LDS and the bible vs BOM

[TOmNossor]

You can personally disagree with those last two as being actually taught, but I can confirm (as I mentioned in the post in question) that I have been taught many times in priesthood meetings, and from many a talks at the ward and stake level that we are not to question or doubt the President of the Church and that we are to act in faith upon his directives. Even if we disagree with them or if they violate the, and I quote, “laws of men.” In fact, the one that sticks out the clearest to me was a conversation about polygamy, which is illegal in the US. I was told that if the President (Hinkley at the time) told us all to take up the practice of plural marriage again, that even though it violated the laws of men,we would be spiritually obligated to obey - because he could not be wrong on such matters, that such a directive would be from the mouth piece of God and thus to be obeyed.

This is what I was taught at the WARD level. Disagree with it all you want - I have my direct experience to rely on to determine that the quote is not out of character from my own experiences in the LDS faith.
I am not communicating very well.
I am not suggesting that anything you related is inconsistent with things you believed and/or were taught as a LDS. Many of the things you believed I never believed, but I have heard similar stories often enough that I do not doubt there are things actually taught at the base of such understandings. I hope I have taught my son well that when he finds error in something he was taught (even if it was from me) it is best to seek additional understanding. Were he to come to me and say, “I was taught prophets were infallible, ABC was a prophet and xyz was said by ABC and xyz is untrue.” I would point out to him that the potential conclusion that “ABC was not a prophet” relies upon the truth of all three of the other premises. If any of them are false, the conclusion is not demanded. I have explained similar things to him before. I am of the opinion that if you were taught unambiguously that prophets are infallible, you were taught wrong. That being said none of your quotes demand that prophets are infallible anyway AND there are quite a few quotes that come from church leaders that I think virtually demand the opposite.

So, you believed prophets were infallible. You discovered the men LDS claim are prophets were not infallible. You concluded the men called prophets by LDS were not prophets at all. I understand. I disagree with your conclusion because I disagree with the premise that “prophets are/were infallible,” but that is where I am coming from not where you are coming from.
Charity, TOm

P.S. Do I need to point out the parallels between flawed concepts of Papal Infallibility and Protestant conclusions???

 

[zaffiroborant]

So, you believed prophets were infallible. You discovered the men LDS claim are prophets were not infallible. You concluded the men called prophets by LDS were not prophets at all. I understand. I disagree with your conclusion because I disagree with the premise that “prophets are/were infallible,” but that is where I am coming from not where you are coming from.

Charity, TOm

P.S. Do I need to point out the parallels between flawed concepts of Papal Infallibility and Protestant conclusions???
He seems to be saying that he was taught that you do what the prophets tell you because he’s the prophet not because he’s infallible. More of a “follow your prophet right or wrong”.

 

[Stephen168]

I see an infallible prophet claimed by Mormonism
Ezra Taft Benson; Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet 2/26/1980:

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

**Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.**

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

Infallible in EVERYTHING, not just faith and morals

 

[Stephen168]

The end of the title page of the BoM admits as much: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” The BoM is often touted as the “most correct” book, but not a perfectly correct book.

I don’t see that quote in my 1974 edition. There is a history of the origin of the Book of Mormon where is claims to be a history of all original inhabitants if the Americas.

 

[Horton]

I see an infallible prophet claimed by Mormonism

Originally Posted by Ezra Taft Benson; Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet 2/26/1980
First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer

Infallible in EVERYTHING, not just faith and morals

Bolding mine

But that was only in 1980 when that guy was prophet Certainly the next prophe "corrected whatever wrongs the previous prophets committed.

I say that in somewhat of a jest but…this is the main issue for Catholics (at least this Catholic), the lack of continuity of the faith. How can one follow and ever changing dogma & doctrine? How can one explain their belief if it changes with the seasons? Even on this thread you have LDS and former LDS contradicting each other in what they were taught.

 

[jane_doe]

(This reply is how I view change in the church—)

When I was a little kid, I really looked up to the leaders in my local congregation: they could do no wrong in my eyes. I also idolized the leaders in the scriptures. I was young—the age when all Good Guys wore superman capes and all Bad Guys dressed in black. I had faith in God, and it was pure faith, but as simplistic as my superman capes.

