What's new
By:
Filters

Is there a fundamental misunderstanding betwen Mormons and Muslims? help solving the puzzle!!

PKM said:
I get why Mormons feel the Bible has been corrupted.. makes sense, actually (although I personally have a different take).
However, I have a problem with the Jesus portion. If Jesus is who the Bible says He is and He did, for us, what the Bible says He did.. then why was the BoM needed to 'solve' the apostasy through a new set of ordinances, etc. Seems like that definitely suggests what Jesus did was less than entirely sufficient.
Click to expand...

I think you've got some sort of fundamental misunderstanding. The LDS ordinances are not a replacement, not a new set of ordinances, but rather a restoration of lost ones. E.g. Jesus's apostles had the authority and commission to baptize, but that authority was lost and needed to be restored. There's nothing in LDS teachings that says what Jesus did was not sufficient.
 
colton said:
I think you've got some sort of fundamental misunderstanding. The LDS ordinances are not a replacement, not a new set of ordinances, but rather a restoration of lost ones. E.g. Jesus's apostles had the authority and commission to baptize, but that authority was lost and needed to be restored. There's nothing in LDS teachings that says what Jesus did was not sufficient.
Click to expand...

I thought Joseph Smith claimed that he was told that the modern-day church was an abomination. Fast forward to the need for a new book. And, yes, I absolutely believe there are 'new' rituals, ordinances, and teachings that are to be found nowhere other than within the LDS doctrine. I am always curious why all of these things were needed. Not hating, at all..
 
Siro said:
But that's a different story than the one you proposed earlier. The Bible is many different books written by many different authors. Let's say they were inspired by God, that doesn't mean it is the only thing God ever inspired. Since the Americas were separated from the rest of the world, God could have inspired those people to write other books.

This is different than the idea that God said all he had to say in the Bible, then backtracked and released a sequel.
Click to expand...

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I usually post on my phone, and I didn't feel like typing an essay on my phone. First off, I'd like to say I'm grateful for your respectful replies. Hopefully I can respond in the same way, if not, call me out on it. I don't want this to be an argument, but rather just a discussing of different ideas/beliefs. There's nothing edifying about being disrespectful.

Now I know/realize the Bible is different books/letters written by different authors, but I should explain what I meant by inspired. I didn't mean like, 'Rachel Ray inspired me to try this new recipe!'…it's more of a divine inspiration, where God gave them the words to speak/write. I hope that makes sense, and I can understand why non-believers would find it crazy, but lets be honest, of all the things about Christianity, this is one of the least ludicrous. I'll never claim that Christianity is without it's crazy claims, but that's where the faith comes in.

As for America's needing a different book because they're in a different area…I would have to respectfully disagree. The Bible is written to two types of people, Jews and Gentiles. As we all probably know, that would include everybody. Personally, I just don't see the reason for needing a different book just because people are in a different area. The gospel message doesn't change based on where you live, it is a constant, the only constant really. That's why I feel like there is nothing more that needs to be said than the Bible already does, which is why I feel like the addition of the BoM is basically saying that the Bible was not sufficient.
 
All this thread has done for me has opened up a serious debate- virgins vs bacon. I can't decide without pics. If I'm giving up bacon, these virgins better be uber comely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
LazyD said:
All this thread has done for me has opened up a serious debate- virgins vs bacon. I can't decide without pics. If I'm giving up bacon, these virgins better be uber comely.
Click to expand...

sig-worthy.
 
LazyD said:
All this thread has done for me has opened up a serious debate- virgins vs bacon. I can't decide without pics. If I'm giving up bacon, these virgins better be uber comely.
Click to expand...
Post of the week
 
LazyD said:
All this thread has done for me has opened up a serious debate- virgins vs bacon. I can't decide without pics. If I'm giving up bacon, these virgins better be uber comely.
Click to expand...

Lets say you get 12 virgins for starters.... after few days they are all not virgins anymore. Do you get them replaced with new batch all the time?
 
I'm glad that you guys are having your random fun with some of our beliefs. Some things like the virgins deal are probably meant to say a lot more different deal. I have never thought of the afterlife that is an eternity with a bunch of chicks. Think of the side effects of that! God doesn't hate us you guys.
 
Hantlers said:
Personally, I just don't see the reason for needing a different book just because people are in a different area. The gospel message doesn't change based on where you live, it is a constant, the only constant really. That's why I feel like there is nothing more that needs to be said than the Bible already does, which is why I feel like the addition of the BoM is basically saying that the Bible was not sufficient.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your perspective.

To respond with the LDS perspective, it's not so much as "needing a different book for a different area" as wanting to have ALL of the revealed words of God. Imagine if your friend had a Bible with Matthew, Luke, and John, but no Mark. Would you tell your friend that his Bible is not sufficient? No, I don't think you'd describe it that way--it would still contain the gospel with enough information for people to be able to develop faith in Christ and to understand & follow his teachings. But Mark does add some things, and is a valuable addition to the other three gospels. Similarly the LDS church doesn't teach that the Bible is "not sufficient", but more that the Book of Mormon contains additional words of God & Jesus that make it a valuable addition to the Bible. They are both equally scripture, just like Mark is equally scripture along with Matthew, Luke, and John.
 
colton said:
Thanks for your perspective.

To respond with the LDS perspective, it's not so much as "needing a different book for a different area" as wanting to have ALL of the revealed words of God. Imagine if your friend had a Bible with Matthew, Luke, and John, but no Mark. Would you tell your friend that his Bible is not sufficient? No, I don't think you'd describe it that way--it would still contain the gospel with enough information for people to be able to develop faith in Christ and to understand & follow his teachings. But Mark does add some things, and is a valuable addition to the other three gospels. Similarly the LDS church doesn't teach that the Bible is "not sufficient", but more that the Book of Mormon contains additional words of God & Jesus that make it a valuable addition to the Bible. They are both equally scripture, just like Mark is equally scripture along with Matthew, Luke, and John.
Click to expand...

I would respond with PKM's question as well. Because if true, then isn't Smith saying that the religion based on the Bible (Christianity), was false? I also have problems with several prophesies directly contradicting the Bible.
 
Hantlers said:
I would respond with PKM's question as well. Because if true, then isn't Smith saying that the religion based on the Bible (Christianity), was false? I also have problems with several prophesies directly contradicting the Bible.
Click to expand...

According to Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his first vision, God called the professors of the sects at the time corrupt and that they had "a form of Godliness". That leads to the LDS belief that after Christ ascended to Heaven and his apostles died or were otherwise taken away (my assumption regarding John) that the authority to direct the church Christ started was lost. With all that being said, the LDS church's eighth Article of Faith reads: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

In regards to the correctness of the Bible, the Book of Mormon specifically mentions wicked men intentionally altering the Bible, and it stands to reason that there may have been unintentional errors in its translation over time as well.

EDIT: Also, I'm interested in hearing which prophecies you say directly contradict the Bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top