For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

Post by _EAllusion »

On another line, the standard evangelical position on Biblical inerrancy is that the revealed word of God is inerrant and the Bible they read is inerrant insofar as it has been translated accurately from the manuscripts. This is identical to the standard LDS view. LDS are inerrantists in the usual way evangelicals are. And if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts of it, there is a healthy debate among evangelicals between those who believe in verbal plenary inerrancy (that the literal words of scripture are inerrant) and non-verbal (those who believe the concepts the words are attempting to get at are inerrant). That, say, the KJV is the inerrant word of God is not a particularly common EV view.

This is really born of ignorance of what evangelical theology entails.
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

Post by _just me »

The only things the LDS church officially recognizes as "translated incorrectly" are the things that Joseph Smith changed and that the LDS church put in their scriptures.

Individuals may speculate that this or that was translated incorrectly to get themselves out of a sticky situation, but that doesn't represent the doctrine of the LDS church.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_Hoops
_Emeritus
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:11 am

Re: For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

Post by _Hoops »

I doubt any LDS, including LDS leadership, would be willing to endorse this:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

Post by _RockSlider »

Hoops wrote:I doubt any LDS, including LDS leadership, would be willing to endorse this:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html


As Just me points out, I think they would/could if it has Joseph Smith's name/translation associated with it. Things would have been much clearer on this front if only his complete translation of the Bible would have completed the process of becoming official scripture of/for the Church. Or at least if the COJCOLDS had copy right ownership of it.

I assume the old RLDS, who did own and use the whole volume would endorse that statement against the JST volume.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Hoops wrote:I'm not a Mormon and have never been to an LDS service, but it's always been my understanding that LDsism is not literalists and that they/it can discard anythng it wishes. There's that whole "as far as it's translated correctly" thing.

Which, imho, invites a whole new set of problems. All I have to do is make it seem reasonable that the universe was created in 6 days and that all the animals would fit on the ark. (insert smiley)


While your observation is not inaccurate even with that it seems that Mormonism is really fairly literal in its view of the Bible. There is nothing I can think of in it that the LDS Church does not believe. I think the translated correctly thing is more used when arguing interpretation of passages in a doctrinal sense as well as there being things missing from the Bible.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

Post by _sock puppet »

Darth J wrote:Oh, and feel free to include "symbolic" things, too. You know, like the beasts that the Book of Revelation talks about, which the Church officially teaches are not symbolic, but are actual living animals from other planets.

Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Student Guide

John saw glorified life forms that, though unfamiliar to us, are an important part of Heavenly Father’s creations. The Prophet Joseph Smith said of these creations: “I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms, that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this,—strange beasts of which we have no conception: all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven” ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 291). At another time he said: “The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect: they were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God” (History of the Church, 5:343–44). Certainly this revelation opens our eyes to a universe much more complex and grand than we often suppose.

Holy s***, Batman. JSJr really believed that crap? Crazier than s***house rat.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

Post by _sock puppet »

Darth J wrote:And Maklelan, I don't know why you seem to be skeptical about Moses parting the Red Sea, which official LDS doctrine (not the least of which is the Book of Mormon) teaches us was an actual historical event. Why should we be dubious about miracles like that? After all, the prophet Elisha really did part the waters of the River Jordan and really did make an ax head float.

"Lesson 29: “He Took Up … the Mantle of Elijah”," Old Testament: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, (2001)

Elisha performed many great miracles, showing compassion for the people and giving further evidence that he was Elijah’s authorized successor. He parted the waters of Jordan, healed the waters of Jericho, multiplied a widow’s oil, raised a boy from the dead, healed people who had been poisoned, fed the hungry, healed Naaman’s leprosy, caused an ax to float, and guided kings in war. You may want to review some of these miracles from 2 Kings 2–6.

I wonder why JSJr and his successor, 'modern day prophets' can't do any of that. Why, the Church could televise TSM and/or BKP doing that kind of thing each Sunday and make boatload of $ just off of the advertising revenues, forget tithing. They'd get a lot more viewers than the Mo Tab Choir gets.
_schreech
_Emeritus
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

Post by _schreech »

Darth... Damn...

I would also love to see the opinions of some of our local, very "educated", LDS defenders (not sure that is actually the correct word as it seems like most of these "defenders" end up making the LDS church look worse") concerning several of these issue - ESPECIALLY the inclusion of the "tower of babel" fable in the Book of Mormon and LDS teaching materials....Thanks.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Nov 06, 2011 5:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

Post by _Darth J »

maklelan wrote: I don't believe in talking donkeys and snakes.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20966&start=0


As already demonstrated, contra Maklelan, the LDS Church does believe in talking donkeys. And it believes in talking snakes, too. You see, the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden was not a metaphor for Satan. Much like God spoke through a donkey, Satan spoke through a snake.

Moses 4:5-7

5 And now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which I, the Lord God, had made.

6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

7 And he said unto the woman: Yea, hath God said—Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (And he spake by the mouth of the serpent.)


Pearl of Great Price Student Manual---Religion 327

Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote: “Since the day in which Satan spoke by the mouth of the serpent to entice Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit ( Moses 4:5–21 ), Satan has been called ‘that old serpent .’ ( Rev. 12:9 ; 20:2 ; D. & C. 76:28 ; 88:110 .) Choice of the name is excellent, indicating as it does a cunning, sly, subtle, and deceitful craftiness” ( Mormon Doctrine, 704).


Old Testament Student Manual

In the Genesis account the serpent speaks to Eve and tempts her to partake of the fruit. The more complete account in the book of Moses points out that Satan is the one speaking, although he does so through the serpent (see Moses 4:6–7 ).
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

Post by _Darth J »

I think one thing that is clear is, like almost all Mopolgists and internet Mormons, Maklelan is a heretic. How ironic that one has to resort to heresy to stand up for the Church.

her·e·tic

1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
Post Reply