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

[dianaiad]

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

No, actually, he was not.

Not even close.

Think about it: When we discuss the Trinity, we are discussing what people believe about God/Godhead; The discussion is about the discription of how They relate to one another. There is absolutely NO use of any insulting or denigrating language aimed AT Deity. It is the description that is called ‘absurd,’ or whatever it was. The assumption is, of course, that God Himself is still God…worthy of worship and respect.

…and by the way, this wasn’t about him calling our belief in God 'the Mormon God." it was about him refering to God as a bumbling idiot.

 

[zaffiroborant]

No, actually, he was not.

Not even close.

Think about it: When we discuss the Trinity, we are discussing what people believe about God/Godhead; The discussion is about the discription of how They relate to one another. There is absolutely NO use of any insulting or denigrating language aimed AT Deity. It is the description that is called ‘absurd,’ or whatever it was. The assumption is, of course, that God Himself is still God…worthy of worship and respect.

…and by the way, this wasn’t about him calling our belief in God 'the Mormon God." it was about him refering to God as a bumbling idiot.

But he didn’t refer to God as a bumbling idiot he referred to “the Mormon God” as a bumbling idiot there is a big difference.

 

[Returning_Home]

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.

I do believe that someone, Diana, I think, said that McConkie wrote the book on his own and did so without the authorization or approval of the church. While not an official publication of the church, it is representative of the church’s teaching, at least at one point in time.

Again, something need not be considered ‘doctrine’ by the lay congregation or even made known at all, for the church leadership to accept it as such. This is what we’ve learned from polygamy: the church lied about its position on the matter in D&C for 41 years, its leadership practicing it long before the general membership knew about it.

We also see something similar in John Lewis Lund’s book The Church and the Negro (1967), which supported the church’s ban on permitting blacks to attain the priesthood. Even though he uses extensive quotes from church leadership and has impeccable LDS credentials, the introduction puts the entire burden of its conclusions on Lund alone. This seems to be something he was enticed to do, in order to distance the church from the controversy surrounding its own opinions. Also of note is the fact that no publisher is noted anywhere in the book, making me believe that it was published by an arm of the church to again distance itself from its own doctrines

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.

Excellent point; I think that’s just a matter of personal preference what angle of attack you choose, but to expand on your example, the church tells us that it’s lead by Jesus Christ Almighty so it stands to reason that if he went through all of the trouble to ‘restore’ the gospel, anything it comissions, authorizes, approves, prints, distributes, and sells at Deseret Book CO should fall under the umbrella of divine authenticity. That said, when we look at the Journal of Discourses, the church will go to great lengths to avoid quoting it even though we know that the prophet speaks for God (D&C 21:4-5), the Lord will never allow the prophet to lead us astray (Gospel Principles, p 50), and the JOD considers itself to be scripture (preface to JOD volumes 4 and 8).

The church, in order to maintain an air of consistancy, is therefore forced to call the JOD Brigham Young’s ‘opinion.’

I haven’t read all of the JOD; the set is 27 volumes and is therefore expensive and trying to read it online is hard on my eyes. The CD ROM is cheap and I may buy it for reference, but reading it straight through would be nigh-impossible.

 

[Returning_Home]

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:

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?

It very much is and it thus negates becoming a god with your own planet; you cannot be with God and yet be your own god.

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.

Again, being ‘like’ God doesn’t mean being equal to God. Yes, we get different meanings from these passages; ours are based solely upon the Bible and yours are filtered through the nonsense of false prophets.

 

[Returning_Home]

No, actually, he was not.

Not even close.

Think about it: When we discuss the Trinity, we are discussing what people believe about God/Godhead; The discussion is about the discription of how They relate to one another. There is absolutely NO use of any insulting or denigrating language aimed AT Deity. It is the description that is called ‘absurd,’ or whatever it was. The assumption is, of course, that God Himself is still God…worthy of worship and respect.

…and by the way, this wasn’t about him calling our belief in God 'the Mormon God." it was about him refering to God as a bumbling idiot.

I actually was, Diana. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean that you’re going to tell me what I did or didn’t mean.

My God is and always was God; yours is a progressing being. My God is somehow three and one in ways I cannot begin to fathom; your god seems to owe you an explanation as to his nature, but apparently doesn’t completely understand it himself. My God fathered the savior through the Holy Spirit; your god knocked up his own daughter to create the incestuous wannabe, jesus (small j). My God offers salvation from my sinful nature; your god offers godhood.

These contrasts make it clear that your god isn’t my God.

 

[SteveVH]

I know how easy it is to get side tracked with individual conversations and I have been guilty of it myself, however, we have already been warned once. Can we all please stay on topic. The topic is the degree of reliability of the Bible.

