Book of Mormon / KJV Bible contradictions (some) (suicide, priest, verses)

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb

Thanks. I really enjoy the give and take of discussions as long as we can all stay respectful of each other and let each other explain our own religions.


Both. As you know, we believe that the three members of the Godhead are separate and distinct "individuals." We separate them more than what is believed under orthodox trinitarianism. We believe something closer to what is called "Social Trinitarianism." We believe that the members of the Godhead are mutually indwelling and that that together they act as "God." Jesus then is both "a god" as well as "God."


We are saved because God, through His Grace and by the power of the atoning sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ pronounces us free of sin. Nothing we did or can do forced, compelled, or enticed God to do this for us. He did it for us because He loves us and loves us perfectly. To be partakers of the grace of God through the blood of Christ requires that we accept Jesus with true and living faith, not superficially and not merely as intellectual acceptance or assent. We must fully trust in Him alone as our savior and follow Him.

There is no way to really separate living faith and works. To do good things means nothing if the reason for doing those things isn't because you trust Jesus and are giving yourself to Him. You can't be saved without works because you can't have faith without those works being manifest. Jesus has told us what we must do, and those with faith and trust will try to do them. No one (except Jesus) is perfect and we all will fail. But the commitment and the intent and the desire to follow Jesus (our living faith) qualifies us to receive the blessing of forgiveness and imputed holiness. There is no salvation and no eternal happiness outside of Jesus Christ no matter what else we do.

For example, we "have" to be baptized because Jesus told us that we should covenant with Him in this way. If we trust Him, love Him, and desire Him, then we will do this. If we can't get baptized or don't understand it or don't believe that He has asked to do this, then our failure to do it is not a lack of faith in Him. We "have" to show love to our neighbors because Jesus asked us to. If we want to and try to love our neighbors because we trust Jesus and love Him, then our measly efforts, whatever they are, are an acceptable offering to Him.

For LDS Christians, the entire discussion of faith and works seems bizarre. We simply can't separate the two. Of COURSE we aren't saved by doing good things. But of COURSE we can't be saved without doing good things (or at least wanting to do good things). Of COURSE we aren't saved by mere professions of belief. But of COURSE we are saved because of our faith alone in Christ.

This is why when we get Protestants haranguing on us about our supposed belief that we are saved by works we find ourselves in a confusing situation. We fire back that we don't believe we are saved by works or without faith, and then we have quotes thrown in our faces from our apostles urging us to live faithfully and that our actions matter. We don't believe our works save us, even partially. Jesus saves us and our works are what He has asked us to do. We can't really be saved without them, but they don't save us in any way. We aren't earning brownie points so that when we fill our little books with good-deed stamps we qualify for heaven.

The whole thing seems simple to us, but it often seems that many non-LDS don't quite grasp what we are saying and try to force us into one of two pigeon holes: either saved by works or saved by faith.

I should add that sometimes doing good works, with little faith, can lead to greater faith. That is, when we follow Jesus our faith can increase. Thus we should be encouraging good works as a way to help people learn to love Jesus and increase their faith.

We are saved by grace and faith and works.


Yes. We accept it as canonical scripture, so it really doesn't matter whether it was part of the original manuscript or was added later as a true story that needed a home in the scriptures. For us it is purely a scholarly mss issue and has no bearing on anything.

Hi PaulMcNabb,

I must say that I generally agree with what you said in this post. It seems I take issue with your scripture but not your interpretations and to be honest I don't know how you can have these interpretations but nevertheless you seem to be taking the Gospels and Paul here rather well. I am glad that is how you see it.I suppose it is not unusual since I don't know how people read our scriptures and make certain conclusions
This will run afoul of course of LDS since it is a "latter day" faith.

Hebrews 9

26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

My own co-religionists tell me the end times is now and again I cannot figure out how with this scripture among many many others
.

