Mormons - What degree of reliability do you give to the Bible?

[SteveVH]

Steve,
Why can’t both be true?

• the bible is highly reliable, for the reasons you noted
• the bible has/does contain errors. See thread misquoting Jesus or read up on comma johanneum

As I stated above, the early manuscripts match up almost perfectly and those areas where they do not are a matter of punctuation, word order or vocabulary, not affecting the substance of the writings. As for the “Comma Johanneum”, there are other, credible views on this, one of which is that the Trinitarian wording was removed rather than added to the text during the Arian heresy. There are many references supporting the Trinitarian view and for it to be added as something necessary to support Trinitarianism doesn’t make a lot of sense. In any event, my Bible (NAB) does not contain it. It really changes nothing either way for me. For you, it is just one more reference to the Trinity which you would deny even if there were no controversy surrounding it.

One thing I think you are forgetting is that this is not a man-made book. It is authored by God himself, through the inspiration of men by the Holy Spirit. If I knew that any book contained errors, and I wasn’t sure where those errors might be, I would not use it, especially when used as a basis for something as important as my salvation. No, I believe that we can fully rely on it, but, then again, I have the interpretation of the Church which is protected from error by the very Holy Spirit who authored the books of the Bible.

 

[Returning_Home]

Shorty,
I’m perplexed with your response so must ask you for explanation

• Why can’t the bible be reliable and still have errors?
• Could it be that there are ‘degrees’ of reliability?

By indicating I felt the bible was reliable, I am not indicating it is complete (your restoration comment)

Your post here is telling because you didn’t even bother to capitalize the word “Bible.” A Freudian slip, perhaps?

Sure, there could be a varying degree of reliability, but you’ll never get to find out those facts without the JST, will you? As I recall, there was a book printed a few years ago written by an LDS and a RLDS (yes, I know it’s now COC) and the two authors agreed on the reliability of the JST.

So again the question: why would God tell Smith to ‘retranslate’ the Bible and then give it to another church? And if it is important, why doesn’t Deseret Book CO seel a lot more of them. Are you content to make-do with a partially corrected version of the Bible?

 

[Returning_Home]

McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” (1958) very specifically stated that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon” However, the next edition changed that statement. The LDS church does not regard the book as doctrinal. So, the LDS church no longer teaches that. This does not remove anti-Catholicism from LDS culture, however.

Remember that there is no stable Mormon doctrine. Nearly everything that the LDS church teaches is subject to the test of time, and anything may change at any time.

Who knows, maybe they will someday state that the BoM is fictional allegory, worthy of study?

Mormon doctrine changes like the wind and is just as substantial. That’s the reason I make comparisons between LDS texts and *modern *Mormonism, showing that neither have anything to do with one another.

 

[LongJourney]

Mormon doctrine changes like the wind and is just as substantial. That’s the reason I make comparisons between LDS texts and *modern *Mormonism, showing that neither have anything to do with one another.

That makes it fun.

 

[JeanMichel]

Mormon doctrine changes like the wind and is just as substantial. That’s the reason I make comparisons between LDS texts and *modern *Mormonism, showing that neither have anything to do with one another.

There are better examples. It is curious why you use examples that are so easily debunked. What is not on this same thread that McConkie’s book was acknowledged as not representative of Mormon doctrine? Was it also not said that McConkie was rebuked by the leadership for writing this independently and not gaining the authority to publish such a book with such a title? There mere fact that the offending statement about the Catholic Church was removed is evidence enough that McConkie was not speaking for the Church. Use apologetics wisely instead of repeating the same old errors over and over again unless your purpose is to deceive others.

Would it not be easier to discuss the King Follett discourse? How does the founder of their church speak and yet not be acknowledged as doctrine? How many other things did he say that have not been accepted as doctrine? How many things by other prophets have been rejected as non-doctrinal or false? I am thinking of Brigham Young and his unique concept referred to as the Adam-God theory. Surely there much be other examples that I am unaware of.

Catholic apologetics does not need to rely on deception to prove truth and it has never needed to do so. Stick to honest, acknowledged, scholarly criticism.

 

[LongJourney]

JeanMichel, perhaps you are not aware of the implications of teachings which change with the wind:

Matthew 7

 12 "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.

25
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
26
And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
27
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."

Sometimes we Catholics are so familiar with scriptures that we fail to spell things out. I suppose that is our fault.

 

[JeanMichel]

JeanMichel, perhaps you are not aware of the implications of teachings which change with the wind:
Matthew 7
Sometimes we Catholics are so familiar with scriptures that we fail to spell things out. I suppose that is our fault.

Long, I was actually responding to your previous quote:

Originally Posted by LongJourney
McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” (1958) very specifically stated that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon” However, the next edition changed that statement. The LDS church does not regard the book as doctrinal. So, the LDS church no longer teaches that. This does not remove anti-Catholicism from LDS culture, however.

