millennium. Do Mormons not take the Bible literally? Should James 1:5 not be taken this way? Or 1 Cor. 15:29? You can’t have it both ways. Either the Bible is corrupt and can’t be believed, or it’s not. If you’re concerned about corruption, then I suggest as a Mormon you used the Joseph Smith Translation.
rick b,
Let’s move on past the question of whether you claimed to have already read “ALL 4 STANDERD WORKS”. I see now that you did make that claim (and I believed you did even before I saw it). The bigger problem is that even after reading the Book of Mormon you apparently didn’t comprehend major messages the record is teaching. What good is reading it if you can’t comprehend it? Let’s start with 2 Nephi 27. You can go read it again here (it’s not all that long). The entire chapter is a prophecy about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in the last days. It is Nephi expounding on the ideas he read in Isaiah chapter 29. There is nothing vague about the verses I quoted at all — they unequivocally state that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Even your evangelical buddies here will attest to the fact that it claims this I suspect. Earlier you claimed that the Bible must be the word of God because it says it is. By that (rather silly) standard you would also have to accept the Book of Mormon to be the word of God since it also says it is. Can you see the problem here?
PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY
What about the Mormon priesthood authority? Is it biblical? Not at all. The Aaronic priesthood was to be held only by those of the tribe of Levi (Numbers 3:5-10). This priesthood was fulfilled by the atonement of Christ (Hebrews 7:11-28; 10:8-18); thus, making this priesthood no longer valid or necessary.
In the Old Testament, there was generally only one high priest. What the book of Hebrews teaches is that Jesus has fulfilled the Aaronic priesthood (meaning it is no longer in effect), and that he has permanently taken the position of high priest. Since he will never die, he will have no successors (Hebrews 7). Thus he is of the order of Melchizedek, without beginning or end of days. Therefore, his priesthood is “unchangeable” (v. 24; the Greek word is aparabatos, which literally means “untransferable”). We need no other high priest no other mediator (1 Timothy 2:5).
So where do Christians get their authority? Directly from God. John 1:12 teaches that those who receive Christ are given authority (exousia, the same word used of Christ in Matthew 28:18). We have been adopted as Gods children, therefore we are co-heirs with Christ.
This is my take on this Truth of the Bible. As far as scripture goes and the willingness to place fault by saying a man wrote it, then there is no truth in any written book.
God is not a god of confusion or one that can change with the passing of time. This would be a god that a man would make up to fit with in the mind of reason. For man changes as time and experiences molds him and so would his god. I understand that LDS and Christians are taught to read and search out the truth. But if you have unbelief in your heart then there is no truth and non is found before you seek it.
The true God does not change (Malachi 3:6), nor does he grow in knowledge Isaiah 40:13). There is none like him, he is unique, he is the only true God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 21-22; 46:9; 1 Corinthians 8:5). He has always been God (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 40:28). God is spirit, not an exalted man with flesh and bone (John 4:24; Luke 24:39; Hosea 11:9; Numbers 23:19). (Note that though Jesus, being God, did become human in his incarnation, this is quite different than saying that a man became a god.)
Moderator’s note: Please — no more back-to-back comments
The Bible’s claim for itself as inspired, God-given scripture, in my opinion, isn’t sufficient evidence to believe it is. It is, however, significant when seen as part of a larger package of evidences, both internal and external. Just because a man claims that he is an off-duty police officer doesn’t make him one, but a reasonable person wouldn’t blow a person like that off.
PS: I recommend the MP3s showcased throughout the articles on the Bible at Theopedia.
Well said Aaron. I agree.
But what Christ and the apostles say about the God-given scripture, that is my foundation.
Yet sometime, Aaron, when my schedule permits, I will need to listen to the profs.
Geoff, Let me put it this way to you. Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the OT many times, this shows they believed it to be the word of God. I never once see anyone in the Bible quoting Mormon Prophets or parts of the BoM, Why?
The Mormon Prophets supposdly were around at the time from the dates listed in the BoM. Just a thought, Rick b
I agree Tom, that God’s word is our authority and foundation. God has given us lots of reasons, primarily internal, and secondarily external, to trust that foundation and stand on it.
Latter-day Saints revere and live according to the Bible — and they always have. Martin Luther, on the other hand, appears to have wanted to have it both ways. He wanted Romans 3:28 to exist without the Book of James because he preferred the doctrine in Romans 3:28 (and other verses in Romans) over that found in the Book of James. Because James contradicted what he wanted Romans to say, Martin Luther verged on outright dismissing the Book of James as not scripture. In the end, he derided it as “an Epistle full of straw”. Considering Martin Luther’s willingness to gloss over doctrine in the Bible (dismissing an entire book of the New Testament) that was inconvenient to his conclusions about the meaning of Jesus Christ’s Atonement, it is surprising that many creedal Christians hold to the Bible as sufficient and inerrant.
With regard to corrections in the Book of Mormon, it is true that the overwhelming majority are merely grammatical corrections. As to the change from “white” to “pure”, when Joseph Smith first translated the Book of Mormon, he gave the literal rendering of “white” (i.e., as found abundantly in the Hebrew Bible) for the passage in 2 Nephi 30:6. For the 1840 edition, he changed it to “pure,” realizing that this better reflected the meaning of the word used by Nephi. It really can be that simple, and not sinister at all.
In September of 1823 Joseph allegedly received several visitations from the angel Moroni( who) (reportedly, a resurrected prophet/warrior). According to Moroni, God had chosen Joseph to be the prophet of the restoration. He was to restore the power and authority of the priesthood (This priesthood was fulfilled by the atonement of Christ (Hebrews 7:11-28; 10:8-18); thus, making this priesthood no longer valid or necessary.
?), and translate a book containing an account of the origin and history of the former inhabitants of Central America (The American Indians are physically Mongoloids and thus must have originated in eastern Asia.) . This book contained an alleged account of the resurrected Jesus visiting these people. But it was not until 1827 that Joseph was lead by the angel Moroni to unearth the golden plates, upon which was inscribed the text of the Book of Mormon in “Reformed Egyptian (What is this and how in a day of knowledge do we still pretend that this realy happened).”
As far your statement It is, however, significant when seen as part of a larger package of evidences, both internal and external. Just because a man claims that he is an off-duty police officer doesn’t make him one, but a reasonable person wouldn’t blow a person like that off. I will agree with that, so we should use the same in testing all Religion.
What of Mormanism and it’s Book? Can one say the same? How? By what body of evidences?
John, I don’t know of any living Protestant that doesn’t think James is fully inspired.
On the contrary, I met lots of Mormons this past week at the Manti Pageant who, when challenged with Isaiah 43:10, immediately chalked it up to the corruption of the Bible. At a lay level, it’s a common defense mechanism, an escape hatch. When this sort of sleight of hand stops being so common, maybe then we’ll take the Mormon claim to trust the Bible seriously.
rick b:I never once see anyone in the Bible quoting Mormon Prophets or parts of the BoM, Why?
Are you serious about this question or are you just playing dumb here? In any case, I’ll play along I guess…
The Book of Mormon takes place on the other side of the world from Palestine and the people in the New Testament had no records of the activities on the other side of the world. Lehi and his family left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. after all. How on earth could the New Testament authors have quoted the Book of Mormon? The idea that they should have quoted the Book of Mormon is just silly. (Thus my incredulity about your question…)
Aaron,
What is it about Isaiah 43:10 that you think damages Mormonism? Mormon scriptures clearly talk about the one eternal God without end just like the Bible does.
Certainly the One God is composed of multiple divine persons, but this is the same claim most all creedal Christians make about the Trinity. You seem to be confusing a lack of theological sophistication among Mormon laypersons with real theological problems. By the standard you are using I could claim that Evangelicals are actually modalists (aka Sabellianists). Sure, you know Sabellianism is considered a heresy but most evangelicals I have met think that it is the only way to explain how God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One God.
Geoff, I was very serious about my question, I know it sounds silly to you, but why is it hard to believe that Jesus and the apostles quote from authors that lived 4,000 years before they did and quote from the Genesis account, which if their was a world wide flood that would have destoryed all records. so if Jesus could quote from those sources, why is it hard to believe he could quote from the BoM?