Thanks to all.

Steve

 

[dianaiad]

But he didn’t refer to God as a bumbling idiot he referred to “the Mormon God” as a bumbling idiot there is a big difference.

Really?

I can’t even illustrate the absurdity of this statement, because the substitution of the word “Catholic” for “Mormon” in this sentence is something I just can’t make myself write. It would be too big a bit of disrespect and blasphemy.

I wonder if you can see just how big an insult and inflammatory a statement this was?

…and you just keep repeating it–because by doing so you are dismissing Mormons as beneath all contempt, since it is obvious that you don’t need to show the tiniest respect for Deity if we have the nerve to actually worship Him.

 

[JeanMichel]

Really?

I can’t even illustrate the absurdity of this statement, because the substitution of the word “Catholic” for “Mormon” in this sentence is something I just can’t make myself write. It would be too big a bit of disrespect and blasphemy.

I wonder if you can see just how big an insult and inflammatory a statement this was?

…and you just keep repeating it–because by doing so you are dismissing Mormons as beneath all contempt, since it is obvious that you don’t need to show the tiniest respect for Deity if we have the nerve to actually worship Him.

Those who follow Christ will follow his teachings. Turn the other cheek and look past the petty insults of all others, even those who profess to follow the same Christ. We are all weak and we all fail miserably in our desire to follow the Holy One of Israel.

It is best to simply report those types of rude, inflammatory comments and move on as if they never happened. Blessed are the peace makers. Whom will you serve?

 

[flyonthewall]

It very much is and it thus negates becoming a god with your own planet; you cannot be with God and yet be your own god.

It is funny, it is the critics that wield this “god with your own planet” concept. While we recognize it is one possible outcome, it is you that hold on to this concept tenaciously.

Again, being ‘like’ God doesn’t mean being equal to God. Yes, we get different meanings from these passages; ours are based solely upon the Bible and yours are filtered through the nonsense of false prophets.

It states one with God just like the Father and Son are one, and to share in their glory.
You seem to be putting limitations on the oneness of the Father and Son.
Like I said, we pull our meanings from the Bible as well, which verifies how the Bible can be translated in different ways, and lose meaning.
I think we take Christ at His word, while you put boundries on them.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Really?

I can’t even illustrate the absurdity of this statement, because the substitution of the word “Catholic” for “Mormon” in this sentence is something I just can’t make myself write. It would be too big a bit of disrespect and blasphemy.

I wonder if you can see just how big an insult and inflammatory a statement this was?

…and you just keep repeating it–because by doing so you are dismissing Mormons as beneath all contempt, since it is obvious that you don’t need to show the tiniest respect for Deity if we have the nerve to actually worship Him.

Just as you can’t see just how big an insult and inflammatory it is when the Trinity is referred to as an absurdity or called Sybil? Because the Trinity (IYO)is nothing more than a concept that needn’t be accorded any respect? By using the phrase “the Mormon God” he was addressing the LDS concept of deity just as in your explanation concerning the Trinity. “The Mormon God” is a phrase that encompasses the LDS concept of God, that He is an intelligence clothed in a spirit body and then again in an exhalted human body, who along with his wife creates spirit children/bodies for waiting intelligences.

 

[dianaiad]

Just as you can’t see just how big an insult and inflammatory it is when the Trinity is referred to as an absurdity or called Sybil? Because the Trinity (IYO)is nothing more than a concept that needn’t be accorded any respect? By using the phrase “the Mormon God” he was addressing the LDS concept of deity just as in your explanation concerning the Trinity. “The Mormon God” is a phrase that encompasses the LDS concept of God, that He is an intelligence clothed in a spirit body and then again in an exhalted human body, who along with his wife creates spirit children/bodies for waiting intelligences.

There is no way that one can call the idea of the Trinity (and it is the idea that was under discussion, given the context) " a bumbling idiot." The “Trinity” refers to the description/concept men have of God; you do not pray to 'The Trinity."

you have never seen me (or as far as I can remember, any other Mormon) refer to "The Catholic god,’ thus turning Him into a false idol–but when you refer to “The Mormon God” that’s exactly what you do. You don’t say "The Mormon idea of God’ That would acknowledge that we do, indeed, worship God even if we might have some erronious ideas regarding Him. By refering to "The Mormon God,’ you are saying that we don’t worship God at all…that our beliefs deserve no more respect or dignity than mythology relating to Zeus.

You are, in effect, telling us that God has nothing to do with us, and that whatever it is we worship, the Creator isn’t it. You then go on to mock—not our idea of HIm, but He, Himself. " A bumbling idiot" is not telling us that our ideas are ludicrous.