My point of view of Jesus is he is God manifest and is attached to God by something we do not understand but I do understand they do have the same will. For example my hand is part of me, is less than me, and follows my will. God being unique will also be rather more complex. Our two hemispheres in our brain also have an odd duel relationship. The silly concept of God can only be one and that Jesus violates this by those that take this view can never tell me what one God really is such as one of what. Is there a divine "mesh" that cannot enter flesh etc. This post for example exists on several computers even on your screen but is attributable to my will.

I certainly cannot judge salvation. I can only judge the soundness of a doctrine. Yes I believe Mormon scriptures are not sound but there are many strange things people believe but so long as they believe Jesus was God, came in the flesh and justified mankind of their sins it certainly leaves open possibilities.

Also you my expect honest discourse from me and I will produce the documents to back up my assertions and the dispute will rest upon the quality of the document and interpretation.

[PaulMcNabb]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Hi PaulMcNabb,

I must say that I generally agree with what you said in this post.

Well, maybe you are a closet Mormon...

It seems I take issue with your scripture but not your interpretations and to be honest I don't know how you can have these interpretations

I'm not sure what you mean by that last part.

but nevertheless you seem to be taking the Gospels and Paul here rather well. I am glad that is how you see it.I suppose it is not unusual since I don't know how people read our scriptures and make certain conclusions

Who is included when you say "our" scriptures?

This will run afoul of course of LDS since it is a "latter day" faith.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to the Hebrews 9 scripture?

Hebrews 9

26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

My own co-religionists tell me the end times is now and again I cannot figure out how with this scripture among many many others .

Nothing LDS Christians believe contradicts Hebrews 9. His appearance 2,000 years ago when He died for our sins was unique and a very different sort of thing from His appearance to Saul on the Damascus road, to John on Patmos, to Joseph Smith in the grove of trees, or to the world at His Second Coming. The passage does not mean that Jesus would never appear again, but rather that at that point in history He appeared to perform a unique, one-time sacrifice for all of sin---past, present, and future.

I'm looking forward to your response.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb

Well, maybe you are a closet Mormon...

Hi PaulMcNabb,

Only if Mormons are Christians and then that is the point. As I said from my point of view you make an unfathomable interpretation from the Mormon scriptures , yet it is the correct one from the scriptures of the Christian Cannon. As I said the basics are to see Jesus was God in the flesh and died for our sins.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last part.


Who is included when you say "our" scriptures?

The Christian Bible .

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to the Hebrews 9 scripture?


Nothing LDS Christians believe contradicts Hebrews 9. His appearance 2,000 years ago when He died for our sins was unique and a very different sort of thing from His appearance to Saul on the Damascus road, to John on Patmos, to Joseph Smith in the grove of trees, or to the world at His Second Coming. The passage does not mean that Jesus would never appear again, but rather that at that point in history He appeared to perform a unique, one-time sacrifice for all of sin---past, present, and future.

I'm looking forward to your response.

You should know I am a partial preterist. My point is even using the Bible I disagree with futurism and Dispensationalism in general let alone the idea of latter day saints such as LDS. I believe Hebrews 9 supports the end times happened 2000 years ago for example. It is however ironic I do not limit Jesus to a second coming other than for salvation. Revelation 2-3 show Jesus threatening to appear to several churches for example and he did appear to Paul (Acts 9)and to John to inspire Revelation itself.
So in that case I am a bit Mormon However in the case of these being the latter days or that Israel has any earthly purpose today certainly not.

[PaulMcNabb]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Only if Mormons are Christians

Which, of course, they are.

and then that is the point. As I said from my point of view you make an unfathomable interpretation from the Mormon scriptures,

I don't quite understand this. The Bible scripture for us. You will find that most LDS are pretty far on the conservative/literal end of Bible interpretation. Maybe you have a false idea of what constitutes scripture for LDS Christians.

[quote]yet it is the correct one from the scriptures of the Christian Cannon. As I said the basics are to see Jesus was God in the flesh and died for our sins.

The Christian Bible.

And therefore the LDS Bible...

