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

[ParkerD]

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.

Stephen,
You brought the word “reliable” into the conversation in a context that compared the use of that word to a tractor, if I am not mistaken. That would mean the context you brought through that comparison says, a tractor does its work (with the driver and gasoline and the appropriate plow or harvesting implement) with reliability, in and of itself and can be counted on.

Almost every conversation I have had with Catholics using Biblical text reverts to non-Biblical references or opinions expressed by the ECF or just plain poor English grammar in how they draw their conclusions. So the comparison to “reliable as a tractor” does indeed bring the Catholic use of the Bible into the conversation, by the inference that it is “reliable” for you and yet “unreliable” for me.

For me, the Bible is just as reliable compared to a tractor in the same way (more so) than it is for the Catholics with whom I have had conversations using the Bible as the reference point for the conversation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD, I’d say Catholics never view Christ’s life and teaching as having a capricious quality…something I find Mormons seem to look for and look up to. Such as it is with your “grammar” red herring.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, I’d say Catholics never view Christ’s life and teaching as having a capricious quality.

RebeccaJ,
I realize that Catholics seem to look for the quickest surface meaning they find, often, but Christ taught at several levels and said as much to His apostles. He was the world’s greatest Master at doing that. I don’t call that “capricious”, but I suppose if that is what that means to you or others, then you may call it that if you wish.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
I realize that Catholics seem to look for the quickest surface meaning they find, often, but Christ taught at several levels and said as much to His apostles. He was the world’s greatest Master at doing that. I don’t call that “capricious”, but I suppose if that is what that means to you or others, then you may call it that if you wish.

A statement of ignorance. No doubt you need to get out more.

 

[RebeccaJ]

By that I mean, ParkerD, Christ did not have one teaching that he imparted simply, and another opposite teaching that he imparted more deeply. This seems to be your position.

To be drawn deeper into Him is to be drawn deeper into Truth itself. Truth does not change depending on a “surface read” or a very deep understanding.

So it is, the simplest faith contains the same amount of Truth as the person who hold a doctorate in theology. The source of Truth is a Person, and that person isn’t you.

You seem to think that you have delved deeper than any in 2000 years. It is not only ignorant, but arrogant and has shades of the heresy known as gnosticism.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
You brought the word “reliable” into the conversation in a context that compared the use of that word to a tractor, if I am not mistaken.

Yes, you are mistaken. Besides your tu quoque being wrong it has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[ParkerD]

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?

Stephen,
This was the quote I was referencing with my comment about a tractor. I must have misunderstood your comment. I still don’t understand your comparison, but it’s no big deal to me.

 

[JeanMichel]

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.

Tiki, to be a Christian is demanding. To follow truth is a prerequisite of following the Christ. You might remember a scripture found in Apoc 2: 2-4:

[2] I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them that are evil, and thou hast tried them, who say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: [3] And thou hast patience, and hast endured for my name, and hast not fainted. [4] But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity. [5] Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.

I actually like the KJV better and you will see why, Rev 2:4

Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

When we discuss truth with another, we must never forget our Master and Savior. Each word we use must demonstrate we belong to the Master and Teacher of Love eternal. What you have written above is more a screed than an invitation to follow Him who knows all. I urge you to rethink your words. We can defend truth, we can prove other liars and yet never leave the Peace that is the Love of our Lord. If all of us thought more carefully how to do this, there would both be more peace in the world and the Holy Spirit would be with us more fully.

 

[ParkerD]

Tiki, to be a Christian is demanding. To follow truth is a prerequisite of following the Christ. You might remember a scripture found in Apoc 2: 2-4:

I actually like the KJV better and you will see why, Rev 2:4

When we discuss truth with another, we must never forget our Master and Savior. Each word we use must demonstrate we belong to the Master and Teacher of Love eternal. What you have written above is more a screed than an invitation to follow Him who knows all. I urge you to rethink your words. We can defend truth, we can prove other liars and yet never leave the Peace that is the Love of our Lord. If all of us thought more carefully how to do this, there would both be more peace in the world and the Holy Spirit would be with us more fully.

JeanMichel,
The words you used in your second to last sentence here don’t seem consistent with the rest of what you wrote, since the action described involves making personal judgments and pointing fingers in a way that Christ taught not to do.

Love and charity certainly are key to living by the teachings of Christ.

Wishing peace to all readers here, and to all people everywhere.

 

[SteveVH]

JeanMichel,
The words you used in your second to last sentence here don’t seem consistent with the rest of what you wrote, since the action described involves making personal judgments and pointing fingers in a way that Christ taught not to do.

Love and charity certainly are key to living by the teachings of Christ.

Wishing peace to all readers here, and to all people everywhere.

Parker, I don’t think JeanMichel said that it was ok to make personal judgments and point fingers. What was said was

We can defend truth, we can prove other liars and yet never leave the Peace that is the Love of our Lord.

