Contradictions in the Gospel

[Anonymous]

I am concerned about apparent contradictions regarding important doctrines.

For example, the Book of Mormon clearly teaches that there is only heaven and hell. And it’s not talking about a temporary paradise or prison – it refers to the final state of souls after the resurrection, and it doesn’t seem to be referring to three degrees of glory vs. outer darkness.

Quote:

Alma 34:35

For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.

1 Nephi 15:35

And there is a place prepared, yea, even that awful hell of which I have spoken, and the devil is the preparator of it; wherefore the final state of the souls of men is to dwell in the kingdom of God, or to be cast out because of that justice of which I have spoken.

2 Nephi 28:22

And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

Mosiah 16:11

If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation, being delivered up to the devil, who hath subjected them, which is damnation—

Alma 41:4

And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to inherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other—

All of that contradicts D&C 76 and other scriptures. Also, the explanation of “endless” in D&C 19 does not make sense.

Quote:

D&C 19:6-7,10-12

Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory…

For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. Endless punishment is God’s punishment. (Emphasis is original)

Alma actually clarified what “endless” means:

Quote:

Alma 42:16

Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

So, the punishment is as eternal as the soul! That’s obviously referring to duration of time, not to the magnitude of the punishment.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Does God’s love and mercy reign in heaven or does absolute justice prevail? Is there a compromise between the two? I trust that God is in charge up there and will use his perfect wisdom to determine how much mercy or Justice is most helpful.

I land solid on the Brad Wilcox end of this spectrum. In my situation, it is going to take some time to work out my salvation–and some pretty serious effort. If I can’t find God’s love and His support along the way–not because I deserve it, but because HE IS GOOD–then I’m lost.

These kinds of discussions use to rattle me a great deal–like reading the book MofF and hearing SWK say things like “These sins seem to be listed in the forgivable section.” I don’t know if he had any indication the fear such little statements made, but perhaps he did and intended it. Don’t know.

Anyway,…in my case, I’ve had to reinvent my conception of God. When I pray, I don’t ask God who He is…I ask Him to please be who I NEED Him to be right now. And, I ask Him to please have big enough shoulders and a strong enough back to bend the way I need. If he ain’t flexible with me…again,..I’m lost!

[Anonymous]

Shwan, fwiw, those aren’t contradictions in the Gospel; they are contradictions in our scriptures.

Since I see the Book of Mormon the exact same way I see the Bible (the writing of someone / some people we term prophets or their followers describing how they see God), I don’t have to hold up any of them as inerrant and God’s perfect word. That allows me to accept and even expect contradicting belief statements.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Shwan, fwiw, those aren’t contradictions in the Gospel; they are contradictions in our scriptures.

Since I see the Book of Mormon the exact same way I see the Bible (the writing of someone / some people we term prophets or their followers describing how they see God), I don’t have to hold up any of them as inerrant and God’s perfect word. That allows me to accept and even expect contradicting belief statements.

Ray, just a comment here…

“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“.

We are, after all, to live by every word that proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God?…and yet, we have contradictions? And, God is a God of order?

So, how can the Gospel not be defined by core doctrines such as this AofF?

And, how can one reconcile the inherent contradictions, like those Shawn pointed out, with doctrines that establish scripture as the “Word of God”?

PS. I’m not hung up on this stuff, because I think all of the errors and so forth are intentionally left there by God, because He wants me (I speak for myself) to choose how and what to believe. I see no other way for me. But this thread is interesting to me….

[Anonymous]

I already answered that question, rob4hope, in my response to Shawn – but I will add this:

1) There are multiple statements in the Book of Mormon saying there are errors in it. We tend to dismiss those statements, but they are important.

2) “Translated correctly” absolutely does not have to mean “inerrant”, and “word of God” does not have to mean “100% dictated and accurate representation of what God would say if God was saying it so everyone on Earth could understand”.

That last point is NOT semantics or splitting hairs or apologetics. Something can be translated correctly and still contain errors, and something can be what people believed God said to them and still not be the pure word of God. Also, the Book of Mormon was not translated in any classic sense of that word, based on the descriptions; I prefer to say it was transmitted, and I am totally fine with it being the word of God – even if that is taken to imply more of an inspired fiction model or traditional Jewish midrash.

I know that isn’t the traditional, orthodox view of scripture (and, especially, the Book of Mormon), but I don’t care. I think it fits what the actual record itself says – since, again, the record itself says, clearly and unequivocally, that it contains errors.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Shwan, fwiw, those aren’t contradictions in the Gospel; they are contradictions in our scriptures.

Since I see the Book of Mormon the exact same way I see the Bible (the writing of someone / some people we term prophets or their followers describing how they see God), I don’t have to hold up any of them as inerrant and God’s perfect word. That allows me to accept and even expect contradicting belief statements.

