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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They give it enough reliability to leave their bills and unpaid loans and run off with
Joseph Smith. They give it enough reliability to rewrite it with the Joseph Smith version.
Enough reliability to practice polygamy. Enough reliability to scare women into polygamous
marriage. Enough reliability to build temples, tell people it’s mandatory to attend, but to attend one must pay money. Enough reliability to try to throw the U.S. off it’s back and try to make tier own little kingdom/dictatorship.
 
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 👍
I’m not telling you what to think. You are telling me what you think about the Bible. From what you tell me, you do not find the Bible reliable. Mormons believe it has errors in the places where it shows Mormon teaching to be wrong.
 
I’m not telling you what to think. You are telling me what you think about the Bible. From what you tell me, you do not find the Bible reliable. Mormons believe it has errors in the places where it shows Mormon teaching to be wrong.
Oh come off it Stephen!!!
You were insisting you know what I should think. Show some integrity.
Originally Posted by Stephen168
**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.
 
Oh come off it Stephen!!!
You were insisting you know what I should think. Show some integrity.
You just quoted what ‘I’ think based on what you and Dianaiad told me you think about the Bible. From what you tell me, the Bible has errors in the same places Mormons read it to learn about the birth of Christ.

I am using a common understanding of the word reliable. It seems odd you want to claim the Bible to be reliable but then go on to describe it as unreliable; seems irrational to me. It seems like someone insisting their car is reliable but then tells me how it won’t start when they need to drive it; after telling me the purpose of the car was to get them to work everyday.

Mormons believe the Bible has errors in the places where it shows Mormon teaching to be wrong.
 
Mormons believe the Bible has errors in the places where it shows Mormon teaching to be wrong.
Not so, Stephen. There is not one place in the Bible “where it shows Mormon teaching to be wrong.” Not a single place.

On the contrary, there are at least fifty to a hundred places where Catholics I have discussed topics with have had to explain verses using non-Biblical sources to try and explain what the verses meant. That is what I would call “unreliable” as far as the Bible itself being the source of their beliefs and teachings.
 
Not so, Stephen. There is not one place in the Bible “where it shows Mormon teaching to be wrong.” Not a single place.

On the contrary, there are at least fifty to a hundred places where Catholics I have discussed topics with have had to explain verses using non-Biblical sources to try and explain what the verses meant. That is what I would call “unreliable” as far as the Bible itself being the source of their beliefs and teachings.
You’re right here; no part of the Bible definitively shows Mormonism to be wrong. Mormons have to take certain verses out of context in order to make them appear as if they confirm it, however. This, of course, is dishonest.

And to call the Bible as the basis for Christianity (Catholics and Protestants, all) unreliable is absurd when your own foundation rests on the false prophecies of Joseph Smith with his perfect record of 0% correct. That’s just projection and mudslinging.

Fail, Parker.
 
You’re right here; no part of the Bible definitively shows Mormonism to be wrong. Mormons have to take certain verses out of context in order to make them appear as if they confirm it, however. This, of course, is dishonest.
RH,
As you know, I have selected the ignore option in regards to what you have to say. However, I needn’t be inferred to have been “dishonest” and stand for it. I did not mean in any case that a verse is “taken out of context.” I meant completely the contrary. The verses are taken completely in context. What I find is that when a person sees the full context, then they don’t usually continue the conversation or they bring up the ECF in support of what they have been taught.

You may provide whatever example you like of what you meant by “out of context”, and I’ll show you directly from the Bible the full context of whatever it is you had in mind (KJV).

Anyone else can provide their example also and I’ll show the support for the LDS doctrine right from the Bible, in context.
 
As you know, I have selected the ignore option in regards to what you have to say. However, I needn’t be inferred to have been “dishonest” and stand for it. I did not mean in any case that a verse is “taken out of context.” I meant completely the contrary. The verses are taken completely in context. What I find is that when a person sees the full context, then they don’t usually continue the conversation or they bring up the ECF in support of what they have been taught.
I don’t think you’re being dishonest, but rather you’re simply repeating the lies of someone, your church, who is. I think you actually believe some of this because you’ve been told it’s true and you simply accepted it as such, in spite of your critical thinking skills clearly implying otherwise.

You’re not stupid by any means and I never meant to imply otherwise; you simply take the word of your church at face value without realizing that they have every reason to lie to you.
You may provide whatever example you like of what you meant by “out of context”, and I’ll show you directly from the Bible the full context of whatever it is you had in mind (KJV).

Anyone else can provide their example also and I’ll show the support for the LDS doctrine right from the Bible, in context.
Absolutely. Let’s start with, say, 1 Corinthians 15:40-42. Mormon missionaries will use this on occasion to prove that there are three levels of Heaven. Unfortunately for their position, a little further reading is all that it takes to see that Paul was talking about bodies, not kingdoms, and we see in verse 39, him talking about four different kinds of flesh: human, animal, fish, and bird. And in verse 41, he was referring to the sun, the moon, and the stars. He’s using heavenly bodies to illustrate the resurrection, not the three fictional destinations referenced in D&C 76.

