Trust in the Lord:
Currently Heath you have mentioned that these authors were not speaking God's words, but guessing what He wanted. An example was circumcision that we spoke of earlier. You felt the bible could not be relied on for direction, but you could rely on a "living prophet" that spoke on circumcision.
The bible in this case "happened" to be correct, but you did state it was man guessing, and happening to be in line with God.
You are misstating what I said. Here it is again:
1- The Bible requires circumcision. If you believe in the Bible, you must also believe that circumcision is necessary, correct? It is the mark that you are one of God's people. If you do not get circumcised, you are not one of God's people (females excepted, of course) any more than one who is not baptised.
2- An LDS prophet has said through revelation that circumcision is done away with in the Lord as having been fufilled. Therefore, the LDS church has prophetic authority to no longer practice circumcision.
HOWEVER, The Bible nowhere says that you can neglect circumcision. So my point is, if you think the Bible is true, why don't all Christians (LDS church excepted) require circumcision? The point is that because certain non-prophet men decided to make an exception to the Bible for certain socio-political reasons. They did not claim divine revelation for this.
So my point is that you have no Biblical authority for neglecting circumcision (or living kosher, for that matter), when the Bible requires it, as it does. You claim the Bible is true, yet you don't follow it when it is convenient. (The law of kosher, for example, was done away when early Christians saw that they could not convert the Romans to a kosher lifestyle, so they conveniently did away with the law of kosher in order to get more converts...WITHOUT biblical or prophetic authority.)
So LDS members follow the Bible much more closely than other Christians and only make exceptions where a prophet of God has told them that certain laws are no longer applicable. Non-LDS Christians cannot say this when they conveniently ignore Biblical passages.
quote:
I'm not guessing the book of the mormon contains errors, it is known to contain errors. Even mormons knows it contains errors. The book itself has had many changes to fix some of these errors.
Again, you are mistaken. There were typos and simple little things that were merely because Joseph Smith was a man translating, and certain translations had to be clarified. In particular, for example, a passage about dark skin had to be changed because SOCIETY's view of that type of passage changed and made the translation no longer have the same meaning it originally had.
But the meanings and principles of it have not changed.
Also, I'm not saying it is perfect, just that you may think there are mistakes in it that really are not mistakes, since I've already corrected many such mistakes of many people on this site already.
There is a difference between being "correct" and being "perfect." As clearly shown, the Bible is not perfect either and is replete with all sorts of mistakes, yet you still believe in it.
quote:
quote:
2- To repeat, scriptures are written by men through inspiration/revelation from God and the Holy Ghost. Because they are written by men, they by necessity carry some errors.
I think we are in disagreement, but considering our faiths are using different sources, this shouldn't be unexpected.
This has nothing to do with "sources." Most Christians and Jews also accept the inaccuracies in the Bible. My statement has nothing to do with my religion. It is historical fact that can easily be tested against the words of the Bible itself.
For example, the Gospels are not called the "Word of God." They are called the "Gospel according to..." They are a testimony by the authors, not the Word of God. To the effect they quote Jesus (hopefully accurately), then those quotes, I suppose, would be the "Word of God," but the Gospels were not written by prophets or anyone even claiming to be divinely inspired in writing them.
I heard one Protestant minister say that if Paul knew his epistles would be treated with such sacrimonious tenacity, that he would never have written them. They were simply "letters" from an apostle (not claiming them to be the Word of God) that later became canonized at the Council of Nicea.
And clearly Psalms, for example, was written by David, who was a king, not a prophet. They are lovely praises of God by a devout disciple, they do not even pretend to be "The Word of God." To claim every word of the Bible is the "Word of God" is to dispute what the books of the Bible say they are.
quote:
Yes, praying for the book of the mormon is a common idea in the mormon faith. But even the early christians used scripture to verify truth.
And again, I agree with you that it's good to do so to verify truth, but sometimes there are changes, so that's not an absolute. If it was, then the Bible would conflict with itself. You don't still stone people for adultery, right? THe Bible says you should, right? You are either ignoring its commands or changing them by "subsequent" revelation. If you "verified" subsequent revelation by requiring it to be consistent with past scripture, you'd still be stoning adulterers. So your test there is good as a starting point, but not as a finishing point.
quote:
I use scripture to verify something from God. Another example might be in that you feel it is true if correctly translated. But even when I pointed out a part that you felt was true, such as circumcision, you mentioned it was not God's word, but just a guess from men.
