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

[PaulDupre]

Bible corruption continued…

What do the modern LDS prophets and apostles say?

President Ezra Taft Benson wrote of:

“the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text”
(Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg. 53).

Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., popular LDS author and son of the tenth president of the church, said

“The early ‘Apostate Fathers’ did not think it was wrong to tamper with inspired scripture. If any scripture seemed to endanger their viewpoint, it was altered, transplanted or completely removed from the Biblical text” (Religious Truths Defined, p.175).

Apostle Mark E. Peterson casts doubt on the reliability of the Bible and states forcefully that the corruption was intentional:

“Many insertions were made, some of them ‘slanted’ for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated”
(As Translated Correctly, p.4).

“It is evident then that many of the ‘plain and precious’ things were omitted from the Bible by failure to choose all of the authentic books for inclusion, and by deliberate changes, deletions and forgeries …”
(As Translated Correctly, p.14).

The encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"Thus, the elements of mistranslation, incompleteness, and other errors weaken the Bible”
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism , Vol. 1, Bible).

Again we can see from this small sample of quotes how the conviction that the bible is corrupt and untrustworthy starts with The Book of Mormon (“the most correct book on earth” and “the keystone of our religion”) and continues to pervade Mormon thinking and writing throughout their history.

Grace to you all,
Paul (a former Mormon)

 

[Todd520]

Bible corruption continued…
Again we can see from this small sample of quotes how the conviction that the bible is corrupt and untrustworthy starts with The Book of Mormon (“the most correct book on earth” and “the keystone of our religion”) and continues to pervade Mormon thinking and writing throughout their history.

Grace to you all,
Paul (a former Mormon)

No I read the LDS do not believe the bible is inerrant
I previously started a thread “misquoting Jesus” that discussed this problem
The Johanne comma has also been shown as an example of man introduced error.

It’s only people like you who equate this honest LDS assessment with meaning the bible is completely corrupt and without value. One does not equal the other.

 

[PaulDupre]

Todd,
Take off the Deseret-colored glasses and see reality.

Paul

 

[Todd520]

Todd,
Take off the Deseret-colored glasses and see reality.

Paul

Or maybe you should learn to forgive your former churchmembers.
Carrying that chip on your shoulder is a heavy burden

 

[PaulDupre]

I have nothing against rank-and-file Mormons, most of whom are simply deceived by the leadership (though a significant number of rank-and-file know it is false but stay in because they like the life-style). I just feel sorry for them.

But I will not forgive the LDS leadership, who know full well that their “church” is a complete sham, but continue to promote it to gain wealth and power.

 

[Returning_Home]

I have nothing against rank-and-file Mormons, most of whom are simply deceived by the leadership (though a significant number of rank-and-file know it is false but stay in because they like the life-style). I just feel sorry for them.

But I will not forgive the LDS leadership, who know full well that their “church” is a complete sham, but continue to promote it to gain wealth and power.

I completely agree here; the leadership, deliberately misleading the congregation, must be held to the higher standard here. How many lies does a person have to tell before they’re considered liars?

 

[Returning_Home]

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?

You clearly know very little about Mormonism, Jean Michael, or you wouldn’t mistake their little itty bitty god, who is one of millions of gods for the one and only, living and real God.

Just because someone says they’re a Christian doesn’t actually mean that they’re even aware of the Jesus found in the Bible. Like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example.

 

[Returning_Home]

What is needed is someone who can see to tie all those descriptions together.

We claim to have a Seer.

Why, then, are they all consistant wrong? How many false prophecies does it take to be a false prophet?

 

[JeanMichel]

Bible corruption continued…

President Ezra Taft Benson wrote of:

“the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text”
(Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg. 53).

Again we can see from this small sample of quotes how the conviction that the bible is corrupt and untrustworthy starts with The Book of Mormon (“the most correct book on earth” and “the keystone of our religion”) and continues to pervade Mormon thinking and writing throughout their history.

Grace to you all,
Paul (a former Mormon)

Paul, do you disagree with this statement made by a Mormon prophet? Or are you saying that the Bible text we have today is completely without any copying errors, translation errors, and not corrupted in any way? Do you have a Catholic scholar that supports your position? Could you provide a reference for me to read?

All of the textual critics I have read would agree with this fellow’s statement. I am not lending support to their cause, but if we are going to debate something we better be sure we want to end up where truth is rather than falsehood.