Lets add to that, if the BoM speaks about and quotes from the OT why cannot the Bible do it also? I know, because the BoM is fiction. Rick b
rick b,
Ok, let’s lay this out clearly. Jesus and the apostles had scriptures available to them. Those scriptures were the writings of the Jewish prophets that preceded them and they consisted of basically what we call the Old Testament today (including the Genesis account). So of course Jesus and his disciples quoted the scriptures available to them.
Lehi and his family left Jerusalem and sailed to the promised land 600 years before Jesus and the apostles lived. Lehi and his descendants kept records of their dealing with God too. We call that record the Book of Mormon now. How would Jesus and his disciples have access to those records of Lehi’s descendants? If they had no access to those records (since they were on a different continent and all) how cold they have quoted them? See the problem?
Geoff, I think what Aaron is trying to ask is how you can reconcile the LDS doctrine of exaltation, especially as evidenced by the Lorenzo Snow couplet (“As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be”) with Isaiah 43:10, which says that there was, is now, and always will be, ONLY one God. If you are exalted to godhood (“as God now is, man may be), that contradicts Isaiah 43:10.
Ah, yes. So my response is largely the same based on that nuance, Daniel. I am of the opinion that exaltation entails us becoming at one with the One God in the same way Jesus prayed for the original apostles to become at one with the One God (see John 17). This oneness does not mean personhood must obliterated though — it just means that we can become one with God in a sort of extended Godhead in my opinion. There is of course a lot that remains to be revealed about such theological/metaphysical issues, but my point is that there is no reason to assume Mormon theology must be at odds with this concept of the One God (even if some Mormons speculate otherwise).
Geoff J, said How would Jesus and his disciples have access to those records of Lehi’s descendants? If they had no access to those records (since they were on a different continent and all) how cold they have quoted them? See the problem?
I understand what your saying and I agree, But just as you say How could Christ quote from Lehi, my question is How could Lehi quote from Christ? Or any of the Mormon Prophets. We find many Verbatem quotes in the BoM that come from the Bible, some places are almost entire chapters. So if Lehi can quote Christ, why cannot Christ quote Lehi? Rick b
There is a simple answer to your question rick b: Lehi didn’t quote from Christ.
Lehi and his people took with them the scriptures that were available to them in 600 B.C. (that included all the words of the prophets up through Isaiah basically). So they used and quoted them regularly in their records.
Other than that, the people in the promised land did not get anything from what we call the New Testament until the resurrected Christ appeared to them and preached sermons that matched some of the sermons he gave in his mortal ministry in the Palestine.
The topic of this thread should be who makes up LDS doctrine, not what is LDS doctrine. Please bring the conversation back to the topic. Thanks.
Geoff, perhaps I’ll address your response to me in a blog post. We can pick it up then.
I think the conversation has gone from “Just who makes up LDS Doctrine” to “This is my interpretation of this certain doctrine.”
I think everyone can post 100 posts each on this stuff and the two parties wont agree. After all, being wrong is the worst thing in the world.
Basic fact is we have been told from the LDS Prophets mouths that what they speak of is the Word of God. So if you believe in the Prophet, you HAVE to accept EVERYTHING that they say. The only problem that arises is that throughout the history of the LDS church, there have been major contradictions on what seem to be the MOST important subjects. (i.e. The plan of salvation *which mostly conflicts with the Bible, not necessarily words of two different prophets*, the identity of God and Jesus, & trusting in what is said to be the word of God – Holy Bible).
Just from my own personal experiences, whenever a doctrine taught by the LDS church conflicts with Doctrine taught by Jesus and his Prophets and Apostles in the Bible, Mormon Apologists are quick to say that the interpretation in the Bible is wrong. It’s logic, of course, for there to be a right, there has to be a wrong, BUT, why do we discredit the Bible when it’s sources have been proven with history and tangible evidence), when a 14 year old boy claims to have found a true church, a true book, and there to be no tangible evidence found to back it up. And then constant contradiction between Prophets and that Book throughout the history of the church. Prophecies not fulfilled, un-taught history of Joseph Smith (him and his family’s experience with treasure seeking)
I’m just a student and don’t claim to know everything. Naturally because of how I was raised, and what I have read, pondered, prayed about, and experienced, I choose to believe in the God of the Bible and the doctrines that lie within.