Again, you misstated what I said. Circumcision is required of the Bible, yet Christians say it is no longer necessary. Why do they say this? THey just decided on their own to ignore the Bible. Ignoring circumcision is the guess from men, not circumcision itself, which is required from the Bible.
quote:
Everyone knows that the reliance of the bible is part of christianity, and for the mormons they have the living prophet, and then the book of the mormon, and then some other books, and then finally the bible. Later on in your post, near the bottom, you mention that a literal christian is a minority. That's an acceptance that we are using a different reliance upon the bible.
I am just saying that you are pinning this down as a "Mormon" thing, but I am saying that the majority of all Christians believe the same way that I do about this, and you actually fall into a small minority if you believe in the literalness and perfection of the Bible. You have been representing yourself as representing the "Christian" contingent, but you really only represent a small portion of that contingent.
quote:
I was responding to the point about Jesus being the last sacrifice. Many other jewish practices have been discussed in the bible, and addressed as to what is an ordinance for jewish or for the greeks.
See my statement above. It is historically accurate that the Christians still practiced kosher until they ran into problems converting the Romans. Then they "conveniently" abandoned it (without any apparent authority from God).
quote:
I think the temple will be rebuilt on the temple mount. If you want to discuss a point by point issue of jewish culture, we can. There is a reason for all of them.
So you are saying that the Christian religions can neglect the most important rites just on the hopes that a temple will be rebuilt someday? If so, then the Christian religion you belong to is only half a religion that does not have all the ordinances for salvation, since that was clearly a requirement throughout all of Judaism and also for Christ himself.
We in the LDS faith have temples built and dedicated to God with ordinances very similar to the ancient Jews and those practiced by Jesus. We also believe that the temple will be rebuilt on the temple mount, but there can be many temples, not just one. It seems silly to me to think that there will be only one.
(I give exception to Catholics here because their cathedrals and the like, with ordinances, might possible be considered "temples" by them, but I will let katisara explain, if necessary.)
quote:
Now from what I have read, it speaks that we have different ways to categorize animals differently than how we do now. It suggest that when they speak of 4 legs, they were talking of 4 legs for walking, and then speak of other legs for jumping. It would seem that the unnumbered legs for jumping would be added to the number of 4 legs for walking. Since we know that grasshopper and locusts have 2 legs for jumping, plus 4 for walking, that would be reasonable since we know they have a total of 6 legs in the manner we use the terms today.
This is the traditional explanation, but whether it is a good rationalization of a mistake in the Bible or not is a different issue. I have no problem with the passage or with your interpretation, but I have a problem with people saying the Bible is perfect when it is full of inaccuracies that require very precise rationalizations.
quote:
Right. Trinity and the bible go hand in hand for christians. Mormons use book of mormon, living prophet, other texts, etc, catholics use bible, tradition, pope, etc.
WRONG. This is simply inaccurate. There are many Christian religions that do not believe in the Trinity.
Again, this goes back to the COuncil of Nicea, several hundred centuries after Christ, in which they basically suppressed all Christian beliefs except those they voted on should be accepted. The Trinity was voted on and accepted in the first Catholic Church (by men, not God, mind you), and has become entrenched, therefore, in Catholic and Protestant church tradition. But that's like saying that if the Shiites win in Iraq, the other guys don't exist and are wrong. Conquering by attrition (which is what the Council of Nicea basically was) does not make something true or untrue, particularly when there is no prophet to guide them. Many (if not most) Christian religions that are not Protestant or Catholic do not believe in the Trinity. To equate Christianity with Trinitarianism is simply historically and factually wrong, and is well documented. Trinitarian Christians surely can be equated as such, but not all "Christians."
quote:
God controlled the direction of the bible. Even mormons feel the bible was inspired by Godly men.
I think you missed the point. The Council of Nicea did not "WRITE" the Bible; they simply compiled it and squashed many other books that conflicted with what they believed. We in the LDS church have an open mind that perhaps other books are also acceptable as scripture, whereas any descendants of the Catholic belief system do not typically do so.