Remember that there is no stable Mormon doctrine. Nearly everything that the LDS church teaches is subject to the test of time, and anything may change at any time.

Who knows, maybe they will someday state that the BoM is fictional allegory, worthy of study?

Your allegation was the change in McConkie’s book a doctrinal shift. First, it was already clarified by Mormons this book was never the doctrine of their church. Second, the author of the book was reprimanded by their leaders for writing such a book with such a title. Third, the changeability of their doctrine is certainly debatable since they claim modern day revelation. However, the one thing that seems clear is that their church is built that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Do you think that will ever change? If so, what makes you think so? In my study of them, it seems like an impossibility. But, I have been incorrect so often in life that it does not surprise me anymore when I am wrong.

 

[Stephen168]

There are better examples. It is curious why you use examples that are so easily debunked. What is not on this same thread that McConkie’s book was acknowledged as not representative of Mormon doctrine? Was it also not said that McConkie was rebuked by the leadership for writing this independently and not gaining the authority to publish such a book with such a title? There mere fact that the offending statement about the Catholic Church was removed is evidence enough that McConkie was not speaking for the Church. Use apologetics wisely instead of repeating the same old errors over and over again unless your purpose is to deceive others.

It was also shown the 2nd edition (1966) was green lighted by the Mormon Church; by The President of the Mormon Church anyway. Yes, the fact that the offending statement about the Catholic Church was removed is evidence that McConkie was not speaking for the Mormon Church but he was a Mormon speaking for himself in his first edition. Mormons can say ‘Mormon Doctrine’ was not Mormon teaching and they would be right (1st edition) while non-Mormons can say it was Mormon teaching (2nd edition) and they would be right.

Mormons giving a general statement that ‘Mormon Doctrine’ was not approved is deceptive and non-Mormons quoting the 1st Edition is deceptive.

 

[LongJourney]

However, the one thing that seems clear is that their church is built that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Do you think that will ever change? If so, what makes you think so? In my study of them, it seems like an impossibility. But, I have been incorrect so often in life that it does not surprise me anymore when I am wrong.

Given the changes that they are going to have to make in order to remain a church, I doubt that they will give up core Christian doctrines. They will shrug off/deny/proclaim as only speculation everything else. That is, if they are willing to make those changes.

However, as that scripture indicates, it is highly unlikely that they will survive those changes. Too many LDS are confused and reacting with anger, as it is.

 

[flyonthewall]

She has me on ignore so she won’t answer anyway. If you can’t beat the truth, ignore it, right? But I welcome the response nonetheless.

Your point only has validity if we can demonstrate that a given passage has been warped and distorted, implying a different meaning. This is the reason that the Mormons harp on different versions of the Bible without bothering to read and compare any of them. Since all that I’m aware of, except the Joseph Smith Translation, use the same sources, going back as far as possible, put the translation into print for ease of readability, for serious study, or in the dialact of that particular era. Just because different terminology is used don’t mean that the meaning is going to be wholly different.

Are you then saying that all who read the Bible get the same meaning out of the Bible? There are no differences in doctrine? Everyone’s belief is the same?

Okay, let’s explore that; if the Bible was reliable, why did God have Joseph Smith ‘retranslate’ it? And why, then, doesn’t the LDS use that version, the JST? Why would God allow the apostate RLDS obtain the copyright to it and leave the LDS, the church he supposedly leads, get only the notes from it? How is it that your God was stymied by a mere woman, Emma Smith?

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the Bible is reliable as far as it is translated correctly. Joseph Smith was to translate it to put meaning back into it that was lost. The LDS do use the JST. There are many footnotes that point it, and excerpts printed in their entirety that are included in our standard works. You make the assertion that God was stymied by a mere woman, but that just doesn’t hold water because we have it and use it.

Yes, ‘getting the words right’ is important, but curious how they so often line up with those we find in the KJV, first published in 1611 when the BOM was supposedly written 1,226 years earlier. Since we know that Smith really had nothing to do with the translation of the BOM, the words had to be from God, if we are to believe the accounts of David Whitmer and Apostle Russle M. Nelson.

You make it sound like you are asserting that the BoM was written in the language of the KJV, which it was not. It was translated into language that was similar to the language used in the scriptures at that time.
The “we” you refer to does not include me, as I know differently than you assert.

None of that makes any sense, does it?

None of your assertions make sense, it is true.

Okay, if you can use the Bible to support your beliefs, please show me where the Bible tells us that we can become gods like God.

John 17. Also see Rev. 3:21. To me, it is plain.

I am a Biblical Christian first and a Catholic second. When the RCC and the Bible differ, I abdicate to the Bible. I don’t win a lot of friends that way, but I have to speak the truth whenever given the opportunity.