Ray, just a comment here…

“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“.

We are, after all, to live by every word that proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God?…and yet, we have contradictions? And, God is a God of order?

So, how can the Gospel not be defined by core doctrines such as this AofF?

And, how can one reconcile the inherent contradictions, like those Shawn pointed out, with doctrines that establish scripture as the “Word of God”?

PS. I’m not hung up on this stuff, because I think all of the errors and so forth are intentionally left there by God, because He wants me (I speak for myself) to choose how and what to believe. I see no other way for me. But this thread is interesting to me….

We have had discussions here in the past about the differences in the doctrine, policy and tradition. There is likewise a difference between the gospel and that doctrine, policy and tradition. General Authorities have repeatedly emphasized that the gospel is simple. I’d go with the AofF being doctrine (at most) but not gospel – although they do address some of the main points of the gospel.

[Anonymous]

The human element colors every aspect of scripture.

Humans wrote down their interpretation of god’s will. Humans transcribed and translated scripture. Humans can interpret the same scripture very differently. Humans have even had a hand in deciding what is and isn’t scripture. Someone decided for you that:

Quote:

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

was scripture.

Some scholars date the book of Matthew as early as 70 AD so you have a person writing either their recollection of something Jesus said about 50 years after the fact (or someone retelling a second or third hand account). I’ll leave the translation and transmission part alone. People got together a few hundred years after that and decided that Matthew was good enough and agreed that it was canon. The process sounds very human to me.

Now let’s talk about how things get muddled when humans interpret things. 😈 I like the teaching live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of god, but scriptures are the written word. When I stop and think of all the humans it took to make Jesus’ words available to me I take that step back and ask, is this what it’s like for something to proceed out of the mouth of god? Maybe, and that’s a serious maybe.

I think that’s why we have the spirit. Scriptures are really only how other people felt the spirit speaking to them, someone wrote it down, and lots of other people agreed. I want to hear the spirit myself. If I hear the spirit is that something that proceeds out of the mouth of god? If there is a conflict which takes precedent, the whisperings of the spirit agreed upon by lots of people or the whispering that was tailored to my ear?

[Anonymous]

Its gets muddy pretty fast though with regards to canonized scripture. And, saying that we believe it to be the Word of God, but it is not necessarily the “gospel” or “true”…those can start to shake the foundation.

JS said that the BofM was the most correct of any book on earth (at that time),…and the “keystone” of our religion. If it is so correct it serves as the VERY keystone of the “only true church” (whatever that means), how can their be undressed inconsistencies? (Don’t blast me,…this is pretty close to a rhetorical question).

I’m not splitting hairs, but I am making a point from my perspective. When conflicts arise, and when we live in a patriarchal church where priesthood authority and doctrine are controlled from the top down by a very defined and narrow oligarchy (though they themselves don’t agree all the time), the control structure can be a bit daunting. I have heard some of these conflicts addressed with apologetic answers, and I have heard most of the discussions about the doctrine not being the gospel, and even “God’s Word” not being accurate (which is disturbing)…

The part that bothers me is this….it appears we are to simply understand, as though it is self evident and no one needs to address it, that there are problems. The GAs — you don’t hear them say: “Oh, that is just an error in the doctrine in the BofM, so we don’t need to concern ourselves with that…” OH NO…You don’t hear that. But somehow those of us in FC are suppose to simply just get it? Somehow when a GA says over and over, “I have a testimony of the truthfulness of the B of M”…that somehow means “all the parts that are right, but not the wrong parts…they arn’t true…”

Hunh?

I appreciated what Shawn wrote because it acknowledges certain concerns. And, I was never taught by anyone in authority to: “Oh, you just have to draw a line of distinction between the gospel and the word of God,…cuz those things aren’t the same thing.” After all, Jesus himself said that we are to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God…[except when it is not from the mouth of God, or isn’t doctrine, or isn’t right, or…or,…or]

Anyway,…there it is. LIke I said before, I get to choose what I believe. If part of it is NOT the Word of God, or it is, but not Doctrine, or not the Gospel…whatever,…ultimately the choice is mine what to believe and what not to.

[Anonymous]

Yep, it is up to us – and that is true of even the most traditional, orthodox members. There are things even in the Book of Mormon they don’t believe; they just don’t realize that – or have ways to accept and work around it.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Yep, it is up to us – and that is true of even the most traditional, orthodox members. There are things even in the Book of Mormon they don’t believe; they just don’t realize that – or have ways to accept and work around it.

Hey, I appreciate what you write as well. Just so you know. :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

JS said that the BofM was the most correct of any book on earth (at that time),…and the “keystone” of our religion. If it is so correct it serves as the VERY keystone of the “only true church” (whatever that means), how can their be undressed inconsistencies? (Don’t blast me,…this is pretty close to a rhetorical question).

