For former LDS. Ques. about the Bible incl. as Scripture

[_msnobody]

Did you ever ponder why the LDS church even has the Bible included as a book of scripture? I mean if it is so tainted by man it cannot be trusted as reliable, why bother.

[_Jason Bourne]

Did you ever ponder why the LDS church even has the Bible included as a book of scripture? I mean if it is so tainted by man it cannot be trusted as reliable, why bother.

Because the position you propose above is not the position of the LDS Church. The LDS Church for the most part believes the Bible is accurate and reliable.

[_John Larsen]

Did you ever ponder why the LDS church even has the Bible included as a book of scripture? I mean if it is so tainted by man it cannot be trusted as reliable, why bother.

If you read talks be General Authorities dating back to Joseph Smith and count references to the Bible and those to "modern scripture" you will find that they rely on the Bible much more than the latter. This is simply because the Bible is far superior in every way to the Scripture that Joseph wrote.

[_rcrocket]

Did you ever ponder why the LDS church even has the Bible included as a book of scripture? I mean if it is so tainted by man it cannot be trusted as reliable, why bother.

If you read talks be General Authorities dating back to Joseph Smith and count references to the Bible and those to "modern scripture" you will find that they rely on the Bible much more than the latter. This is simply because the Bible is far superior in every way to the Scripture that Joseph wrote.

Or could it be that there are more pages in the Bible than the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants? When I was on my mission most of our scriptural references were to the Bible in our discussion, simply because investigators would be more likely to believe the Bible.

Your opening thread, however, simply overlooks the way most of Christian theologians view the Bible. Most of them are not inerrantists. Those who believe in God, and who are not inerrantists, believe that God's ways can be discerned by the Spirit from the writings of man.

[_quaker]

If you read talks be General Authorities dating back to Joseph Smith and count references to the Bible and those to "modern scripture" you will find that they rely on the Bible much more than the latter. This is simply because the Bible is far superior in every way to the Scripture that Joseph wrote.

Sure, hold the opinion that the Bible is superior to the Book of Mormon, that at least makes sense. But the rest of your comment is outrageous and shows a lack of any ability to put the situation of early converts into context.

That is nearly the silliest comment you could have made. Are you trying to be inflammatory? If so, congrats. If it was a sincere comment then you're turning into a goof.

[_John Larsen]

If you read talks be General Authorities dating back to Joseph Smith and count references to the Bible and those to "modern scripture" you will find that they rely on the Bible much more than the latter. This is simply because the Bible is far superior in every way to the Scripture that Joseph wrote.

Sure, hold the opinion that the Bible is superior to the Book of Mormon, that at least makes sense. But the rest of your comment is outrageous and shows a lack of any ability to put the situation of early converts into context.

That is nearly the silliest comment you could have made. Are you trying to be inflammatory? If so, congrats. If it was a sincere comment then you're turning into a goof.

Look it up. Joseph Smith hardly ever quoted the Book of Mormon and he quoted the Bible quite often. But even then, your argument makes no sense. If anything, the early converts should have thought higher of the Book of Mormon than those of us today. They knew the guys who were there and could have given first hand account. People they went to Church with could tell them about hefting the plates.

To us today, the Book of Mormon is just another set of ancient scripture. The events they encountered in their life that had powerful meaning are in our past, just like the events of the Bible.

But maybe I am missing "the situation of early converts" that you refer to. Just what do you mean. However, as to my argument--I still stand by it. The Bible is referenced by LDS speakers and writers more often than than the scripture that was written for our time. This is especially true of the PoGP and the D&C.

[_karl61]

Every Book: the hebrew Bible, the new tesatment and so on has it's own unique problems. all the authors or scribes had their own little bag of tricks. They had their own theological agenda they were trying to push. The authors of the gospels almost always misquote the hebrew Bible or take it out of context, trying to pound a circle into the mold of a star. Why? ask them.

[_harmony]

But maybe I am missing "the situation of early converts" that you refer to. Just what do you mean. However, as to my argument--I still stand by it. The Bible is referenced by LDS speakers and writers more often than than the scripture that was written for our time. This is especially true of the PoGP and the D&C.

Use of the Book of Mormon is climbing though. PoGP is losing more and more ground. D&C is holding it's own. I think the next generation will kick PoGP to the curb and severely cut down on the use of the D&C. It just doesn't have much relevance to life now. I think eventually they'll both go the way of the Lectures on Faith and the Journal of Discourses. They'll be relics, something to delve into only to prove the strange things the early Saints believed.

Ongoing revelation! Yeah!

[_quaker]

A lot of children read or listen to Bible passages from their infancy. Many Bible passages, quotes and paraphrased ideas are heavily used among Christian populations.

Maybe I am judging others' abilities based too much on my own ability to learn scriptures. However, I recognize that people can more easily reference what they have been familiarized with over long periods of time. I consider myself somewhat proficient at referencing scriptures, but I think I can attribute that to all the footnotes, cross-references and digital search tools that people in the 1840s did not have.

I just think it is necessary to recall that the Bible passages were more deeply entrenched in the minds of converts, and in all of society, than any Book of Mormon passage. Recall that today even the remotest branch of pure converts can constantly receive satellite, television, radio, and recordings from cultures of non-converts that are as proficient with the Book of Mormon as with the Bible. Whereas in the past they were the initial group incorporating the Book of Mormon into the culture. They didn't have some culture with generations of Book of Mormon readers to help as guides.

Maybe that response is too apologetic. I do think that if you take all those distinctions between now and a hundred plus years previous then you will account for the large majority of the reasons why the Bible was cited more often than modern scripture.

[_Yoda]

I don't know. Growing up, I was taught from the Book of Mormon MUCH more frequently than from the Bible.

I knew the basic Bible stories, but examples of prophets that readily came to mind that were taught more frequently were those from the Book of Mormon. I knew the story of Nephi, the story of Lehi's family's exodus frontwards and backwards.

Whenever we studied the Bible in seminary, everyone groaned. The Book of Mormon was MUCH easier to grasp. And, frankly, the reason for that was simply because we had grown up being preached from it more often.

I grew up in Northern California. I don't know if this was just something that was a local phenomenon, or if it had to do with the time span I grew up in. I'm 44.

Did anyone else who is my age have similar experiences?