Then, when I was ~12 I decided the read the Bible cover-to-cover. I was just a few chapters in I read about Noah. Yeah, there was the part about the Ark, but then there was this story about Noah getting super drunk and danced around nude in front of his family.

What the??? That’s not a superman cape!! Why’s a man of God acting this way!!

As I continued to read my Bible, I discovered it to 1000+ rated R pages of men messing up again and again! At first it was repulsive but then… I saw myself in their mistakes. And I saw how these messed up people still communed with God and how they would grow to be better people. And then I got to the New Testament and met Jesus: the Perfect man, and He talked about Forgiveness and the Grace of God offered freely to all these wretched people… WOW!!! That’s what it was all about: Jesus coming to save our messed up selves.

As I watched people in the Bible grow, I was growing too. Noah, Abraham, Peter, Paul, my bishop, the current church leaders: they all lost their superman capes in my eyes… but somehow that didn’t make them less to me. Actually, it made them more, because they weren’t magical-Krypotonians, but rather everyday people just like me. We were all growing and learning new things about God together.

I changed throughout that reading of the Bible. My understanding of God and his people fundlementally changed. Does that mean the Gospel had changed, or that God Himself had changed? No! It was just me and my understanding.

Just as I changed in my individual understanding of God, so do the collective people of God. We change, we grow. We embrace new ways of understanding of the Divine. Again, it’s not cause the Gospel itself is changing, but rather our understanding.

I love it! I feel that my personal understanding of God has increased over my lifetime, and the church as a whole. It is for Good and to be celebrated. It is no more difficult to keep track of than to observe how my child moves from crawling, to tentative steps, to running around the house hunting for chocolate this morning.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Noah didn’t dance drunk in front of his family! Lol

 

[Horton]

(This reply is how I view change in the church—)

When I was a little kid, I really looked up to the leaders in my local congregation: they could do no wrong in my eyes. I also idolized the leaders in the scriptures. I was young—the age when all Good Guys wore superman capes and all Bad Guys dressed in black. I had faith in God, and it was pure faith, but as simplistic as my superman capes.

Then, when I was ~12 I decided the read the Bible cover-to-cover. I was just a few chapters in I read about Noah. Yeah, there was the part about the Ark, but then there was this story about Noah getting super drunk and danced around nude in front of his family.

What the??? That’s not a superman cape!! Why’s a man of God acting this way!!

As I continued to read my Bible, I discovered it to 1000+ rated R pages of men messing up again and again! At first it was repulsive but then… I saw myself in their mistakes. And I saw how these messed up people still communed with God and how they would grow to be better people. And then I got to the New Testament and met Jesus: the Perfect man, and He talked about Forgiveness and the Grace of God offered freely to all these wretched people… WOW!!! That’s what it was all about: Jesus coming to save our messed up selves.

As I watched people in the Bible grow, I was growing too. Noah, Abraham, Peter, Paul, my bishop, the current church leaders: they all lost their superman capes in my eyes… but somehow that didn’t make them less to me. Actually, it made them more, because they weren’t magical-Krypotonians, but rather everyday people just like me. We were all growing and learning new things about God together.

I changed throughout that reading of the Bible. My understanding of God and his people fundlementally changed. Does that mean the Gospel had changed, or that God Himself had changed? No! It was just me and my understanding.

Just as I changed in my individual understanding of God, so do the collective people of God. We change, we grow. We embrace new ways of understanding of the Divine. Again, it’s not cause the Gospel itself is changing, but rather our understanding.

I love it! I feel that my personal understanding of God has increased over my lifetime, and the church as a whole. It is for Good and to be celebrated. It is no more difficult to keep track of than to observe how my child moves from crawling, to tentative steps, to running around the house hunting for chocolate this morning.

I’m not talking about the change of growth and maturity in my post - I’m talking about change in doctrine & teachings of a church. We all change as we grow older and our faith takes on personal changes.

You’ve read the bible cover to cover, great! Reading of the bible is something we should all do. My question is - during your reading of the bible, especially the new testament, how could you not come to believe in Christianity which is what the gospel and new testament are about?

 

[jane_doe]

Noah didn’t dance drunk in front of his family! Lol

Starts in Genesis 9:21

 

[Stephen168]

Bolding mine

But that was only in 1980 when that guy was prophet Certainly the next prophet "corrected whatever wrongs the previous prophets committed.

I say that in somewhat of a jest but…this is the main issue for Catholics (at least this Catholic), the lack of continuity of the faith. How can one follow and ever changing dogma & doctrine? How can one explain their belief if it changes with the seasons? Even on this thread you have LDS and former LDS contradicting each other in what they were taught.

It looks like fundamental #3 guarantees the confusion and contradiction you suggest could happen.

As Catholics we understand a change in doctrine and discipline, but the changes in dogma found in Mormonism make it impossible to rationally follow.

As someone said before the Book of Mormon changes to follow changes in dogma.

 

[jane_doe]

I’m not talking about the change of growth and maturity in my post - I’m talking about change in doctrine & teachings of a church. We all change as we grow older and our faith takes on personal changes.

As I said earlier, the Gospel doesn’t change, only our understanding of it. Couple of examples:

1. Christian have learned that raging holy wars and killing a bunch of people is not very Christlike.
2. People have learned that all people can appreciate God equally, regardless of skin color.
3. People have learned that the men that try to lead them are still men and do make mistakes.

These all can apply to many sects of Christianity. We all grow and learn.

You’ve read the bible cover to cover, great! Reading of the bible is something we should all do. My question is - during your reading of the bible, especially the new testament, how could you not come to believe in Christianity which is what the gospel and new testament are about?

I do considers myself a Christain, 100% I’m just not a Baptist Christian, a Evangelical Christian, or a Catholic Christian. I’m a Mormon Christian.

Yes, I know you’re probably going to disagree with me and go “Mormons aren’t Christian!”. My next move will then be to shrug and say “Only God will Judge”. So please, let’s just skip the Mormons-aren’t-Christian debate for now, and agree to disagree.

 

[Tarquin]

Secondly, I hear you saying, “A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.” …Charity, TOm

That, of course, is part of a verse from the Book of Mormon. The entire verse reads:

Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

. . . and is followed by,

Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? . . Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. . . . For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it. And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

Some “charity.” I would be surprised if someone did not consider it an insult to be told, “I hear you saying, ‘A Bible, we have got a Bible’” followed by “ and there cannot be any more Bible” so similar to “and we need no more Bible,” for in their equivalence it is in effect calling that person, “Thou fool.” I suspect forgiveness would be forthcoming by most persons; but there are some who when they are the target of such insults, are not quick to forgive.

How about “Thou fool, that shall say: A Book of Mormon, we have got a Book of Mormon, and we need no more Book of Mormon. Have ye obtained a Book of Mormon save it were by the ones who said that there were many other books to be revealed which you must also believe?" Perhaps James Strang’s Book of the Law of the Lord is valid scripture, the rejection of which puts Mormons in the same peril (as Mormons suppose) as those who reject the Book of Mormon. Or likewise with the revealed scriptures of dozens of other men and women who, inspired by the Book of Mormon and filled with the Holy Ghost, claim to have been called by God to present additional revelations, new scripture, or restore “the apostate Mormon church.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

Starts in Genesis 9:21

18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.

19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.

29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died

Nothing about dancing naked or in front of his family.

 

[Telstar]

Then, when I was ~12 I decided the read the Bible cover-to-cover. I was just a few chapters in I read about Noah. Yeah, there was the part about the Ark, but then there was this story about Noah getting super drunk and danced around nude in front of his family.

What the??? That’s not a superman cape!! Why’s a man of God acting this way!!

I’m bolding the part of your post that is most relevant, concerning what you got out of reading that passage about Noe (Noah).

