Mormon scripture

"How Wide The Divide?" was and continues to be a watershed in regards to interfaith understanding. I continue to enthusiastically recommend the book to Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints alike.

Problem is, Blomberg's qualifications on the Chicago Statement pretty much utterly neuter the idea of inerrancy.

Basically, in order to really judge the scriptures correct, you'll have to know all the facts involved, know the exact original autographs, and then properly interpret them.

In short, you have to pretty much BE omniscient for an inerrant read on the Bible to even be possible. And the Chicago Statement becomes more or less irrelevant.

As Blake Ostler pointedly questioned - "what is left but a pious-sounding noise?"

I believe strict scriptural inerrancy (even as qualified by the Chicago Statement) is a minority position among all Mormons with more than a casual familiarity with Church history and doctrine. We call it the doctrine of continuing revelation for a reason.

Of course, that doesn't mean that scriptural inerrancy isn't the working assumption with regard to most passages in actual practice. Innocent until proven guilty, more or less.

I appreciate the following, I hope to understand the LDS perspective on scripture....have any GA"s come forward (past or present) to flesh out this thought ??

Robinson ties the LDS view of the inerrancy debate to the LDS doctrine of continuous revelation. "For Latter-day Saints, the church's guarantee of doctrinal correctness lies primarily in the living prophet, and only secondarily in the preservation of the written text. This is, after all, the New Testament model. ... [W]hat makes Scripture theopneusos ("inspired," or "God-breathed") is not its written character but its revealed character."

I certainly don't agree with the position, but it explains why a thread on almost anything "biblical" can go 50 to 150 posts, and get nowhere.....lol...or not so loud.....

GERMIT

Stephen E. Robinson is much too willing to push his ideas toward traditional Christianity. He represents only his own beliefs, which would be foreign to many mainstream Mormons like me.

Inerrancy tends to mean that all knowledge needed for salvation is in the Bible. The Chicago statement says, "We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs," and "We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses."

That is not what Mormons believe. The Book of Mormon says "there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book" (1 Nephi 13:28); "[and the Lord] shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them" (1 Nephi 13:40).

If essential things were not taken from scripture there would be no need of a restoration, which is one of the essential themes of Mormonism.

I have always believed that Bible to be mostly correct (~90%). But that many "plain and precious things" are missing thus hold only to the Bible will tend to mislead.

Shame on yourself, John, for posting rude and off-topic comments. Go read the rules of conduct set by Beliefnet (there's a link next to every comment screen) and abide by them if you want to post at this forum. If you don't, your comments will be delisted -- same rules for everyone. It's not just me -- Beliefnet has comment moderators who browse forums and do their own moderating. And no, I don't have any obligation to go cleanse the entire comment thread of references to your rude and off-topic comments. I have better things to do than clean up your online trash.

And while you're at it, do a Google search and read up on Ed Decker, the founder of your saintsalive outfit. You can start at the Wikipedia post. You'll find the lengthy commentary by his ex-wife quite informative. You'll also find the criticisms of Mr. Decker by other Christian commentators (many of whom are quite critical of Mormonism) rather interesting.

this is rather awkward, but I was shocked, and a little offended by the posts of some of my church sibs (using "church" in the broad sense of the word) My , admittedly , weak apology to the LDS audience here, if I were teaching a class in outreach, I would use the posts mentioned as how NOT to do it.... strong convictions do not have to come in that package...in my opinion

thanks, DAVE, for taking out the trash....someone has to

GERMIT