I wish you all the best of luck in finding God. I know its tough when there are so many people quick to say “He’s this way
I choose to believe in the God of the Bible and the doctrines that lie within.
Amen brother. That’s just what I do too. Godspeed to you as well.
So do I. I choose to believe in the God of the Bible and the doctrines that lie therein.
Interestingly, the God of the Nicean Creed although not particularly objectionable in philosophical terms — a fourth-century committee’s guess as to the philosophical essence/nature of God and Jesus is as good as anyone else’s and even more impressive when later analyzed by Scholastics and Catholic Apologists through the lens and vocabulary of Greek philosophy — is not found in the Bible. The Nicean Creed is (obviously) extra-biblical. As such, its use by Christians who profess belief in the absolute sufficiency and inerrancy of the Bible as a tool to define people as un-Christian who believe in Jesus Christ but who do not recite or bear any kind of allegiance whatsoever to that Creed or its progeny of trinitarian creeds is very curious indeed. One would think that a belief in the sufficiency and inerrancy of the Bible would preclude adherence to such an extra-biblically created and sustained Creed.
Latter-day Saints, however, by and large do not believe that the Bible is sufficient and inerrant. Rather, Latter-day Saints take the realistic view that not everything that God could ever or would ever reveal to his children is already contained in the Bible. Also, Latter-day Saints take the realistic view that, even though some very old manuscripts of the books of the Bible exist and any new translation can be compared against those old examples and fragments, the oldest, primary sources do not exist for any of the books of the Bible. That is one reason, for example, why so much speculation exists about Q as a source for the Gospels and the Documentary Hypothesis as a theory to deal with the creation of the Old Testament. The realistic view thus includes an awareness that the Bible is very likely not inerrant in some of the things expressed therein.
Jeff,
I am curious as the proofs that you refer to regarding the bible. I am personally engaged in a debate with many scholars regarding the historical value of the Bible and I would be interested in any data you have proving the Bible to be historical (especially prior to the Exile of the Jews).
Well. I have heard and read many things. I will have to get back to you with my resources. Just one video you might want to check out is one done by Living Hope ministry’s. I believe its called The Bible Vs. The Book of Mormon (on youtube) It compares archaeological findings (including geographic locations, cultures, actual people mentioned (prophets, Jesus Christ), animals mentioned, written discoveries, metallurgy, etc.) Prophets that were mentioned in the Bible have been found to be written about by non-secular sources.. Then the video points out, among other things, that there has been nothing found that mentions the prophets in the Book of Mormon, and that there is no link of DNA connecting American Indians to I believe, don’t quote me, the Lamenites. There has been no bones found, and specifically no steel weapons/machines/coins used by the Nephites and the Lamenites. There have been no cattle/horses found that they supposedly had and rode into battle. You cant place the cities that supposedly existed in the real world setting without altering one or the other.
That being said, and I’m giving you an out here, you would have to say that God made ALL that history dissapear. (People, weapons, coins) and the DNA of the Indians would have to be altered.
I hope this helps.
Jeff,
There is a loud group of scholars who argue that nothing in the Bible was written prior to the Babylonian exile, that Moses, Abraham, David, and other pre-Exilic figures are essentially made up (or so distorted in the telling that they may as well have been made up). On this front, you might be interested in reading the works of Israel Finkelstein, Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas Thompson, John van Seters, and Peter Davies. They all make arguments against the historicity of the Bible. And that is all, of course, just relating to the Old Testament.
Also, I am very interested in the evidence you cite for Israelite prophets being mentioned outside the Bible. The only Biblical prophet I am aware of who has been cited outside of the Bible is Balaam, who, of course, is not an Israelite. Direct extra-biblical evidence for the historical existence of one of the Biblical prophets would be tremendous news.
