Contradictions in the LDS Scriptures

Bonnie

Well-known member
I ran across this stuff on utlm.org while on shutdown, when I was doing research on Mormonism on various websites. It compares early "revelations" with later "revelations."

One of the ones that intrigue me the most is about paying church workers. On the last boards, we got into quite a discussion over paying or not paying pastors. The LDS church likes to brag that it has unpaid clergy. Well, its own D and C says church workers should be paid.

For Paid Ministry

Doctrine and Covenants

Section 42:71-73

71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;

72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.

73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

Section 43:12-13

12 And if ye desire the glories of the kingdom, appoint ye my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and uphold him before me by the prayer of faith.

13 And again, I say unto you, that if ye desire the mysteries of the kingdom, provide for him food and raiment, and whatsoever thing he needeth to accomplish the work wherewith I have commanded him;

Section 51:13-14

13 And again, let the bishop appoint a storehouse unto this church; and let all things both in money and in meat, which are more than is needful for the wants of this people, be kept in the hands of the bishop.

14 And let him also reserve unto himself for his own wants, and for the wants of his family, as he shall be employed in doing this business.


Supporting church workers/clergy is entirely biblical, both in the OT and the NT.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Well-known member
Another interesting one is from D and C 132, about having plural wives:

Section 132:61

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

Now, where does D and C 132 say that it is okay for men to marry other men's wives, while they are still married to their first husbands? After all, a married woman would NOT be a virgin, would she?

But look at the contradictions between the BoM about plural wifery and what the D and C 132 says:

Jacob 1:15
15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

Jacob 2:24
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

And:

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

First acquiring lots of other wives was an abomination to the Mormon God, in the BoM, but in D and C 132, it was no longer an "abomination", and neither Solomon nor David sinned in acquiring many wives, except for David with Bathsheba.

Which is more authoritative? Which are we supposed to believe?

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/contradictionsinldsscriptures_verses.htm#Section42v71-73

There are lots of other comparisons. Read and enjoy. :)
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
I ran across this stuff on utlm.org while on shutdown, when I was doing research on Mormonism on various websites. It compares early "revelations" with later "revelations."

One of the ones that intrigue me the most is about paying church workers. On the last boards, we got into quite a discussion over paying or not paying pastors. The LDS church likes to brag that it has unpaid clergy. Well, its own D and C says church workers should be paid.




Supporting church workers/clergy is entirely biblical, both in the OT and the NT.

I don't see anything salvational there.

But I do here:

James 2:24---King James Version
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You do have a salvational theology which is called "faith alone"--right?

The LDS follow the Biblical testimony above.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
Nice try at deflection, dberrie. I am not falling for it. This thread is about the contradiction between early "revelation" in Mormonism and later "revelation." It is NOT about James 2:24. If you want to discuss that, please start your own thread on that and stop trying to hijack mine.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
Thanks, dberrie, for so thoroughly demonstrating some Mormon tactics in what I wrote here in my thread about what Markk once posted on here.

"..and why they must deflect, obfuscate, ignore, and then repeat the same talking points...

"They" being "Mormons."

If you want to discuss what you have posted, then by golly, start another thread here or on one of the theology/apologetics board. THIS OP is about the contradictions between Mormon scriptures.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Thanks, dberrie, for so thoroughly demonstrating some Mormon tactics in what I wrote here in my thread about what Markk once posted on here.

"..and why they must deflect, obfuscate, ignore, and then repeat the same talking points...

"They" being "Mormons."

If you want to discuss what you have posted, then by golly, start another thread here or on one of the theology/apologetics board. THIS OP is about the contradictions between Mormon scriptures.
Bonnie--the Biblical text is canonized scripture in the LDS church.

How do you deal with the contradiction of your view of polygamy and the Biblical testimony?

Genesis 26:4-5---King James Version
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Could you explain why what you would term as "adultery" by Abraham--God labeled as one who---obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

You did want to discuss the contradictions of scripture?(polygamy being listed, specifically)

How does one collate the theology pawned here--and the Biblical testimony found in the NT?

1 John 2:3-4---King James Version
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Care to engage those Biblical anomalies to the theology you pawn here?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I don't see anything salvational there.

But I do here:

James 2:24---King James Version
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You do have a salvational theology which is called "faith alone"--right?

The LDS follow the Biblical testimony above.

This is a perfect example of the games you play here.

You started another thread bringing up the correct accusation against Mormons of constantly RUNNING AWAY from passages, and that is EXACTLY what you are doing here.

The OP started a thread about a particular topic, and you IGNORED it, and tried to sabotage it and derail it into something YOU wanted to discuss instead, while you RAN away from what she originally brought up.