My sources here are my KJV (1981 edition, distributed, coincidentally, by the LDS) and my quad. (1996 edition)
 
Absolutely. Let’s start with, say, 1 Corinthians 15:40-42. Mormon missionaries will use this on occasion to prove that there are three levels of Heaven. Unfortunately for their position, a little further reading is all that it takes to see that Paul was talking about bodies, not kingdoms, and we see in verse 39, him talking about four different kinds of flesh: human, animal, fish, and bird. And in verse 41, he was referring to the sun, the moon, and the stars. He’s using heavenly bodies to illustrate the resurrection, not the three fictional destinations referenced in D&C 76.

My sources here are my KJV (1981 edition, distributed, coincidentally, by the LDS) and my quad. (1996 edition)
RH,
Great example. Keep in mind that in every case we may discuss, I am a first-hand witness which means I have first-hand knowledge about the doctrine and it is not because I heard it from others–I can read, and I can experience the witness of the Spirit and can also understand the Bible–and do so.

A reader of 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 needs to expand their reading to gather the context, to at least verses 35-44.

35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

So Paul is indeed talking about bodies as you wrote, but what kind of bodies?

The answer is “spiritually quickened bodies as resurrected bodies.”

What he was writing about in verse 40 is in answer to the question he raised in verse 35–“with what body do they come?” Meaning, “with what body do they come back to life as a resurrected body?”

He is saying they come back to life with a glorified, spiritually quickened body, in the kind of body that it “pleased God” to quicken each person with. Among those spiritually quickened, resurrected bodies will be “celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial”–“one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.”

The body a person is resurrected with is going to be the body that is spiritually quickened with the glory that the person lived to “inherit” through what they chose in mortality. There will be different “amounts” (my word) of glory within the bodies that are resurrected bodies of human beings. The “amount” of glory within each body depends on how the person lived. They have restored to them the “glory” that they lived to receive, and their body resurrects with a bodily glory that reflects that very thing.

A resurrected body will have glory, through the grace of Christ. What kind of glory?

Answer: the glory each person lived to receive. Their resurrected body is going to “reflect” that which they sowed on earth. Those who “shine” the brightest (in glory as reflected in their countenance) will shine with a glory like the brightness of the sun. Those who shine the least bright will shine with a glory like the brightness of a star (thus different levels of brightness from one star to another or in other words one body to another since stars differ in the amount of brightness they have as seen from the earth.)

The Book of Mormon calls this principle the “law of restoration.”
 
Not so, Stephen. There is not one place in the Bible “where it shows Mormon teaching to be wrong.” Not a single place.
Review post #124 and you will find two Mormons who disagree. I invite you to respond to that post.
On the contrary, there are at least fifty to a hundred places where Catholics I have discussed topics with have had to explain verses using non-Biblical sources to try and explain what the verses meant. That is what I would call “unreliable” as far as the Bible itself being the source of their beliefs and teachings.
You will also find in post #124 where I had first asked Mormons to explain their purpose of the Bible. I reject the purpose you have assigned to the Catholic Church for the Bible. The Catholic Church pre-dates the New Testament, so it could not be the source of our beliefs and teachings. The Catholic Church is the source of the New Testament, so our beliefs to not conflict with the New Tesament. Besides the fact you are wrong, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
 
I always understood that phrase not to be found in a single organization, but a group made from a conglomerate of members from a diverse set of churches and religions. Bad or evil individuals can be found in all religious organizations and as such are true members of the great and abominable church. Is that an accurate understanding or is it off the mark?
Hi

Good point.
I would also see that this way. I have never thought when reading this particular verse of the Catholic Church. - I think neither did JS. Why should he be against the RC, if
  1. he has never been Catholic (but from the “Restoration Movement” in a, what we would now call “nondenominational-Church”) and
  2. there have never been that many Catholics around in the US. Even not in the 19th century, as far as I know and certainly also not in Palmyra, NY.?
Esdra
 
Review post #124 and you will find two Mormons who disagree. I invite you to respond to that post.
Stephen168,
Here is post #124, to which I will respond after posting this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd520
Stephen, I don’t recall anyone stating Mormon’s consider the Bible unreliable or unable to fulfill its purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen168
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd520
……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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dianaiad
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen168
Is her lack of confidence on the reliability of the Bible typical of most Mormons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd520
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd520
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen168
Does the Mormon Church have a list of the errors?
 
I would also see that this way. I have never thought when reading this particular verse of the Catholic Church. - I think neither did JS. Why should he be against the RC, if
  1. he has never been Catholic (but from the “Restoration Movement” in a, what we would now call “nondenominational-Church”) and
  1. there have never been that many Catholics around in the US. Even not in the 19th century, as far as I know and certainly also not in Palmyra, NY.?
america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/February/20080307131416ebyessedo0.6800043.html

The great Irish Catholic immigration started about that time. Anti-Catholic sentiment was rife, and the “Catholic Church” that they hated was a fiction that only superficially resembled the true Catholic Church. The authors of the BoM were involved in Masonry, which was anti-Catholic. Spalding does not appear to have been anti-Catholic. He was regretful that as an ordained minister he was not acquainted with the writings of people like Augustine and Aquinas.
 
america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/February/20080307131416ebyessedo0.6800043.html

The great Irish Catholic immigration started about that time. Anti-Catholic sentiment was rife, and the “Catholic Church” that they hated was a fiction that only superficially resembled the true Catholic Church. The authors of the BoM were involved in Masonry, which was anti-Catholic. Spalding does not appear to have been anti-Catholic. He was regretful that as an ordained minister he was not acquainted with the writings of people like Augustine and Aquinas.
Well, in this light it COULD be that the “great and abdominable church” refers to the Catholic Church. - But NOT necessarily!