Starts in Genesis 9:21

I think we should take a look at what the passage actually says, starting from 18.
From the Douay-Rheims version:Genesis 9: "[18] And the sons of Noe who came out of the ark, were Sem, Cham, and Japheth: and Cham is the father of Chanaan. [19] These three are the sons of Noe: and from these was all mankind spread over the whole earth. [20] And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard.

[21] And drinking of the wine was made drunk, and was uncovered in his tent. [22] Which when Cham the father of Chanaan had seen, to wit, that his father’ s nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without. [23] But Sem and Japheth put a cloak upon their shoulders, and going backward, covered the nakedness of their father: and their faces were turned away, and they saw not their father’ s nakedness. [24] And Noe awaking from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him, [25] He said: Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

[26] And he said: Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, be Chanaan his servant. [27] May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem, and Chanaan be his servant."
First of all, Noe was a farmer that grew grapes to make wine, so it’s not unusual that he would also test his wine. Sometimes, even someone that drinks wine regularly can become inebriated by a potent batch. When he realized that he was drunk, he went into his tent to sleep it off. There is no mention whatsoever of him dancing naked “in front of his family”, as you claimed he did. I can’t imagine where you even got that from, at all.

One of his sons, Cham, for some reason went into his tent and saw him lying naked on his bed. (In those days it was considered to be a very humiliating thing for any Jewish man to be seen naked by anyone.) Then, Cham (apparently thinking it was funny) went out and told his two brothers about it. They didn’t consider it to be funny at all, so they carefully shielded their eyes (so they couldn’t see him) and covered him up. So, when Noe woke up and found out what Cham had done (by humiliating him), he cursed Cham’s son to be a servant to Noe’s other two sons, forever.

So, your rendition and understanding of the story was more than a little askew. You might want to reconsider your laughing about it, since it was Cham’s laughing about it that got his children cursed by his father.

I know you said you were 12 when you first read the Bible. Maybe it’s time for you to try reading it, again. There might be a lot of other things that you don’t exactly remember correctly.

 

[jane_doe]

I know you said you were 12 when you first read the Bible. Maybe it’s time for you to try reading it, again. There might be a lot of other things that you don’t exactly remember correctly.

Telstar, this is very close to a personal attack, in response to a dear personal story from my childhood. Please treat me with respect.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s ok, I remember stuff skeewampus sometimes.

Noah’s son disrespected his father, but Noah didn’t do anything wrong.

 

[Horton]

As I said earlier, the Gospel doesn’t change, only our understanding of it. Couple of examples:

1. Christian have learned that raging holy wars and killing a bunch of people is not very Christlike.
2. People have learned that all people can appreciate God equally, regardless of skin color.
3. People have learned that the men that try to lead them are still men and do make mistakes.

These all can apply to many sects of Christianity. We all grow and learn.

I do considers myself a Christain, 100% I’m just not a Baptist Christian, a Evangelical Christian, or a Catholic Christian. I’m a Mormon Christian.

Yes, I know you’re probably going to disagree with me and go “Mormons aren’t Christian!”. My next move will then be to shrug and say “Only God will Judge”. So please, let’s just skip the Mormons-aren’t-Christian debate for now, and agree to disagree.

The gospels are four books of the bible and they don’t change. The rest of the bible doesn’t either. My point was that so much of LDS doctrine has changed its difficult to believe any of it. There are things in the Catholic Church I don’t understand and some I don’t completely agree with and guess what? I don’t have to worry about being excommunicated over it.

You’re right, I am going to disagree with momons being christian. Mormonism & Christianity are incongruent. To be Christian means to believe in the the divinity of Christ, to believe Blessed Mary conceived Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit and not through sexual relations with God. To be Christian means you believe in the Trinity. To be Christian you must believe God is who is.
Are people capable of Christian behavior, sure but the faith & belief must be there to BE Christian.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar, this is very close to a personal attack, in response to a dear personal story from my childhood. Please treat me with respect.

I’m very sorry if you took it that way, because it was certainly not meant as a personal attack. I was just pointing out that if you were 12 when you last read that story, and that’s how you remember it, then it might be a good idea to refresh your memory by reading it again. And, if you remember that story so vaguely, then there might also be others that you remember poorly, too.