If you want to start your own thread on James 2, start your own thread.
Then we will show you (for the 583rd time) why your understanding is wrong.
But don't derail and try to take over someone else's thread on a completely different topic.
It's rude.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
This is a perfect example of the games you play here.
What do you find as "games" about the testimony of the Biblical witness?

James 2:24---King James Version
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You do have a salvational theology which is called "faith alone"--right?

The LDS follow the Biblical testimony above. It's no game to them. Anathema to the theology pawned by some here.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
What do you find as "games" about the testimony of the Biblical witness?

James 2:24---King James Version
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You do have a salvational theology which is called "faith alone"--right?

The LDS follow the Biblical testimony above. It's no game to them. Anathema to the theology pawned by some here.
Just deal with the OP, dberrie. if you want to discuss faith only/alone, some of us would be delighted to do so on the Apologetics or Theology board. After all, there are other cults out there who also believe in faith plus works for salvation, and so does the RCC. But the OP is ONLY about the contradictions in Mormon theology that have happened over the decades. Would you care to discuss them and deal with them? OR just continue to deflect and obfuscate and repeat yourself? I will not answer you any more unless you are directly dealing with what is in the OP.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Just deal with the OP, dberrie. if you want to discuss faith only/alone, some of us would be delighted to do so on the Apologetics or Theology board.
I was primarily interested in discussing how the Biblical witness comported with LDS theology.

James 2:24---King James Version
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

That is what one will find being taught in the LDS church. That very doctrine is a doctrine in the LDS church. It is one of it's primary core salvational doctrines which distinguish LDS theology---from the theology pawned here, so I find it pertinent to our discussion of scriptural contradictions.

It's only a contradiction to the theology you seem to pawn--not LDS theology.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
I was primarily interested in discussing how the Biblical witness comported with LDS theology.

James 2:24---King James Version
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

That is what one will find being taught in the LDS church. That very doctrine is a doctrine in the LDS church. It is one of it's primary core salvational doctrines which distinguish LDS theology---from the theology pawned here, so I find it pertinent to our discussion of scriptural contradictions.

It's only a contradiction to the theology you seem to pawn--not LDS theology.
There is a thread about this on the Apologetics board, where it got moved. THIS thread is about the contradictions in LDS scriptures, as demonstrated by the link I provided and a few of the things I posted on here from it. Please deal with the contradictions in MORMON SCRIPTURES. I will not discuss anything else with you on this thread.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
What do you find as "games" about the testimony of the Biblical witness?

James 2:24---King James Version
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You do have a salvational theology which is called "faith alone"--right?

The LDS follow the Biblical testimony above. It's no game to them. Anathema to the theology pawned by some here.
What do you find as "games" about the testimony of the Biblical witness?

James 2:24---King James Version
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

You do have a salvational theology which is called "faith alone"--right?

The LDS follow the Biblical testimony above. It's no game to them. Anathema to the theology pawned by some here.

<sigh>

I already wrote a comprehensive response to James 2:24 in a separate thread here. You simply IGNORED It.

Then you ran away to the A&C forum to ask the SAME question, which I had ALREADY refuted here. So I posted the refutation in the A&C forum.

And now you continue tilting at windmills in this forum, trying to sabotage EVERY thread someone else creates, and trying to change it to YOUR favourite "proof-text".

Newsflash: We do NOT need 50 different threads all discussing the SAME verse.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
<sigh>

I already wrote a comprehensive response to James 2:24 in a separate thread here. You simply IGNORED It.

Then you ran away to the A&C forum to ask the SAME question, which I had ALREADY refuted here. So I posted the refutation in the A&C forum.

And now you continue tilting at windmills in this forum, trying to sabotage EVERY thread someone else creates, and trying to change it to YOUR favourite "proof-text".

Newsflash: We do NOT need 50 different threads all discussing the SAME verse.
Hi Theo--that thread on James 2:4 you started got moved to Apologetics board. I noticed that this morning. Just an FYI. We can all discuss it there to our heart's content. :)
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
There is a thread about this on the Apologetics board, where it got moved. THIS thread is about the contradictions in LDS scriptures,
You never answered the point on Genesis 26:

Genesis 26:4-5---King James Version
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Could you explain why what you would term as "adultery" by Abraham--God labeled as one who---obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Is that a contradiction?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You never answered the point on Genesis 26:

As I understand things, this thread was started (NOT by you), for the specific subject of discussion "Contradictions in LDS Scriptures" (to which I interpret to mean, contradictions in the LDS-unique Scriptures, ie. not the Bible).

So the purpose is for non-LDS to present what we believe are "contradictions" in the BoM, D&C, and PoGP, and for LDS to try to reconcile them, if they can.


You want to completely CHANGE this to try to argue about "contradictions in the BIBLE" (and yes, I predict you're going to whine how "The Bible is Scripture for LDS"), but that does NOT seem to be the intent of the thread.