 

[Returning_Home]

Paul, do you disagree with this statement made by a Mormon prophet? Or are you saying that the Bible text we have today is completely without any copying errors, translation errors, and not corrupted in any way? Do you have a Catholic scholar that supports your position? Could you provide a reference for me to read?

All of the textual critics I have read would agree with this fellow’s statement. I am not lending support to their cause, but if we are going to debate something we better be sure we want to end up where truth is rather than falsehood.

What he’s saying is that the position of the church on the Bible isn’t fixed because while the modern church has claimed to value it, past leaders have made it clear that it’s not reliable and has to be taken with a grain of salt. This is not our position; it’s theirs and what Paul is doing is pointing out the inconsistancy.

If the Bible were correct all through the years, there would have been no apostacy and thus no foundation for the church to claim its authority. Since there’s no evidence that the Bible has been thoroughly corrupted and no basis to believe that such an apostacy actually occurred, the church thus has no basis for its claims. And if it were correct, there’s no reason that God would order Joseph Smith to ‘retranslate’ it, which he claims to have completed. (HOTC 1:324 and 1:368-69)

The full quote Paul cited is this: “Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of ocpyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the BOM came from writer to reader in one inspired step of translation.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, Jan 1992, p 5)

The way this needs to be viewed is that the prophet speaks for God (D&C 21:4-5) and that the Lord would never permit the prophet to lead us astray (Gospel Principles, p 50).

Thus, if God is speaking through the prophet and He wouldn’t allow said prophet to lead us in the wrong direction, this can only be God’s opinion, expressed through Ezra Taft Benson.

There’s no other way around it.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Cease with the childish personal remarks and remain on topic.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, I don’t recall anyone stating Mormon’s consider the Bible unreliable or unable to fulfill its purpose.

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?

You gave a purpose but no answer as to if it always serves its purpose. So I asked you about an example of a Mormon who doesn’t think it serves its purpose about birth of Christ.

Come to think of it, we don’t really know the exact words she actually used, do we? Nobody witnessed this except the angel and Mary. Who DID write that script?

Is her lack of confidence on the reliability of the Bible typical of most Mormons?

Hi Stephen,
As stated, we believe there are “errors” in translation that can lead to minor or even significant errors in modern interpretation (man is the weak link)

So, you tell me Mormons use the Bible to tell the story of the birth of Christ, but when it doesn’t agree with their point of view, you say there are errors. I would say that would not make the Bible “reliable” for Mormons.

Saying the bible is not perfect does not say it is without purpose or merit. I carry the bible with me to ‘service’ every Sunday

Yes, you already told me the Mormons have a purpose for the Bible, but it also seems clear it does not perform that purpose very well, so it is not reliable.

Does the Mormon Church have a list of the errors?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Todd520]

I would say that would not make the Bible “reliable” for Mormons.
Yes, you already told me the Mormons have a purpose for the Bible, but it also seems clear it does not perform that purpose very well, so it is not reliable.

Thanks Stephen,
I’ll stand up at our Sunday Sacrament meeting and inform everyone
“Stepehen has decided the bible is no longer reliable for Mormons”
I’m glad we you you looking out for us, and telling us what to think

 

[flyonthewall]

Why, then, are they all consistant wrong? How many false prophecies does it take to be a false prophet?

This is off topic. If you want to pursue this, start another thread.
But just be aware that I have never seen this line of question used without a double standard in place.

 

[JeanMichel]

The full quote Paul cited is this: “Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the BOM came from writer to reader in one inspired step of translation.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, Jan 1992, p 5)

Thus, if God is speaking through the prophet and He wouldn’t allow said prophet to lead us in the wrong direction, this can only be God’s opinion, expressed through Ezra Taft Benson. There’s no other way around it.

Benson conflicts with the opening words of the Book of Mormon’s Introduction:

“The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.”

How does the Bible contain the fulness of the Gospel and yet remain deficient in truth? How is a fulness achieved, but really be missing plain truths? Somebody has to make up their mind what the Bible is.

 

[ParkerD]

Benson conflicts with the opening words of the Book of Mormon’s Introduction:

How does the Bible contain the fulness of the Gospel and yet remain deficient in truth? How is a fulness achieved, but really be missing plain truths? Somebody has to make up their mind what the Bible is.

JeanMichel,

President Benson was emphasizing to the LDS members that they should use the Book of Mormon for their personal and family study. Here is the quote in context:

"The Book of Mormon is the keystone in our witness of Jesus Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone of everything we do. It bears witness of His reality with power and clarity. Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power. But it does even more. Much of the Christian world today rejects the divinity of the Savior. They question His miraculous birth, His perfect life, and the reality of His glorious resurrection. The Book of Mormon teaches in plain and unmistakable terms about the truth of all of those. It also provides the most complete explanation of the Atonement. Truly, this divinely inspired book is a keystone in bearing witness to the world that Jesus is the Christ. (See title page of the Book of Mormon.)

The Book of Mormon is also the keystone of the doctrine of the resurrection. As mentioned before, the Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (D&C 20:9.) That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation. The Book of Mormon offers so much that broadens our understandings of the doctrines of salvation. Without it, much of what is taught in other scriptures would not be nearly so plain and precious."

The Bible contains the “fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation.” That includes the knowledge and doctrinal understanding that Christ would send the Holy Spirit to guide the members toward more understanding, more knowledge, more truth than what is contained in the Bible itself. The Bible provides a foundation–not the complete fullness of every truth that we are ever going to learn in all eternity.

 

[Returning_Home]

Benson conflicts with the opening words of the Book of Mormon’s Introduction:

How does the Bible contain the fulness of the Gospel and yet remain deficient in truth? How is a fulness achieved, but really be missing plain truths? Somebody has to make up their mind what the Bible is.

That’s the point; it doesn’t make sense. The Bible cannot contain the ‘fulness of the gospel’ and still be missing many ‘plain and precious things,’ can it?

This is where you need to understand that Mormons use the Bible only to confirm their own point of view, and in the parts that it doesn’t, they claim that it is in error.

All of that controversy could be avoided by the LDS church using the Joseph Smith Translation, but they don’t, do they? Why would God tell Joseph Smith to ‘retranslate’ the Bible and then not allow the church that he supposedly stands at the head of to use it? Why would God permit the church that apostacized after the murder of Joseph Smith to copyright the book (the RLDS)?

Does any of that make any sense? Of course not; Joseph Smith was making it all up as he went along.

 

[Returning_Home]

This is off topic. If you want to pursue this, start another thread.
But just be aware that I have never seen this line of question used without a double standard in place.

Actually, it goes hand-in-hand with the topic because if the BOM is what your church claims it to be, this all comes down to the Bible being in error. If the Bible is in error and the BOM is correct, the next step is to assume that Joseph Smith, being ordained of God, must have been on par with Biblical prophets, though he maintains a perfect 0% batting average. This, of course, violates Gospel Principles’ admonition that the Lord wouldn’t allow the President of the church to lead us astray, doesn’t it?

No, the only double standard is used by Mormon apologists in their attempts to defend a false gospel.

 

[Returning_Home]

The Bible contains the “fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation.” That includes the knowledge and doctrinal understanding that Christ would send the Holy Spirit to guide the members toward more understanding, more knowledge, more truth than what is contained in the Bible itself. The Bible provides a foundation–not the complete fullness of every truth that we are ever going to learn in all eternity.

So the Bible, with no mention of exaltation, of the essential component of the priesthood, or anything else unique to Mormonism, contains the ‘fulness’ of the gospel? Your definition of ‘fulness’ is obviously different from mine and everyone else’s. There’s no mention of varying degrees of completion in the BOM when it speaks of the Bible, only that it’s missing those many ‘plain and precious things,’ which, in turn, required a ‘restoration.’

If you use the Bible as a foundation, one that required thousands of corrections that you don’t have access to in the JST, your foundation is one of sand.

 

[flyonthewall]

Actually, it goes hand-in-hand with the topic because if the BOM is what your church claims it to be, this all comes down to the Bible being in error. If the Bible is in error and the BOM is correct, the next step is to assume that Joseph Smith, being ordained of God, must have been on par with Biblical prophets, though he maintains a perfect 0% batting average. This, of course, violates Gospel Principles’ admonition that the Lord wouldn’t allow the President of the church to lead us astray, doesn’t it?

No, the only double standard is used by Mormon apologists in their attempts to defend a false gospel.

This thread is about what degree of reliability LDS give to the Bible. If you want to pursue prophecies of Joseph Smith, start a new thread.