So you are saying the the RCC and you don’t always get the same meaning out of the Bible?

There was no ‘mistranslation’ per se; there’s the Mormon church, however, using Christian terms to describe very un-Christian things.

Or…simply putting the meaning back in that was lost.

You’re making baptism much more difficult than it has to be; since water is such a powerful image in the Bible, giving life, sustaining it, and then taking it away, it’s as much symbolic as it is necessary in the process. To be baptised is to make a public display of a rebirth into the ways of Christ, nothing more, nothing less.

Baptism, under certain circumstances, isn’t necessary for salvation, as we see demonstrated in the example of the thief crucified next to Jesus.

John 3:5 seems to make baptism a requirement.
The theif on the cross was not promised salvation, but only that he would be taught the gospel.
Jesus stated that “today, thou shalt be with me in Paradise”, however upon His resurrection, He still had not ascended to His Father. So if you are equating Paradise with heaven, then the Father was not present in heaven.

While I plan to have my daughter baptised Catholic, it’s not necessary because she has no ability to choose between good and evil as of this point. I’m going to do so for tradition’s sake, not because there’s any Biblical standard for it being required.

A prime example of how meaning has been removed from the Bible.

I’m not calling the Biblical God an idiot, but rather the little god of Mormonism; the two aren’t the same. My God promised that his Word would stand forever (Isa. 40:8) but yours couldn’t keep it together and let it leave the earth for some 1,900 years before gathering a group of liars, frauds, thieves, and miscreants to ‘restore’ his church. What was he doing in that span of time?

Well you see, there is only one God, and my God is the same as your God, so any time you use such language against my God, you are merely speaking of “your” God too.
“…liars, frauds, thieves and miscreants”? The Pharisees and lawyers used similar language against the Lord. Coming from you, that is a compliment.

You then use that as a launching pad for claiming authority for your church because it claims to have modern prophets. Okay, I’ll meet you there and ask you this: how many false prophecies does it take to be a false prophet? And how can you continue to claim Joseph Smith as a prophet with a perfect 0% accuracy rating?

I get it. You don’t believe. That is okay. This thread isn’t about getting you to believe. I simply answered a question.

 

[ParkerD]

However, the one thing that seems clear is that their church is built that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Do you think that will ever change? If so, what makes you think so? In my study of them, it seems like an impossibility. But, I have been incorrect so often in life that it does not surprise me anymore when I am wrong.

JeanMichel,
May I assure you that the doctrine that Christ suffered the atonement during His great and last sacrifice of which the crucifixion was a significant part, and that He in reality rose from the dead as the resurrected Son of God, is central to the doctrine of the LDS Church.

It’s funny to hear someone compare building a house upon a rock in this case, since the LDS belief is that Christ is the rock He was talking about in that teaching passage, including the rock of revelation, and that anyone who builds their house on other “rocks” than Christ and personal revelation through the Holy Spirit as He promised, are not in fact building their house on a “gospel rock” but on a rock that has taken the place of the true Rock Who was known by Moses and Who was known by Peter as the Rock.

How the above relates to this thread is that the LDS have no uncertainty at all about these core doctrines that are so clear in the Bible–completely and unmistakably clear, unmistakably reliable as the sure word of God on the subject of “the Rock.”

 

[dianaiad]

How can the Bible contain errors, while being reliable?

If it were possible to be reliable while having errors, why was there a restoration?

Why, if we had one gospel, did we require three more? Why, if we had the gospels, did we require the book of Acts, or the epistles…or the book of Revelation?

 

[mrmagoo661]

John 17. Also see Rev. 3:21. To me, it is plain.

.

Please explain how these scripture passages reference eternal progression.

 

[zaffiroborant]

perhaps it is a quibble, but I would say that calling the human concept/idea of the Trinity 'an absurdity", though that crosses a rhetorical line I would be uncomfortable with, is a far cry from calling God a bumbling idiot, myself.

Ah, well…tu quoque is alive and well, I see.

And as we see it calling the Trinity an absurdity (or Sybil) is calling God an absurdity. You may view the Trinity as a “human concept/idea” but we do not. I would add that calling “the Mormon God a bumbling idiot” while over the top also addresses “the human concept/idea” since we view your concept of God as being constructed by human beings:shrug:. So far no LDS or Catholic has been suspended for this type of insult, but there is a new sheriff in town now.

 

[dianaiad]

And as we see it calling the Trinity an absurdity (or Sybil) is calling God an absurdity. You may view the Trinity as a “human concept/idea” but we do not. I would add that calling “the Mormon God a bumbling idiot” while over the top also addresses “the human concept/idea” since we view your concept of God as being constructed by human beings:shrug:. So far no LDS or Catholic has been suspended for this type of insult, but there is a new sheriff in town now.