Finally, Eric,
“Do Mormons not take the Bible literally? Should James 1:5 not be taken this way? Or 1 Cor. 15:29? You can¹t have it both ways”
I don’t understand what you mean by this. The book you suggested suggests that the message is occasionally corrupted by human error. Are you arguing for Biblical inerrancy or are you arguing for something else?
Latter-day Saints, however, by and large do not believe that the Bible is sufficient and inerrant. (Yet they will debat that books writen by a an uneducated man who had a pass of preying on peoples greed and fears for personal gain are some how are inerrant)
Rather, Latter-day Saints take the realistic (—Synonyms 1. pragmatic, common-sense, hard-headed, sensible.) view that not everything that God could ever or would ever reveal to his children is already contained in the Bible.
Wow some how Golden books that can not be seen or back up by any other forms of writing and contradicts the bible is realistic. “ please don’t send the list of J Smiths friends for proof” ( All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26).
That is one reason, for example, why so much speculation exists about Q as a source for the Gospels and the Documentary Hypothesis as a theory to deal with the creation of the Old Testament. The realistic view thus includes an awareness that the Bible is very likely not inerrant in some of the things expressed therein.
What are you talking about???
Is LDS doctrine is man made up stuff for the realistic person?
Scholars have compiled these ancient manuscripts into Greek texts known as “critical texts”. Our English versions are translated directly from these Greek texts, and not from other translations. This answers the misconception that the Bible has been translated and retranslated to the point that it is no longer accurate. The contemporary translations that use accurate translation methods and depend on a reliable critical Greek text can be trusted to accurately represent the Bible as it was originally given in the Old and New Testaments. Any differences in meaning from one responsible translation to another are insignificant, and the few passages that differ from one text type to another are well known and usually noted in any reputable study Bible.
D Allison,
I assume that you are responding to me (please correct me if I misunderstand). You are correct that the LDS believe the Bible to not be inerrant; as you have noted in other comments, there are a significant number of known variants (many in spelling and grammar, but many not) in the Biblical text and the origin of many of them is in scholarly dispute. It is really only a small portion of Protestant Christianity who maintains that the Bible is completely inerrant (most admit to some changes).
As to whether we believe that the Book of Mormon is inerrant, I don’t know what you mean. The Book clearly contains scribal errors and owns up to its own failings on that regard. You might find a study of the editorial musings of the Book of Mormon authors rewarding. We do believe that the Book of Mormon was translated via revelation from God and that, as such, it is not subject to the standard scribal error-making process (skipping letters/paragraphs, repeating sections, mixing up letters, and so forth). But I don’t know that we would argue that it is entirely without error. Joseph Smith did declare it the most correct book on earth, but that also does not mean it was error free (although certainly some people have taken it to mean that).
FWIW, we don’t believe that Bible is false or that the Book of Mormon contradicts it. Rather, we believe it clarifies what needs to be clarified and muddies what needs to be muddied. 🙂
(Mods, I apologize for posting twice in a row, but I didn’t notice D’s second post)
D (part deux),
I don’t understand what you mean by realistic in this setting. Could you explain your term? I don’t understand if I represent the realistic view or if you do?
Regarding the critical texts, they are arrived at by scholarly consensus and the rules of text critical inquiry (rules like “the more difficult text is to be preferred” and “the shorter text is to be preferred”). These are good general guidelines for choosing specific readings, but any biblical scholar will tell you that there are good reasons for abandoning them in any specific case. In any event, critical texts are compiled from thousands of texts (as you note) which may or may not have been translated from another language or influenced by another source. They represent a scholarly consensus and, usually, not a scholarly consensus that represents itself as recreating (or creating) the word of God. They admit that it is all their best guess.
Other than that, I agree with you. Well-written, responsible Study Bibles do not major variants and particularly questionable texts. I like the Bible. I like reading it and studying it. I believe that it is a text that can, generally speaking, be trusted, but I reserve the right to question anyone’s interpretation of a given passage and the text history thereof(responsibly, of course), just as I would allow anyone to question my interpretations.
It is my understanding that God made up LDS doctrine a long time ago.