[quote]You should know I am a partial preterist. My point is even using the Bible I disagree with futurism and Dispensationalism in general let alone the idea of latter day saints such as LDS.[quote]
The LDS view of dispensations is a little bit different from most Christian Dispensationalist beliefs. Latter-day Saints use the name to distinguish themselves from "former-day saints," believers from the New Testament times.

I believe Hebrews 9 supports the end times happened 2000 years ago for example. It is however ironic I do not limit Jesus to a second coming other than for salvation. Revelation 2-3 show Jesus threatening to appear to several churches for example and he did appear to Paul (Acts 9)and to John to inspire Revelation itself. So in that case I am a bit Mormon However in the case of these being the latter days or that Israel has any earthly purpose today certainly not.

Well, you could still be a good Mormon and believe some of that! Some things just aren't either too important or else they just aren't well specified as doctrine. But I don't think Hebrews 9 is particularly relevant to the issue one way or the other.

[gwynedd1]

[quote=PaulMcNabb;6213764]Which, of course, they are.


I don't quite understand this. The Bible scripture for us. You will find that most LDS are pretty far on the conservative/literal end of Bible interpretation. Maybe you have a false idea of what constitutes scripture for LDS Christians.

[quote]yet it is the correct one from the scriptures of the Christian Cannon. As I said the basics are to see Jesus was God in the flesh and died for our sins.


And therefore the LDS Bible...

[quote]You should know I am a partial preterist. My point is even using the Bible I disagree with futurism and Dispensationalism in general let alone the idea of latter day saints such as LDS.

The LDS view of dispensations is a little bit different from most Christian Dispensationalist beliefs. Latter-day Saints use the name to distinguish themselves from "former-day saints," believers from the New Testament times.


Well, you could still be a good Mormon and believe some of that! Some things just aren't either too important or else they just aren't well specified as doctrine. But I don't think Hebrews 9 is particularly relevant to the issue one way or the other.

Hi PaulMcNabb,

Interesting...

So then which is considered authoritative say between these?

The Gospel of John.
The Book of Mormon
A Discourse of Brigham Young.

Also I think coffee might get me into trouble. Though I must say I do like Utah.

[twin.spin]

Paul,
If you think you are a christian, are you perfect or becoming perfect? Do you really have forgiveness?

[PaulMcNabb]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

yet it is the correct one from the scriptures of the Christian Cannon. As I said the basics are to see Jesus was God in the flesh and died for our sins.

It sounds as if you are pretty open-minded about this.

Interesting...

So then which is considered authoritative say between these?

The Gospel of John.
The Book of Mormon
A Discourse of Brigham Young.

The canon, which for us consists of four works (The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price), is in a special category. All the works are equal, just as other Christians would consider the gospels of Matthew and Luke to be equal in authority. So for us, the books within the Book of Mormon and the books within the New Testament are equal.

Discourses of various prophets, while highly respected, are not considered binding on the members of the Church the way the canon is. We do not believe that all sermons by all Church leaders are necessarily revelatory or authoritative. We believe that men who are called as prophets and apostles don't always speak "as prophets" and they can express their own opinions and beliefs and can be wrong.

Also I think coffee might get me into trouble. Though I must say I do like Utah.

Aw, giving up coffee isn't as hard as you might think...

[PaulMcNabb]

Originally Posted by twin.spin

Paul,
If you think you are a christian, are you perfect or becoming perfect?

We discussed this in your post #242 and my response in post #247.

I reject the implications of the very question you ask. It is loaded with presuppositions and assumptions, most of which I reject, as well as an erroneous linkage.

Do you really have forgiveness?

Yes.

[urbanlemur]

So for us, the books within the Book of Mormon and the books within the New Testament are equal.

That's a pretty interesting statement. When I was a member of the church, the BOM was considered more important and more dear to the church than the Bible. As far as I know, doesn't the church still accept the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly?" Does that imply that there are parts that hold less creedence than others because of "changes" over time? If that's the case, then what do we say about the BOM which has had over 4,000 changes since its inception? Surely, a church member would have to agree that there have been doctrinal changes over the course of church history. My friends have told me that there have even been changes in the temple ceremony so I would guess that the changes might go hand in hand with textual changes also. Any thoughts?