It is telling us that we may as well be pagans dancing around fires and killing chickens, or shrinking heads, or going to Delphi to get prophecies from Oracles who sniff volcano gas.

I am not defending the comment regardng calling the concept of the Trinity 'ludicrous." I wouldn’t have said that. However, the response was completely, totally and utterly out of line.

Here…perhaps this will illustrate it better, since I cannot in all honesty reverse the situation and call "The Catholic god’ some blasphemous name…

Your brother tells you that your description of your father is ludicrous. You respond by telling him that his father is a bumbling idiot.

Think about all the things you have just said to your brother.

 

[SteveVH]

Really?

I can’t even illustrate the absurdity of this statement, because the substitution of the word “Catholic” for “Mormon” in this sentence is something I just can’t make myself write. It would be too big a bit of disrespect and blasphemy.

I wonder if you can see just how big an insult and inflammatory a statement this was?

…and you just keep repeating it–because by doing so you are dismissing Mormons as beneath all contempt, since it is obvious that you don’t need to show the tiniest respect for Deity if we have the nerve to actually worship Him.

Diana, I have to agree with you on this one. Even if, as a Catholic, I do not agree with your understanding of the nature of God, you are, nevertheless, speaking of the Almighty and we should respect that.

 

[zaffiroborant]

There is no way that one can call the idea of the Trinity (and it is the idea that was under discussion, given the context) " a bumbling idiot." The “Trinity” refers to the description/concept men have of God; you do not pray to 'The Trinity."

you have never seen me (or as far as I can remember, any other Mormon) refer to "The Catholic god,’ thus turning Him into a false idol–but when you refer to “The Mormon God” that’s exactly what you do. You don’t say "The Mormon idea of God’ That would acknowledge that we do, indeed, worship God even if we might have some erronious ideas regarding Him. By refering to "The Mormon God,’ you are saying that we don’t worship God at all…that our beliefs deserve no more respect or dignity than mythology relating to Zeus.

You are, in effect, telling us that God has nothing to do with us, and that whatever it is we worship, the Creator isn’t it. You then go on to mock—not our idea of HIm, but He, Himself. " A bumbling idiot" is not telling us that our ideas are ludicrous.

It is telling us that we may as well be pagans dancing around fires and killing chickens, or shrinking heads, or going to Delphi to get prophecies from Oracles who sniff volcano gas.

I am not defending the comment regardng calling the concept of the Trinity 'ludicrous." I wouldn’t have said that. However, the response was completely, totally and utterly out of line.

Here…perhaps this will illustrate it better, since I cannot in all honesty reverse the situation and call "The Catholic god’ some blasphemous name…

Your brother tells you that your description of your father is ludicrous. You respond by telling him that his father is a bumbling idiot.

Think about all the things you have just said to your brother.

Diana, I have to agree with you on this one. Even if, as a Catholic, I do not agree with your understanding of the nature of God, you are, nevertheless, speaking of the Almighty and we should respect that.

And of course the Trinity isn’t God at all, just a concept, a human idea so anything said is okay. My point is Dianaiad is justifying (and she is justifying it despite her protestations) the LDS posters who make various blasphemous statements about the Trinity by saying well the Trinity isn’t really God, just a concept. So of course what ever is said may be over the top but could never be considered blasphemous, after all how could one commit blasphemy against a “concept”. And it follows that since the Trinity is nothing more than a concept or a figment of our imagination we don’t worship God we worship an idol we hold in our minds, we worship a concept. We “may as well be pagans dancing around fires and killing chickens, or shrinking heads, or going to Delphi to get prophecies from Oracles who sniff volcano gas”

While I don’t expect you(Dianaiad) to call out your fellow church members when their posts call the Trinity ludicrous or a three headed monster or tauntingly imply mental disorders, I some how thought you would understand that to speak that way of the Trinity would be considered blasphemous by us. That you would understand that it would be received by us the same way you received LJ’s post. And I really never thought you would justify their behavior by reducing our view of God as nothing more than a concept. I was wrong:shrug:

I agree that “the Mormon God” is everything you say but sadly you can’t agree that the “Sybil Trinity” is everything you abhor in “the Mormon God”

And yes Catholics do pray to the Holy Trinity, for example:

OFFERING TO THE HOLY TRINITY

MOST Holy and Adorable Trinity, One God in Three Persons, I praise Thee
and give Thee thanks for all the favors Thou has bestowed upon me. Thy
goodness has preserved me until now, I offer Thee my whole being and
in particular, all my thoughts, words, and deeds, together with all the trials I may undergo this day. Give them Thy blessing. May Thy divine Love animate them
and may they serve Thy greater glory.