You don’t see a difference between God…and our idea of Him?

Odd, that is precisely the position atheists take–that God and what we think of HIm are the same thing, since in effect He is only what we think of Him.

However, if one is a theist–certainly a Christian type theist, one is aware that God IS, and that however He is described, that description does not change what He is–and being Who He is, our minds can’t encompass Him.

In fact, I do think that this is one of the things that is important to the doctrine of the Trinity, isn’t it? the Mystery? (Please note the capital M).

Given this, I can see the difference between calling a certain human description of deity “absurd,” because that refers to the description, not Deity.

However, calling God a ‘bumbling idiot’ isn’t referring to the what we think of Him, is it? It’s referring to God Himself. It is declaring YOUR opinion of God.

 

[JeanMichel]

And as we see it calling the Trinity an absurdity (or Sybil) is calling God an absurdity. You may view the Trinity as a “human concept/idea” but we do not. I would add that calling “the Mormon God a bumbling idiot” while over the top also addresses “the human concept/idea” since we view your concept of God as being constructed by human beings:shrug:. So far no LDS or Catholic has been suspended for this type of insult, but there is a new sheriff in town now.

This concept of the nature of God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit is fascinating. They are three distinct persons, but they share the Ousia or essence. Catholics have a laser focus on One God in three persons. The God is the Ousia, the essence that binds the three into One God. This is so far above my comprehension, that it must be accepted on faith.

Mormons have enormous baggage to carry around about God, which I prefer to ignore completely at this point. I just want to focus on their belief in God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons, but they have no concept of Ousia or essence. They say One God in purpose, but three distinct persons. They seem to focus on three Gods being One God in purpose.

The only distinction I see between the two beliefs is Essence. For this poor seeker of truth, would anyone be capable of making a concise explanation of what is essence? Also, why essence’s very being would cause religious groups at present and numberless wars in the past to fight over its perceived presence?

Oh Holy Father, when my mind is so small and its candle so dim to comprehend, guide me with the bright light of thy Holy Spirit and the wisdom of thy Redeeming Son that I may always walk in faith.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Given this, I can see the difference between calling a certain human description of deity “absurd,” because that refers to the description, not Deity.

And by using “the Mormon God” he was doing just that, referring to a description or concept and not to God.

 

[Stephen168]

For me, things are reliable or they are not; not many degrees. My 1952 tractor might be an exception.

Reliability is when something is expected to perform its function; which seems to be a two part question:
What purpose/function do Mormons have for the Bible?
Does it always do that for them?

 

[flyonthewall]

Please explain how these scripture passages reference eternal progression.

John 17 is of course the intercessory prayer given by Jesus. It does touch on the final reward of those that were given to Christ. In it he states:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

If we can be “one” with the Father and Son, and be given the glory that was given to Christ, that is really saying something, isn’t it?

Revelation 3
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

These are scriptures that show that we can become like God.
Is our becoming “one” with Jesus and the Father, mean something different than Jesus and the Father being “one”?

I realize that you may not get the same meaning from these passages, and that is the whole point. We read the same words, and get different meanings from them.

 

[SteveVH]

This concept of the nature of God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit is fascinating. They are three distinct persons, but they share the Ousia or essence. Catholics have a laser focus on One God in three persons. The God is the Ousia, the essence that binds the three into One God. This is so far above my comprehension, that it must be accepted on faith.

You and me both. Isn’t that as it should be? God is so far above us in every way that any human attempt to described Him can only diminish Him.

Mormons have enormous baggage to carry around about God, which I prefer to ignore completely at this point. I just want to focus on their belief in God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons, but they have no concept of Ousia or essence. They say One God in purpose, but three distinct persons. They seem to focus on three Gods being One God in purpose.

The only distinction I see between the two beliefs is Essence. For this poor seeker of truth, would anyone be capable of making a concise explanation of what is essence? Also, why essence’s very being would cause religious groups at present and numberless wars in the past to fight over its perceived presence?

Water can take three forms, 1) liquid, 2) ice (solid) and 3) steam (vapor); each having completely distinct and unique qualities (persons) yet always remaining the same substance or essence. In the case of something living, we refer to the same “being”. So, God is one being, substance or essence, in three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is and will ever be divine. We are and will ever be human creatures, even when we share in the life of the divine with our glorified human bodys. One is the creator and one is the creature and that will never change. Mormons believe in three separate beings. We believe in one being, in three persons. Mormons also belive that we can achieve the same status as the Father; “as he is, we will become”. Our essence or substance will change from human to divine.

The Catholic view is monotheistic while the Mormon view is polytheistic. These two views, obviously, are in direct conflict with each other. So when we use the same words to speak of God, we are using completley different meanings. It makes it confusing and difficult to have a coherent discussion.