Our Lord, himself, threw the money changers out of the Temple, called the Pharisees “whitewashed tombs”, “vipers”, etc… He never put up with someone speaking other than the truth and yet we know that he loved those he spoke to. I think the statement is valid.

 

[JHow]

Stephen,
This was the quote I was referencing with my comment about a tractor. I must have misunderstood your comment. I still don’t understand your comparison, but it’s no big deal to me.

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

To me this suggests that Steve considers his 1952 tractor an exception to the rule that “reliable” is an “is/is not” propostion (dichotomous variable). I read this as saying that his tractor exhibits “degrees” of reliability (perhaps it is a “5” on a scale from from 1 to 10)?

 

[Stephen168]

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

To me this suggests that Steve considers his 1952 tractor an exception to the rule that “reliable” is an “is/is not” propostion (dichotomous variable). I read this as saying that his tractor exhibits “degrees” of reliability (perhaps it is a “5” on a scale from from 1 to 10)?

You are right; I see my old tractor as an exception. I then suggested something had to a) have a purpose b) fill that purpose without exception to be reliable.

The thing I found interesting in my discussion here was that Mormons wanted to decide for Catholics our purpose for the Bible AND the purpose I have for my old tractor. Even though it was not the subject of this thread and I pointed out they had gotten it wrong three times; they never asked. I found that interesting but not too surprising.

 

[ParkerD]

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

To me this suggests that Steve considers his 1952 tractor an exception to the rule that “reliable” is an “is/is not” propostion (dichotomous variable). I read this as saying that his tractor exhibits “degrees” of reliability (perhaps it is a “5” on a scale from from 1 to 10)?

JHow,
OK–great. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I don’t think JeanMichel said that it was ok to make personal judgments and point fingers. What was said was

Our Lord, himself, threw the money changers out of the Temple, called the Pharisees “whitewashed tombs”, “vipers”, etc… He never put up with someone speaking other than the truth and yet we know that he loved those he spoke to. I think the statement is valid.

SteveVH,
First and foremost, thanks for your charitable posts including when you start a thread.

Second, I hope JeanMichel continues in this forum for a long time. I think he adds great perspectives.

Third, I disagree that people should assume that because Jesus, who is perfect and knows the hearts of all humankind, judged certain people and called them to repentance including casting out the money-changers and using the “whitewashed tombs” (meaning telling them they were hypocrites) language, that His example was given for everyone to follow and assume that each person knows the hearts of everyone around them and can therefore be their perfect judge.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
First and foremost, thanks for your charitable posts including when you start a thread.

Second, I hope JeanMichel continues in this forum for a long time. I think he adds great perspectives.

Third, I disagree that people should assume that because Jesus, who is perfect and knows the hearts of all humankind, judged certain people and called them to repentance including casting out the money-changers and using the “whitewashed tombs” (meaning telling them they were hypocrites) language, that His example was given for everyone to follow and assume that each person knows the hearts of everyone around them and can therefore be their perfect judge.

Parker, you make a good point. I am only trying to say that tolerance of falsehoods is not a virtue.

God bless.

 

[dianaiad]

Stephen,
This was the quote I was referencing with my comment about a tractor. I must have misunderstood your comment. I still don’t understand your comparison, but it’s no big deal to me.

Ah, it was a joke, Parker. …and I really hate to find myself here, but…I think he was making a joke. Now, I haven’t GOT a 1952 tractor, but my grandfather had a 1932 tractor…and when I read STephen’s reference, I flashed back to that old friend–sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t–sometimes it would go out into the middle of the field and simply decide to take a four hour break, starting up again for no reason at all that mankind could determine–but for all that, sometimes it would simply go for weeks and never cause a problem. We called it 'Poltergeist." because we were all firmly of the opinion that it was possessed by a trickster ghost.

Y’know, I think that old tractor is still around, and still taking it’s own breaks somewhere in an Idaho alfalfa field…

 

[ParkerD]

Ah, it was a joke, Parker. …and I really hate to find myself here, but…I think he was making a joke. Now, I haven’t GOT a 1952 tractor, but my grandfather had a 1932 tractor…and when I read STephen’s reference, I flashed back to that old friend–sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t–sometimes it would go out into the middle of the field and simply decide to take a four hour break, starting up again for no reason at all that mankind could determine–but for all that, sometimes it would simply go for weeks and never cause a problem. We called it 'Poltergeist." because we were all firmly of the opinion that it was possessed by a trickster ghost.

Y’know, I think that old tractor is still around, and still taking it’s own breaks somewhere in an Idaho alfalfa field…

Dianaiad,
Fun story–thanks. Here what came to my mind was how an old friend of mine (from Idaho, but then living in Georgia) would say how the old machinery was better than the new machinery, and how he could keep the old equipment running like new, year after year.

So I jumped to the wrong conclusion with the analogy. Thanks again for the story, and your insights time and again.