[PaulMcNabb]

Originally Posted by urbanlemur

That's a pretty interesting statement. When I was a member of the church, the BOM was considered more important and more dear to the church than the Bible.

Then you are either misremembering or else you misunderstood what was said. The BoM has never been considered more authoritative or "more canonical" than the Bible. On the contrary, there have been times in LDS church history when the BoM was practically ignored and the overwhelming emphasis was given to the Bible for explaining doctrine.

But the BoM DOES have a second purpose aside from its canonical teaching. It is presented as evidence of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and thus as evidence of the Church's claims for its divine origins.

As far as I know, doesn't the church still accept the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly?"

Who doesn't?

Would you or any other person feel obligated to align your theology to match an incorrectly translated passage? What do you feel about the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation?

Does that imply that there are parts that hold less creedence than others because of "changes" over time?

No.

Can you find me an instance where LDS Christians appeal to a corrupt Bible in order to ignore what other Christians would consider a basic Bible teaching?

If that's the case, then what do we say about the BOM which has had over 4,000 changes since its inception?

Now you have crossed over into posting pure anti-Mormon drivel. This represents an amazingly superficial understanding of what constituted a "change," what texts were changed and why, and how these "changes" should be viewed as evidence for or against the authenticity claims of the Book of Mormon.

On top of that, it reveals an inerrantist, fundamentalist approach to scripture that simply isn't shared in the LDS faith.

BTW, that anti-Mormon 4,000 number is meaningless. There could actually be up to 100,000 "changes" if one is totally ignorant and just wants to come up with a big number based on any kind of change at all.

I would strongly recommend reading the original Book of Mormon. The differences are generally insignificant and no one would ever spot a difference just by reading it. You will be astonished at how complex a text it is and how well it reads in its original format without chapter and verse divisions.

There is a massive project that is working to fully analyze the Book of Mormon text to determine the original work as it came from Joseph Smith. It is called the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project and you can read a very brief summary of it here. This massive project has been going on for over 20 years and they are still years away from completing it.

Dr. Skousen, the person responsible for the project, gave a fascinating presentation on this subject at the 2002 FAIR Conference. You can read the transcript of his talk here.

Those who want to learn more should click here to read a 2004 blog of some of the findings of the project as of that date.

You can read a 2006 update on the project by clicking here.

If you are looking for a simple wiki discussion of the anti-Mormon attack based on changes in the Book of Mormon, you can click here.

The bottom line of all of this is that the more we study the Book of Mormon and its original translation, the more amazing and consistent we find the text to be. The scholarly findings fully support the original claim that Joseph Smith dictated the entire text a few words at a time, and the complexity of the text is evidence of a sophisticated, ancient, Semitic author.

Surely, a church member would have to agree that there have been doctrinal changes over the course of church history.

Yes, I've heard LDS Christians and Church leaders assert that there hasn't been, but I don't agree with a strict interpretation of such a statement. I think it is obvious that we have a better and more complete understanding of many doctrines today than the Church did in 1831.

My friends have told me that there have even been changes in the temple ceremony so I would guess that the changes might go hand in hand with textual changes also. Any thoughts?

Yes. I have lots of thoughts, as you would expect.

No BoM textual changes are related to doctrine or any doctrinal "changes." This is one of the anti-Mormon fallacies. The basic anti-Mormon approach is to set up a person to think that the BoM in its first printing should have had no errors of any kind---typographical, printing, or otherwise. The next step is to throw out a large number, such as 4,000, that makes it sound as if the Book of Mormon has gone through major textual editing of some kind between the initial translation and the modern edition and that the changes were made to alter doctrine (or that the changes mean the BoM wasn't translated by the power of God).

And why would anyone think that the temple ceremony wouldn't change over time to better serve its purposes? It changed a number of times in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century. I can't figure out how this means anything...