I’m not splitting hairs, but I am making a point from my perspective.

You make a fair point.

How can there be inconsistencies for the Word of God, when you are defining the truthfulness of the book and keystone of our religion based on it being the most correct of any book on earth at the time Joseph uttered those claims?

I see 3 approaches:

1) Take it on faith: It is the most correct and the word of God so the problem is we don’t understand the inconsistencies, because if we understood them we would see there are none…the book is correct, consistent, true, and the Word of God. You have faith it is the most correct book. Doubt your doubts, but don’t doubt Joseph’s claim it is the most correct book on earth.

2) Don’t believe it: There are inconsistencies, this destroys Joseph’s credibility, this destroys the credibility of the church and it’s leaders, as you pull that thread, the sweater of the church truth claims unravels quickly and it must be a conclusion that it is all false. It can’t be the word of God when inconsistencies exist.

3) You start to deconstruct the thoughts you had, and take things a bit at a time and learn from it. What was Joseph meaning when he made his claim? What are the sources of inconsistencies? What does the scripture intend to teach, and do inconsistencies impact that? Can you embrace paradox that the book is the keystone of our religion and include inconsistencies? Can a prophet be a prophet with limited knowledge and say some things that later become out of date with new facts, or do all words prophets utter have to stand up to the test of time to be considered prophetic teachings?

You see, item #3 doesn’t weasel out of the problems. It uses them to teach you something new. You may not like seeing it a new way, so it isn’t worth it to keep trying to make that fit you. But for some people, it really is enlightening to see it all from a new perspective, and it can be more spiritual and invigorating and true.

If that isn’t you, that is fine. But you can accept that it is great for others. So you can pick #1 and #2, and move on with your choice. #3 can be hard for some people to really accept and feel they are honest with themselves to bend their thinking. There isn’t a better way. It is just whatever is meaningful to you in your life. Paradox is an option.

[Anonymous]

Joseph Smith said

Quote:

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

It’s just something he said. Just a quote of Joseph giving his opinion. I don’t think it’s core doctrine at all.

[Anonymous]

Heber, I agree with what you have said, with perhaps one more that fits in there somewhere….and that is denial (or delusion). It is probably one of your choices in there,…the “faith” one perhaps.

One of the things I appreciate VERY MUCH about this site is the acknowledgement that there is a problem in the first place. When someone is a stage 3 (for example), the typical response is: “Oh, there is no conflict…nothing is wrong…all is well….etc”. Not so,..sometimes there are concerns.

I think that your #3 is pretty much the only choice there is if you want to move past the FC and towards some type of resolution INSIDE the faith. Other concerns, like polygamy might be harder to move past–and there are some lively discussions going on about that in other threads.

Anyway,..thanks for the post.

Shawn…what you said might be right, but it is not treated that way now–the “most correct book” is treated AS core doctrine. When I was on my mission, this was something pounded into us from higher-ups, and we taught it as core doctrine. Whether that is true or not isn’t the question I encounter now…it is TREATED as core doctrine.

Just saying.

[Anonymous]

The differences I pointed out between the Book of Mormon and D&C 76 cannot be attributed to any error in translation or transmission, in my opinion. The Book of Mormon clearly and repeatedly teaches the concept of heaven or hell, and D&C 76 clearly teaches there are three degrees of glory and outer darkness.

Here is one possible explanation:

-When the Book of Mormon mentions “the kingdom of God” or “endless life and happiness,” it is referring to the three degrees of glory AND

-When the Book of Mormon mentions “hell,” being “cast out,” “endless damnation,” “endless misery,” or “the kingdom of the devil,” is it referring to outer darkness

If that’s the case, it sounds like a buttload of people will end up in outer darkness. That explanation just doesn’t work for me.

Maybe God taught people the simple heaven or hell model for some reason, and then in this dispensation revealed the true structure of the afterlife.

Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Shawn, it also can be attributed to different people understanding things differently – to on-going revelation – to evolution of understanding – etc.

I expect that we will understand lots of things differently than people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago. If we don’t, that is scarier than anything else I can imagine. The issue only exists if we view the Book of Mormon as our version of the inerrant Protestant Bible. We don’t have to do that, especially if we accept what the book itself says – that there are mistakes in it and that it represents the beliefs of the author(s). That is what the book says, even if so many of us don’t accept it.

Fwiw, I would rather take what the book says about itself than what anyone else says about it, and I am completely fine with my belief that Joseph and other leaders didn’t (and, in some cases, still don’t) understand it all that well – and that much of the misunderstanding we have of it comes from that simple fact.

[Author]

Posts