The COuncil of Nicea also established certain belief systems that were not canonized. I am not aware of the LDS church ever commenting that the Council of Nicea was inspired of God, although the Books in the Bible themselves are. There is a huge...MASSIVE...TREMENDOUS...difference here.
quote:
I guess by that idea, if anyone claims to be using God authorizing their faith, they are being arrogant. None the less, the bible is the one book that is unmatched by any other.
Again, you are misstating it. The Council of Nicea was not, and never claimed to be, guided by God himself. So your point is completely incorrect in its factual foundation. This has nothing to do with claiming God authorized something, since the Council never claimed that God authorized it. The Roman Emperor authorized it. By this time Helenization and Roman influence were healthily (or unhealthily) entrenched in the dominating Christian belief systems, and it was a good way to quash all Christians who held differing beliefs without an all-out war. I think maybe you would do good to read up on the events leading up to the Council of Nicea.
quote:
I agree with the ...and more part. I don't agree with the 1st century part. But considering our faiths, we should be in disagreement.
Then you do not know your first century Christianity very well...or LDS practices. I think you are mistaking third and fourth century Christian practices with first century Christian practices. There is a great difference there. Books have been written about them. (Books have also been written showing how the LDS faith is the most closely aligned with first century Christian practices and beliefs.)
quote:
These aren't minor differences here like what clothes to wear.
Here's a couple differences for an example.
Christians believe in One God who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Mormons follow One god who is joined with help by his son, and his spirit.
You are INCORRECT. Only Trinitarian Christians believe in the Trinity, thanks again to the Council of Nicea. Again you clump all of Christianity into Trinitarians, which is not accurate, especially considering the idea of the Trinity was established in mainstream Christianity not until several centuries after Christ died.
That aside, your LDS understandings are also INCORRECT. LDS members believe that Jesus is the God of this earth, who will inherit it. He is the Son and working in conjunction with God the Father. But Jesus is God, as God is God. The only real difference between us here is that we believe they are two separate people, and you believe that they are just one (which again I think makes no sense given everything Jesus said and did in the New Testament, including going off to be with his Father in Heaven, calling out "Abba" while on the cross, saying that he was forsaken of God for a brief time, etc.). All of Jesus' actions show that he is a separate being from God. But like us (and like God before him) he had to go through a mortal life before he could be resurrected and become God. But given his divine origins, half mortal through Mary, he could fulfill a divine purpose, the atonement, while on the earth...i.e. while he could still suffer pain and go through that payment for sin. Once he became a God, he could not do so.
quote:
Christians worship and pray to Jesus
Mormons worship and pray only to God the father.
We pray to God the Father through Jesus. But you think Jesus is the same as God the Father, so maybe we are actually praying to the same person.
Again, these are only minor belief issues in the nature of God, and all centered around the Trinitarian belief, which we both acknowledge is different.
quote:
Considering that we are describing different attributes to God, this is pretty major.
I disagree. This is not major since God and Jesus are one.
quote:
I know you consider yourself christian, but a better way to describe what I am saying without making you feel so strongly, is though I am christian, I cannot be a mormon. My view of the bible, and my view of mormon faith is vastly different.
This is incorrect. You can be Mormon, you just choose not to. I agree with you on this point, but since truth is eternal, my belief is that you will still fall into the salvation structure of the LDS faith (i.e. not the hell/heaven dichotomy which was also perpetuated as part of the Doctrine of Reserve several centuries A.D. and which has now become entrenched in tradition and cultural beliefs but which never existed in ancient Judaism or early Christianity).
quote:
My analogy was not off. It was put forth to show there are differences, and there are.
But your analogy WAS off given your intent. Episcopalians and Baptists also have differences. Catholics and Protestants also have differences. Every denomination has differences. So I agree there are differences. But that's not the point. The point is that Mormons accept Jesus as their Savior and are Christians; the point is that there are probably more similarities between Catholics and Mormons than there are between Catholics and Protestants; there are certainly more similarities between Mormons and Jews than between Protestants and Jews. We accept all truth, regardless of its source; the Bible is true, but not the only source of truth. It is inspired of God, but not perfect. Saving ordinances like baptism are essential to salvation, and no one can return to God's presence without the intercession of their savior, Jesus Christ.