Mormons vs Mormonism

Do I believe in Noah's ark, or the flood of the whole earth or that Mary was a virgin when she gave Birth to Christ... yea I do...

Then the Bible is without historical or scientific error and should be read literally in all its details. I wonder if Elijah the Tishbite also believes in biblical literalism.
 
Below is two verses that tell all three members of the Godhead have been God from eternity

I believe when we have to dig this deep to find an argument--we've gone too far--shot beyond the mark.

The LDS accept God the Son, even Jesus Christ--as their Lord, Savior, and Redeemer--and digging up things man doesn't even understand won't change that. You don't have all the answers--and neither do the LDS. No one does---and we don't need to dig up the whole earth to prove it has soil. That's ridiculous, IMO.

The LDS believe Jesus Christ was the God the Son of the OT--who was the Heir in the NT--and certain things were revealed about Christ, IE--that He received from His God and Father--an inheritance of all things:

Hebrews 1:1-9---King James Version
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

That means, at some point--God the Son received those things. It also means, if Jesus received those things from His God and Father--then He didn't possess them at some point.

One can make whatever they wish out of that--but there it is. It's something we don't fully understand, and isn't central to our opportunity to inherit eternal life, and would only require an explanation when the critics start down the line you, and the rest of the critics--- pursue here.

Obviously--the author of Hebrews wrote his letter because of questions which permeated the early church--along the lines of your questioning, IMO.

The great majority of the Biblical text centers on what man must do in order to receive God's grace unto life--as a personal reception.

Hebrews 5:9--King James Version
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Which seems to agitate the minds of the critics here.
 
What part of the Bible is corrupted?

That's a good question--and I would ask the same question of those who make any such claim, on a scale which would question the reliability of the Biblical text, as to salvational doctrines.

The scholars know there have been some corruptions in the Biblical text--but not in salvational doctrines, nor in any area where it couldn't nor shouldn't be considered the Word of God. The Bible is reliable, and should be used more--especially by the critics here--if they are going to teach the LDS why they are wrong, as to the opinion of the critics. That it isn't perfect in all respects does not preclude it's God's Word. The Book of Mormon isn't perfect either, not in all respects.

The LDS church has the Biblical text, both OT and NT--as canonized scripture, and claiming the Bible is all corrupt is a claim --the LDS church made a mistake in canonizing it. It didn't.

I was in a Sunday School class recently when someone made a comment the Bible was "all wrong"(The OT was the area of study this past year--the NT will be the area of study this year).

I didn't want to make a scene, so I held my comments, but followed the person to his car following church services, where he and I were alone. When I caught up to him in his car, I asked him--do you really believe the LDS church would canonize a set of scripture which was "all wrong"?

He apologized, saying he made that statement in haste, and it was not right, and I believed him. I have also read where a member makes that statement occasionally, bit it is made in error. It's flat wrong.

So--I would ask the LDS the same question--what do you find in the Biblical text, which you feel is corrupt--as far as salvational doctrines go?

I find the Biblical text very reliable and true, as far as salvational doctrines go. We need to study it more, use it's precepts more, teach by it's testimony more--more, more, more.

Elijah--to you, the same--and to the critics here--the same. To the LDS--the same. Why isn't the Bible used more here?

2 Timothy 3:15-17---King James Version
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
 
That means, at some point--God the Son received those things. It also means, if Jesus received those things from His God and Father--then He didn't possess them at some point.
True. That's a point I've been trying to make for some time. One of the things Jesus didn't have was experience. The scriptures tell us that Jesus willingly suffered these things for a reason and that reason has to do with us. It seems to me that knowledge of a thing is not enough. Without experience, Jesus wouldn't know how to succor us.
 
So--I would ask the LDS the same question--what do you find in the Biblical text, which you feel is corrupt--as far as salvational doctrines go?
And I would say that there are some things missing, but what it has, is correct as far as salvational doctrines go. We have the Book of Mormon which supports those salvational doctrines which I believe settles that question.
 
So--I would ask the LDS the same question--what do you find in the Biblical text, which you feel is corrupt--as far as salvation doctrines go? I find the Biblical text very reliable and true, as far as salvation doctrines go. We need to study it more, use it's precepts more, teach by it's testimony more--more, more, more.

There is nothing in the doctrines in regards to salvation that I find to be corrupted. I would ask you the following question in return. How would one know that their understanding or interpretation of biblical doctrine is correct?
 
There is nothing in the doctrines in regards to salvation that I find to be corrupted. I would ask you the following question in return. How would one know that their understanding or interpretation of biblical doctrine is correct?
I would suggest they might start by not inserting their own words into the text.
 