As always, you sabotage EVERY thread that is critical of Mormonism, and instead try to twist it to make it an attack on Christians and Christianity.

This is PROOF that Mormons are unable to defend their indefensible beliefs.

And it begs the question of why Mormons would ATTACK (as "contradictory"), a resource they claim is "Scripture" from God? You simply want to play the "I know you are but what am I?" game, and try to attack Christianity instead of defending your own indefensible beliefs.

And that speaks volumes.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
As I understand things, this thread was started (NOT by you), for the specific subject of discussion "Contradictions in LDS Scriptures" (to which I interpret to mean, contradictions in the LDS-unique Scriptures, ie. not the Bible).
Sorry--but the OP stated no such thing--and one can't discuss contradictions in LDS scriptures without discussing the Bible--as the Bible is canonized scripture in the LDS church.(KJV the official translation)

The fact is--the critics here would like the Bible banned here--no one like to be tied to a whipping post.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
Sorry--but the OP stated no such thing--and one can't discuss contradictions in LDS scriptures without discussing the Bible--as the Bible is canonized scripture in the LDS church.(KJV the official translation)

The fact is--the critics here would like the Bible banned here--no one like to be tied to a whipping post.
That is false. We do not wish the bible to be banned here.

And yes, we can discuss the contradiction in the Mormon scriptures I posted WITHOUT discussing the Bible, because nowhere that I recall does the link have any Bible verses in it. Take another look:


See the Bible quoted anywhere on this link? On the left, in pink, are verses from the BoM. On the right, in blue, are verses from the D and C, and Pearl of Great Price.

These side-by-side comparisons show how the stuff on the right contradicts the stuff on the left. THAT is what we should be discussing. The Bible was nowhere quoted in this link.

So, yes we CAN discuss the contradictions in Mormons Scriptures listed in the Link on here WITHOUT discussing the Bible.

Once again, thank you for confirming what I wrote in nos. 1 and 2 in that list of what constitutes Mormon apologetics.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Sorry--but the OP stated no such thing--and one can't discuss contradictions in LDS scriptures without discussing the Bible--as the Bible is canonized scripture in the LDS church.(KJV the official translation)

Yep, I sure called that one.
I'll leave it to the OP to clarify what she intended with HER (not your) thread.

The fact is--the critics here would like the Bible banned here--no one like to be tied to a whipping post.

That is simply false.
The Bible proclaims Christianity, and contradicts Mormonism.

That's why you REFUSE to address Eph. 2:8-9.
That's why you REFUSE to address 2 Tim. 1:9.
That's why you REFUSE to address Tit. 3:5.
That's why you REFUSE to address Rom. 4:1-5.
That's why you REFUSE to address Rom. 11:5-6.

That's why you REFUSE to address Deut. 4:35,39.
That's why you REFUSE to address 1 Kings 8:60.
That's why you REFUSE to address Isa. 43:10.
That's why you REFUSE to address Isa. 44:6,8.
That's why you REFUSE to address Isa. 45:5,21,22.
That's why you REFUSE to address Isa. 46:9.
That's why you REFUSE to address Mark 12:32.

That's why you REFUSE to address Rom. 3:19-20.
That's why you REFUSE to address Gal. 3:24-25.
That's why you REFUSE to address James 2:10.

That's why you REFUSE to address MANY other such passages, and run away to your "safe space verses".
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
That is false. We do not wish the bible to be banned here.

I was wondering why Theo was so anxious to exclude the Bible:

Theo1689 said:
As I understand things, this thread was started (NOT by you), for the specific subject of discussion "Contradictions in LDS Scriptures" (to which I interpret to mean, contradictions in the LDS-unique Scriptures, ie. not the Bible).

The critics here usually don't do well when the discussion enters the Biblical NT realm--but the Bible is still canonized scripture to the LDS.

And yes, we can discuss the contradiction in the Mormon scriptures I posted WITHOUT discussing the Bible,
But I was discussing those contradictions using the Bible:

Genesis 26:4-5---King James Version
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Could you explain why what you would term as "adultery" by Abraham--God labeled as one who---obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

because nowhere that I recall does the link have any Bible verses in it. Take another look:
But I included Biblical material. Let's include some more Biblical contradictions:

1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1 Timothy 2:5--King James Version (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Ephesians 4:4-6--King James Version (KJV)

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

The Bible separates out God the Son from the "one God". How do you fit that into the theology pawned here?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The critics here usually don't do well when the discussion enters the Biblical NT realm-

If you think that, then you clearly haven't been paying attention to these discussions.

It is YOU who keeps running away from the Bible.
It's like Kryptonite to you!

You simply using attacks on the Bible as a slimy tactic to avoid having to defend the huge holes and contradictions in Mormonism.
 
Top