I am still at my point that this refers to “every Church” that has priestcraft and other abdominable things written in the BoM.

Esdra
 
I am still at my point that this refers to “every Church” that has priestcraft and other abdominable things written in the BoM.
If you want to go with that interpretation, given your RLDS leanings, then you are obligated to apply that description to the CoJCoLDS. 😃
 
Stephen168,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen168
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?
We love the Bible. We study it, use it in teaching and conversation, thrill with the many wonderful passages that are therein, rejoice in the message of salvation through Christ that it brings to the world.

Yes, it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen168
Is her lack of confidence on the reliability of the Bible typical of most Mormons?
Dianaiad was doing “spur-of-the-moment” thinking when she wrote that particular item, as was expressed in her post. She was not expressing a doctrinal position on scripture, nor a belief about whether or not the Bible was reliable. She was writing as a person, speaking for herself with a personal point of view.

As far as the passage I think she was talking about, I would say most all Mormons consider that passage to be completely reliable–that it really happened that way, and those words (or that meaning conveyed in the original language) really came from Mary’s heart and voice.
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.
No, no one said that at all.
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.
That was my point about the Bible for Catholics. If you are going to say the Bible is “not reliable” for Mormons, then that same case applies but fifty times more so.

I have responded many times that the LDS use the Bible more literally than any other religion. The Bible means what it says in the many cases when I am told “those words mean something different than you think.” The words say what the words say. Christ and the apostles meant what they said. The words don’t need to be re-interpreted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen168
Does the Mormon Church have a list of the errors?
If you really want to study at that level of detail, then you can go to lds.org and find every link to a JST (Joseph Smith Translation) passage or note within the Bible notes under the link to the LDS-used scriptures. You would then have the changes that Joseph Smith, by inspiration, considered pertinent as he made notes while prayerfully seeking the inspiration necessary to clarify the passages needing clarification.
 
That was my point about the Bible for Catholics. If you are going to say the Bible is “not reliable” for Mormons, then that same case applies but fifty times more so.
You will also find in post #124 where I had first asked Mormons to explain their purpose of the Bible. I reject the purpose you have assigned to the Catholic Church for the Bible. The Catholic Church pre-dates the New Testament, so it could not be the source of our beliefs and teachings. The Catholic Church is the source of the New Testament, so our beliefs to not conflict with the New Tesament. Besides the fact you are wrong it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
 
We love the Bible. We study it, use it in teaching and conversation, thrill with the many wonderful passages that are therein, rejoice in the message of salvation through Christ that it brings to the world.

Yes, it does.
You have made additions to the Mormon purpose of the Bible I was originally given. I have heard nothing from Mormons that would conflict with your additional purposes of study and conversation. But it does fail for Mormons in its teaching purpose as I have shown before.
I have responded many times that the LDS use the Bible more literally than any other religion. The Bible means what it says in the many cases when I am told “those words mean something different than you think.” The words say what the words say. Christ and the apostles meant what they said. The words don’t need to be re-interpreted.
This view of the Bible is not unique to Mormonism. “Proof texting” seems to be common among religions with this view as it is for Mormons.
 
But it does fail for Mormons in its teaching purpose as I have shown before.
There you go again, telling us what we can do, and after you rejected our comments on the catholic bible. The fact you can’t see the irony just makes me laugh.
You have made additions to the Mormon purpose of the Bible I was originally given. I have heard nothing from Mormons that would conflict with your additional purposes of study and conversation.
What were these new additions that were missed before?
 
We love the Bible. We study it, use it in teaching and conversation, thrill with the many wonderful passages that are therein, rejoice in the message of salvation through Christ that it brings to the world.

Yes, it does.
You have made additions to the Mormon purpose of the Bible I was originally given. I have heard nothing from Mormons that would conflict with your additional purposes of study and conversation.
What were these new additions that were missed before?
Your reading comprehension needs a little work; re-read the conversation real slow. Pay close attention to the bolded words.
But it does fail for Mormons in its teaching purpose as I have shown before.
There you go again, telling us what we can do, and after you rejected our comments on the catholic bible. The fact you can’t see the irony just makes me laugh.
I asked Mormons for their purpose for the Bible. You are the second Mormon to assume the Catholic purpose is the same as the Mormon purpose. So again, I reject the purpose you have assigned to the Catholic Church for the Bible. The Catholic Church pre-dates the New Testament, so it could not be the source of our beliefs and teachings. The Catholic Church is the source of the New Testament, so our beliefs to not conflict with the New Tesament. Besides the fact you are wrong it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top