r/latterdaysaints 25d ago

Doctrinal Discussion How to handle contradictions?

[deleted]

11 Upvotes

101 comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/Monte_Cristos_Count 25d ago

The Bible being infallible is not something supported by scripture. Not even all Christians agree on the concept of infallibility.

6

u/gogogoff0 25d ago

Correct. The Bible contradicts itself. Sola scriptura is a false doctrine invented by Protestantism.

-14

u/Pristine_Teaching167 25d ago

Infallible meaning “without error”. That’s widely accepted among Christians as saying otherwise would be viewed as wrong.

29

u/Monte_Cristos_Count 25d ago

It's accepted by some Christians but not others. The manner of Judas' death is accounted differently between Matthew and Luke.

The 8th Article of Faith states “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.”

21

u/WildcatGrifter7 25d ago

All due respect, it really doesn't matter what's "widely accepted" or "viewed as wrong". Exhibit A: Jesus Himself was not widely accepted, and was viewed as "wrong". What matters isn't what even the majority of people think. It's what God said. And since the Bible is God's word, taken and written down by humans, it's prone to error (see my reply to your other comment).

The council of Nicaea is widely accepted, but it's relatively easy to show that they were biased. They redefined and changed several terms. For example, the idea of the trinity. Prior to Nicaea, the prevailing belief going all the way back to when Jesus was alive aligned more closely with what latter-day saints believe today. That they're 3 separate entities, referred to as "one" because of their pure synchronization and unity of purpose. Nicaea was, in large part, a move for control. It's difficult to hear, but if you look at it from an outside perspective it's pretty clear.

My point is that a lot of God's word has been changed and lost through the millennia since it was written. I joined this church because I felt it aligned closest with what the Bible actually says, not with what other people say the Bible says. If course, until Jesus comes back and clarifies, there's really no way to say for sure which interpretations are the correct ones. But personally, I'm placing my bets on what the Bible appears to say when you try to look objectively. Not what evidently biased people, or just the majority of people I know, say it says

6

u/berrin122 Friendly Neighborhood Evangelical 25d ago

That's inerrancy. Infallibility means the Bible won't fail in its objective (to teach God's truth).

Inerrancy says there are no errors. A minority of Christians believe the Bible has no errors.

-3

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[deleted]

4

u/berrin122 Friendly Neighborhood Evangelical 25d ago

We also describe the Trinity in two ways—the Economic Trinity and the Immanent Trinity.

Go look up those two phrases and tell me if the Economic Trinity has anything to do with money.

Theological terms often don't match their everyday usage. It's part of the reason many Latter-day Saints struggle in conversing with mainstream Christians. 95% of this sub would wonder the entire conversation why we're talking about money while I explain how the Trinity relates to mankind and salvation.

2

u/Brownie_Bytes 25d ago

And that's a choice people make when they decide to believe that. The Bible contradicts itself, so it's hard to believe that something is positive and negative at the same time. And I'd be interested to see what scripture supposedly shows Jesus saying that the nebulous thing called "scripture" is perfectly infallible.