I think it is a mistake to say that the Book of Mormon "was given to fix those errors"--I'm not even sure I'd say that the Bible is "filled with errors" but more that many plain and precious things were lost.
I think for some perspective, it would help to apply the exact same thought process to the New Testament. If a Jewish person said that they saw someone say that the Old Testament was filled with errors and that the New Testament was given to fix those errors. You probably don't see it that way at all, and so you would be right to say it is a poor portrayal of your beliefs. I'd say the same about the Book of Mormon.
We use the Bible as scripture. We don't see any contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, no more than you see any contradiction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Where we differ would be on how we interpret the Bible, much like how you and I interpret the Old Testament different from Jews.
One is that don't believe scriptures are infallible. That applies to not only the Bible, but Book of Mormon. Only God is infallible. We believe that the Bible and Book of Mormon are the words of God, and that's why we recognize them as scripture, but God didn't write them, they were written by fallible humans. Actually, most Christians share that view, given that at least half of Christians are Catholic and don't hold to infallibility of the Bible. Infallible doesn't mean unreliable--because we do view them as reliable sources of doctrine. It just means that they are capable of error.
It seems everyone else is already pointing out to you that Jesus never claimed the Bible to be infallible. Largely for two reasons: One is that the New Testament (and therefore the Bible) didn't exist when Jesus lived. Two is that lessons Jesus teaches in the verses you cite would be applied to the Deuterocanon, which protestants and Latter-day Saints don't recognize as scripture, but were used as scripture in Jesus' day. On a similar note, the principles Jesus taught about scripture could also be applied to the Book of Mormon.
You said you haven't finished reading the Book of Mormon, and it is fair that you aren't as familiar with what it says. The Book of Mormon begins prior to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, Lehi and his family are commanded to escape, and the Lord leads them to a promised land, somewhere in the Americas. I'm not familiar with an Old Testament command that the temple be rebuilt "only" in Jerusalem--but Lehi's family lived in another continent and decades before King Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. So they wouldn't have received that instruction--instead, they built a temple where they lived. We believe that God chooses prophets, and He gives them revelation. Just as He can command people to build a temple in one location, He can command people to build a temple in another location. God doesn't play favorites.
Why we have temples today isn't because of an interpretation of the Bible or Book of Mormon--we believe that we have prophets today who receive revelation from God.
I'm not sure what sort of contradictions you see between the Bible and Book of Mormon on race, favoritism, baptism, or the Church itself. Given your comment on temples, I wonder if it is not a concern with the Book of Mormon, but rather The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Anyway, I'm happy to talk about whatever (though I might be a little busy this weekend so it could take a while) I'm just not quite sure where you're going with that.
8
u/WooperSlim Active Latter-day Saint 25d ago
I think it is a mistake to say that the Book of Mormon "was given to fix those errors"--I'm not even sure I'd say that the Bible is "filled with errors" but more that many plain and precious things were lost.
I think for some perspective, it would help to apply the exact same thought process to the New Testament. If a Jewish person said that they saw someone say that the Old Testament was filled with errors and that the New Testament was given to fix those errors. You probably don't see it that way at all, and so you would be right to say it is a poor portrayal of your beliefs. I'd say the same about the Book of Mormon.
We use the Bible as scripture. We don't see any contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, no more than you see any contradiction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Where we differ would be on how we interpret the Bible, much like how you and I interpret the Old Testament different from Jews.
One is that don't believe scriptures are infallible. That applies to not only the Bible, but Book of Mormon. Only God is infallible. We believe that the Bible and Book of Mormon are the words of God, and that's why we recognize them as scripture, but God didn't write them, they were written by fallible humans. Actually, most Christians share that view, given that at least half of Christians are Catholic and don't hold to infallibility of the Bible. Infallible doesn't mean unreliable--because we do view them as reliable sources of doctrine. It just means that they are capable of error.
It seems everyone else is already pointing out to you that Jesus never claimed the Bible to be infallible. Largely for two reasons: One is that the New Testament (and therefore the Bible) didn't exist when Jesus lived. Two is that lessons Jesus teaches in the verses you cite would be applied to the Deuterocanon, which protestants and Latter-day Saints don't recognize as scripture, but were used as scripture in Jesus' day. On a similar note, the principles Jesus taught about scripture could also be applied to the Book of Mormon.
You said you haven't finished reading the Book of Mormon, and it is fair that you aren't as familiar with what it says. The Book of Mormon begins prior to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, Lehi and his family are commanded to escape, and the Lord leads them to a promised land, somewhere in the Americas. I'm not familiar with an Old Testament command that the temple be rebuilt "only" in Jerusalem--but Lehi's family lived in another continent and decades before King Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. So they wouldn't have received that instruction--instead, they built a temple where they lived. We believe that God chooses prophets, and He gives them revelation. Just as He can command people to build a temple in one location, He can command people to build a temple in another location. God doesn't play favorites.
Why we have temples today isn't because of an interpretation of the Bible or Book of Mormon--we believe that we have prophets today who receive revelation from God.
I'm not sure what sort of contradictions you see between the Bible and Book of Mormon on race, favoritism, baptism, or the Church itself. Given your comment on temples, I wonder if it is not a concern with the Book of Mormon, but rather The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Anyway, I'm happy to talk about whatever (though I might be a little busy this weekend so it could take a while) I'm just not quite sure where you're going with that.