Then the Bible is without historical or scientific error and should be read literally in all its details. I wonder if Elijah the Tishbite also believes in biblical literalism.
I did not say that, the story of Noah is also suggested in the Book of Mormon... also Mary's virgin birth...

Either 6
7 And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being tight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the bark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters.

Alma 7
10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
 
I did not say that, the story of Noah is also suggested in the Book of Mormon... also Mary's virgin birth...

Either 6
7 And it came to pass that when they were buried in the deep there was no water that could hurt them, their vessels being tight like unto a dish, and also they were tight like unto the bark of Noah; therefore when they were encompassed about by many waters they did cry unto the Lord, and he did bring them forth again upon the top of the waters.

Alma 7
10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Then you misunderstand what the term biblical literalism means.​
 

Then you misunderstand what the term biblical literalism means.​
Not really, basically truthful and accurate translation, literally happened as spoken...

Richard7 said:
Do I believe in Noah's ark, or the flood of the whole earth or that Mary was a virgin when she gave Birth to Christ... yea I do...
 
There is nothing in the doctrines in regards to salvation that I find to be corrupted. I would ask you the following question in return. How would one know that their understanding or interpretation of biblical doctrine is correct?

Thanks for your reply. I agree--I don't find what I would term "corruption" in the Biblical text--as far as salvational doctrines go. I haven't studied all the details of the historical account, or other details, so I can't comment on that, nor would it matter to me.

So--as to your question: I believe the Bible was written for the average man to read and understand. For me--that means, in most applications--the Bible can be readily understood without any expertise required, as far as some basic principles are concerned.

Some of the Biblical text has to be studied prayerfully--beyond the norm. I have spent the last 40 years studying the Bible, and have received revelation concerning some of the points, which, at one time ---seemed an enigma to me. One could study it a lifetime, and know but a little, and I accept that also, as to my understanding.

I also believe there is a difference between reading the Bible--and studying it.

My complaint here is--we don't use the Bible enough. We seem steeped in our own personal constructions--and leave the Bible out. That's just plain wrong, IMO.
 
Not really, basically truthful and accurate translation, literally happened as spoken...

Richard7 said:
Do I believe in Noah's ark, or the flood of the whole earth or that Mary was a virgin when she gave Birth to Christ... yea I do...

If you believe in biblical literalism, then you believe that the Bible is without historical or scientific error and should be read literally in all its details.
 

If you believe in biblical literalism, then you believe that the Bible is without historical or scientific error and should be read literally in all its details.
I did not say that, but because of our additional light and knowledge given to us through the Book of Mormon I can safely say that Noah built a ark and Mary was a virgin even after giving birth to the Christ Child... where in Christians have not yet figured it out...
 
I did not say that, but because of our additional light and knowledge given to us through the Book of Mormon I can safely say that Noah built a ark and Mary was a virgin even after giving birth to the Christ Child where in Christians have not yet figured it out.


What is the difference between a literal and a literalist reading of the Bible?

+JMJ+

The entire Bible is literally true: this means to find the “literal” meaning, you must know what the mode of speech being used is, who is being addressed, etc.

For instance, an awful lot of Genesis is religious myth. Nowadays we tend to think of “myth” as something with is just not true, but that is not what myth is at all. A myth is a standard story trying to make a religious point.

from Modern Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J. Doubleday & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY 1980
Myth. In general, a traditional story focusing on some religious explanation of a phenomenon of nature. A parable or allegory to illustrate some truth or to prove a theory. In recent usage, a myth has come to mean a popular contemporary hope or ambition, or a social ideal. It may be described as an idea that has become a movement.
Thus the first chapter of Genesis is a religious myth whose purpose is to teach that God alone created EVERYTHING from NOTHING. This is literally true. He did not do it in six twenty-four hour “days” of the earth revolving around the sun. That would be impossible, as the earth wasn’t created until the third day in this account, and the sun was not created until the fourth day.

But trying to get a time line or scientific account of creation from Genesis 1 would be doing violence to the text and trying to interpret it in a literalistic way.

In similar fashion, Our Lord taught using parables. A literal interpretation would be to accept the truth that Our Blessed Lord is trying to teach. The literatlistic interpretation would be to actually believe that there was a king who send all his servants and his son to be killed, or that there actually was a woman who swept her entire home to find a coin, and threw a party because it was found.

These are parables, and we believe that they are literally true, but not literatisticly so. Does that make sense?

Please note that there is no such word as “literatistic” but I am accepting it for the time being to try and show the difference in how a Catholic understands that the Bible is literal, and how that is light years different from how a Fundamentalist would understand the Bible is literal - the later I am willing to call literalistic.​
 
Back
Top