That’s why most people do read the Bible over and over, again. They do it to keep it fresh in their minds. Reading it many times over can often help us to understand it better, and even discover other ways of looking at it that we hadn’t thought about the other times we read it. It’s a treasure trove of inspiration that continues to open up our hearts and minds to what God has said to us in the past, where we can learn how to better understand Him and apply that understanding to our lives, today. So, it’s certainly not a bad thing to read something from it every day. Even if you just open it up at random, you can sometimes find things that will inspire or comfort you concerning things going on in your own life at the time, that might surprise you. I’m just saying, give it a try.

 

[Telstar]

It’s ok, I remember stuff skeewampus sometimes.

Noah’s son disrespected his father, but Noah didn’t do anything wrong.

Exactly. Cham’s showing lack of respect for his father was a serious sin against God’s commandment to “Honor thy father and thy mother”. When I think of how many times I see kids openly disrespect their parents, I cringe, and this passage shows just how serious a sin it is. Apparently, they don’t understand what the commandments mean in the eyes of God, or they just don’t care. Sad, but true.

PS: My memory can be a bit skeewampus (love that word…lol) at times, too! But, I’m old!

 

[SteveVH]

I’m bolding the part of your post that is most relevant, concerning what you got out of reading that passage about Noe (Noah).

I think we should take a look at what the passage actually says, starting from 18.
From the Douay-Rheims version:Genesis 9: "[18] And the sons of Noe who came out of the ark, were Sem, Cham, and Japheth: and Cham is the father of Chanaan. [19] These three are the sons of Noe: and from these was all mankind spread over the whole earth. [20] And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard.

[21] And drinking of the wine was made drunk, and was uncovered in his tent. [22] Which when Cham the father of Chanaan had seen, to wit, that his father’ s nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without. [23] But Sem and Japheth put a cloak upon their shoulders, and going backward, covered the nakedness of their father: and their faces were turned away, and they saw not their father’ s nakedness. [24] And Noe awaking from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him, [25] He said: Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

[26] And he said: Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, be Chanaan his servant. [27] May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem, and Chanaan be his servant."
First of all, Noe was a farmer that grew grapes to make wine, so it’s not unusual that he would also test his wine. Sometimes, even someone that drinks wine regularly can become inebriated by a potent batch. When he realized that he was drunk, he went into his tent to sleep it off. There is no mention whatsoever of him dancing naked “in front of his family”, as you claimed he did. I can’t imagine where you even got that from, at all.

One of his sons, Cham, for some reason went into his tent and saw him lying naked on his bed. (In those days it was considered to be a very humiliating thing for any Jewish man to be seen naked by anyone.) Then, Cham (apparently thinking it was funny) went out and told his two brothers about it. They didn’t consider it to be funny at all, so they carefully shielded their eyes (so they couldn’t see him) and covered him up. So, when Noe woke up and found out what Cham had done (by humiliating him), he cursed Cham’s son to be a servant to Noe’s other two sons, forever.

So, your rendition and understanding of the story was more than a little askew. You might want to reconsider your laughing about it, since it was Cham’s laughing about it that got his children cursed by his father.

There may be much more going on in this scene than most realize and it has nothing to do with Noah’s kids finding him naked and laughing about it. According to Dr. Tim Gray and Jeff Cavins it is a lot more serious than that. In their book “Walking with God” it is explained that the Hebrew expression “to look upon the nakedness of your father” actually meant to sleep with your father’s wife. Ham didn’t go in and see Noah laying naked. He saw Noah passed out from being drunk and proceeded to commit incest with his own mother, the wife of Noah, most likely raping her. When Shem and Japheth hear about it they go back into the tent to cover up their poor mother.

The story makes a lot more sense with this understanding. Remember, when Noah awakens and finds out what has happened who does he curse? He doesn’t curse Ham, rather he curses Canaan, who has not yet even been born. He is cursing the fruit of the incest. This wouldn’t make sense otherwise. And this probably didn’t happen just because Ham was some pervert. It was a power grab. He wanted to lay claim to the leadership of the family and the blessing was suppose to go to Shem, his older brother.