I make this morning offering in union with the Divine intentions of Jesus Christ
Who offers himself daily in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and in union with
Mary, His Virgin Mother and our Mother, who was always the faithful handmaid
of the Lord.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. Amen

 

[dianaiad]

And of course the Trinity isn’t God at all, just a concept, a human idea so anything said is okay. My point is Dianaiad is justifying (and she is justifying it despite her protestations) the LDS posters who make various blasphemous statements about the Trinity by saying well the Trinity isn’t really God, just a concept. So of course what ever is said may be over the top but could never be considered blasphemous, after all how could one commit blasphemy against a “concept”.

You know better than that, Z. I directly stated that I would not refer to the Trinity in that way, and specifically refused to address the Catholic ideas of Who God is in the same way that God was addressed by this poster as a ‘bumbling idiot’ because of course Mormons don’t really believe in God, so nothing one can write about that could be blasphemy.

I couldn’t return the favor, because it IS blasphemy. Please do not claim that I do that which I do not, and would never, do.

 

[zaffiroborant]

You know better than that, Z. I directly stated that I would not refer to the Trinity in that way, and specifically refused to address the Catholic ideas of Who God is in the same way that God was addressed by this poster as a ‘bumbling idiot’ because of course Mormons don’t really believe in God, so nothing one can write about that could be blasphemy.

I couldn’t return the favor, because it IS blasphemy. Please do not claim that I do that which I do not, and would never, do.

But you are the one who said the Trinity is a concept and thus up for discussion, and all though you would be respectful, you could not grant that these LDS posters who referred to the Trinity in this manner were also being blasphemous in their comments, because, well they were discussing a concept and not God. After all how could they be blaspheming when what they are talking about is nothing but a concept. The Trinity, the God we worship and pray to is just a concept. And you can’t see how we find this blasphemous and how it also puts us with the pagans.

It is blasphemous to call God a “bumbling idiot” it is also blasphemous to call Him “ludicrous” or “a three headed monster” you refuse to see the similarity here. The LDS who make these comments are doing just what LJ did yet you have no problem with them and justify their words with your Trinity=concept defense.

 

[stephe1987]

There is one God. Different religious groups have different ideas and views on the nature of God, but there isn’t a separate god for each religion. It’s not like one god made Mormons, one made Catholics, a different god made the Jews, another one made Muslims, etc.

 

[flyonthewall]

There is one God. Different religious groups have different ideas and views on the nature of God, but there isn’t a separate god for each religion. It’s not like one god made Mormons, one made Catholics, a different god made the Jews, another one made Muslims, etc.

Reminds me of the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant.
Each man touched a different part of the elephant and claimed an elephant is very much like a: 1) snake, 2) tree, 3) wall, 4) rope, 5) spear. Each description is defferent from the other, but still about the same object. They can’t all be right, can they?

We all have a different point of view/reference of God. While we may all disagree, we are still referencing the same God. When someone insults my God, they insult their own too.

What is needed is someone who can see to tie all those descriptions together.
We claim to have a Seer.

 

[Stephen168]

But what about the subject of this thread.

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?

 

[Todd520]

But what about the subject of this thread.

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?

The bible is Holy Scripture, along with Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, & Pearl of Great Price
LDS read the New Testament for its account of the birth, ministry, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Christs’ teachings in the New Testament comprise the core of LDS doctrine.

Does it always do that for them?

Most mormon youth will have read & studied the Bible in their seminary program
Ideally, adult members read scripture every day, including the bible.

I believe regular reading of the bible delivers a spiritual message that can change lives

 

[dianaiad]

But you are the one who said the Trinity is a concept and thus up for discussion, and all though you would be respectful, you could not grant that these LDS posters who referred to the Trinity in this manner were also being blasphemous in their comments, because, well they were discussing a concept and not God. After all how could they be blaspheming when what they are talking about is nothing but a concept. The Trinity, the God we worship and pray to is just a concept. And you can’t see how we find this blasphemous and how it also puts us with the pagans.

It is blasphemous to call God a “bumbling idiot” it is also blasphemous to call Him “ludicrous” or “a three headed monster” you refuse to see the similarity here. The LDS who make these comments are doing just what LJ did yet you have no problem with them and justify their words with your Trinity=concept defense.

Have you criticized that post which called “The Mormon God” a “bumbling idiot?”

No. You haven’t.

Did you report it to the moderators?

You have done nothing but defend it, by going the ‘tu quoque’ road. The irony is rather thick.