Timeline for According to proponents of Sola Scriptura, what are examples of logical contradictions between doctrines from the Bible and LDS sacred books?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
43 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2022 at 14:10 | history | edited | user50422 |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 15, 2022 at 11:37 | comment | added | user50422 | @MikeBorden - you just inspired me to ask this question: christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91585/50422 | |
| Jun 15, 2022 at 11:30 | comment | added | Mike Borden | A quote from a chat with an LDS user has stuck with me for a while now, "Many Mormon doctrines fall apart when restricted solely to Biblical support.". | |
| S Jun 15, 2022 at 2:57 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jun 15, 2022 at 2:57 | history | notice removed | user50422 | ||
| Jun 15, 2022 at 2:57 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 15, 2022 at 2:06 | answer | added | Hold To The Rod | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 13, 2022 at 14:06 | comment | added | kutschkem | @Rajesh Thanks, that helps to understand where you are coming from. | |
| Jun 13, 2022 at 13:59 | comment | added | Rajesh | @kutschkem Death is simply the cessation and privation of life. Death is not the same as annihilation, which is the act of causing something to permanently cease to exist. I do believe that the wicked will be annihilated, but that is not their punishment; their punishment is death, and annihilation is simply the means by which God inflicts the punishment of death on the wicked. And annihilation is not obliterating atoms from existence. It's permanently killing both body and soul/spirit (see Matthew 10:28), which happens at the second death. | |
| Jun 13, 2022 at 7:10 | comment | added | kutschkem | @Rajesh I want to formulate a question regarding the tree of life in revelations, but for that I would like to know what you meant by "die" wrt. the unjust dying after resurrection: the resurrected body physically dying, leaving the spirit again disembodied? You said no annihilation. | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 15:11 | comment | added | Rajesh | @kutschkem Oh, that's interesting to know. Thanks for that, I didn't know it before. But I don't think you should use 1 Cor. 15:22, since it is only talking about believers in Christ being "made alive" (resurrected). The following verse makes that clear. "Each in their own order", Christ then those who belong to Him at His coming; unbelievers are not in view here, since they are not mentioned. | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 14:58 | comment | added | kutschkem | @Rajesh Definitely an LDS thing. Not very mysterious though, it's simply because 1 Cor 15:22 it's one of the scriptures seminary students are encouraged to learn by heart, so that one comes easily to mind, while the other ones, despite maybe really being even better to make the point, don't as easily come to mind. churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/… | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 14:32 | comment | added | Rajesh | Nowhere is that said about the tree of life. Also you realize that the tree of life in Revelation is the same as the one in Genesis, right? If you don't think so, you'll have to provide evidence why this is so. The most natural supposition is that the tree of life in paradise in Revelation is the same tree of life in paradise in Genesis, that is, that is means or symbolizes the same thing. Why would it mean something entirely different? And having the tree of life represents living forever; again, this is why God has to banish A&E from the garden, otherwise they would eat it and live forever. | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 14:28 | comment | added | Rajesh | @kutschkem "Corinthian 15:22 "plainly" teaches that all humankind will be resurrected." Is the use of 1 Cor. 15:22 just an LDS thing? I've seen 4 LDS use this verse to prove that the unrighteous are resurrected. I agree that they will be resurrected, but because of Acts 24:15 and John 5:28-29, not 1 Cor. 15:22, which is clearly talking only about believers in Christ (see the very next verse, where Christ the firstfruits is resurrected first, then those who belong to Him ... No mention of unbelievers anywhere). "The tree plainly symbolizes... being unaffected by the second death." What? | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 14:03 | comment | added | kutschkem | @Rajesh I can tell you exactly why. Corinthian 15:22 "plainly" teaches that all humankind will be resurrected. You seem to imply that is not the case. Revelation also teaches that the dead are raised, then judged. Then comes the second death which is not described as physical death at all, but being cast out in the lake of fire. The tree "plainly" symbolizes not immortality, but being unaffected by the second death as the first tree was symbolic for being unaffected from the "first" death. See how we have now two "unambiguous" interpretations that aren't unambiguous at all? | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 13:43 | comment | added | user50422 | @Rajesh - would you be willing to post an answer presenting that contradiction? I need to give the bounty to someone. | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 13:37 | comment | added | Rajesh | @kutschkem "I am very sceptical your point about the tree of life" Why? It's plainly true. God explicitly says that, in order to prevent the humans from eating of the tree of life and living forever, He kicked them out of the garden. If Adam and Eve had remained in the garden and eaten from the tree of life, they would have lived forever. And now in Revelation the tree of life appears again. And guess what? Only the righteous have access to it, therefore only the righteous will live forever. The tree of life is useless if the wicked can live forever just as fine without it. | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 11:42 | comment | added | user50422 | @Leonard - go ahead and post an answer based on that link :-) | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 11:09 | comment | added | kutschkem | @Rajesh I think this a good example why I think this question hasn't really attracted many (in my opinion) good answers. I am very sceptical your point about the tree of life, (and many other doctrines, really) can be said to be "unambiguously" taught in the Bible. Even on their own, without reference to LDS scriptures at all. | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 6:45 | comment | added | Leonard | You need an expert in the bible AND the book of mormons to answer your question in detail. Or you could use Google to answer your question :) Here is my first find: mit.irr.org/contradictions-between-book-of-mormon-and-bible :) | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 1:33 | comment | added | Rajesh | @SpiritRealmInvestigator "although HTTR will most likely reply with a rebuttal" If you think so. I wrote an answer regarding Luke 20:34-36 showing why it proves that we are not married in the next age several months ago. He's had several months to respond to it if he so wanted to, but he hasn't. He also hasn't responded to the many recent answers I've written supporting conditonalism. HTTR is incredibly smart, smarter than me no doubt, but no one is perfect nor unassailable. Anyway, it's not like he is obliged to respond to anything I say. I'm just some nobody on the internet. He has a life. | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 1:28 | comment | added | user50422 | @Rajesh - feel free to expand on that in an answer, although HTTR will most likely reply with a rebuttal :-) | |
| Jun 9, 2022 at 1:21 | comment | added | Rajesh | I can think of one logical contradiction. The Bible is incredibly clear that the wicked will physically die (note that I am not saying "annihilated", only "die"). That is found cover to cover, in the first pages of the Bible where being banished from the Tree of Life meant Adam and Eve's inevitable demise, and in the last pages of the Bible where solely the righteous have access to the Tree of Life within the city. Also I think LDS believe we will be married in the next age, though Jesus makes it clear in Luke 20:34-36 that the children of God will not be married in the next world. | |
| Jun 8, 2022 at 6:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackChristian/status/1534414937371594755 | ||
| Jun 8, 2022 at 4:56 | comment | added | steveowen | @spirit because Sola Scriptura advocates are presumably more specialized in basing their doctrines on biblical exegesis, and, doctrines that may have some biblical basis but are mostly based on tradition. It was worth coming here just for that! | |
| Jun 8, 2022 at 4:38 | history | edited | user50422 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 54 characters in body
|
| Jun 8, 2022 at 4:31 | history | edited | user50422 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 56 characters in body
|
| S Jun 8, 2022 at 3:46 | history | bounty started | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jun 8, 2022 at 3:46 | history | notice added | user50422 | Draw attention | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 14:31 | history | edited | user50422 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 55 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2022 at 14:00 | history | edited | user50422 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added further clarification on the kind of contradictions I'm interested in
|
| Feb 1, 2022 at 13:56 | answer | added | poorplanning | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 31, 2022 at 21:22 | comment | added | Peter Turner♦ | @hold yeah - talking in Upperroom with depperm right now. | |
| Jan 31, 2022 at 20:46 | comment | added | Hold To The Rod | @PeterTurner happy to discuss ^^ on Meta or Upper Room if that would be more appropriate | |
| Jan 31, 2022 at 20:39 | comment | added | Hold To The Rod | @PeterTurner this question asks about the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price. LDS users are very likely the members of the site most familiar with these texts. What check is there in the system for accurate representation of these texts if the users who are experts on this topic are removed from the discussion? (true those defending these texts are not neutral, but neither are those criticizing them) Would you be more comfortable with LDS users responding in one or more parallel questions? | |
| Jan 31, 2022 at 17:42 | comment | added | Peter Turner♦ | It would probably be best if members of the LDS church (seeking to defend the doctrines of the Church) avoid this question and commenting on the merits of answers herein. | |
| Jan 31, 2022 at 15:25 | history | edited | user50422 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
put emphasis on the fact that I'm interested in concrete examples
|
| Jan 31, 2022 at 12:41 | answer | added | Anne | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 29, 2022 at 15:06 | comment | added | depperm | there are several doctrines in Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price that are more unique/detailed than other scripture (Book of Mormon included) | |
| Jan 29, 2022 at 4:43 | comment | added | user50422 | @curiousdannii - in other words, I would like people expert in biblical exegesis to answer this question, and I used Sola Scriptura as a proxy to achieve that goal. | |
| Jan 29, 2022 at 4:34 | comment | added | user50422 | @curiousdannii - because Sola Scriptura advocates are presumably more specialized in basing their doctrines on biblical exegesis (which is of interest to my question). Scoping the question to Trinitarians in general may open the door to doctrines that may have some biblical basis, but are mostly based on tradition. | |
| Jan 29, 2022 at 4:25 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | Sola scriptura doesn't seem to me to be a relevant scope for this question. Why not just say Trinitarians, or Protestants if you want to exclude the Deuterocanon for some reason? | |
| Jan 29, 2022 at 4:22 | history | asked | user50422 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |