Why Do LDS Dismiss the Greater Part of the New Testament?

[Guest]

The LDS claim to be christian, however they don't teach or discuss anything other than The Gospels, Acts and Revelations to their members. It seems to me they cannot keep the New Testament in context and have it correlate with Joseph Smith's teachings. In order to justify those doctrinal errors they say that part of the Bible was translated improperly. If and when anything is taught out of the books I've not previously mentioned the stories are butchered or taught out of context.

I was never taught anything in LDS classes having to do with the Disciples preaching the gospel after Christ's Crucifixion or the Disciples own hardships or deaths.

[_SteelHead]

The other parts were not translated correctly?

Wait, what........... wasn't this multiple choice?

[_son of Ishmael]

When I was still a TBM, I taught gospel doctine amoung other things. When we covered the New Testament we went over all the whole thing. I always thought it was the Old Testament that we just sort of skimmed over

[_Tobin]

I always liked the Old Testament parts. We'd have weekly stonings just to bring back some of the flavor of that period. Good times.

[_bcspace]

The LDS claim to be christian, however they don't teach or discuss anything other than The Gospels, Acts and Revelations to their members. It seems to me they cannot keep the New Testament in context and have it correlate with Joseph Smith's teachings. In order to justify those doctrinal errors they say that part of the Bible was translated improperly. If and when anything is taught out of the books I've not previously mentioned the stories are butchered or taught out of context.

This is not true. LDS doctrine is more along the lines of 1 Nephi 13 which defines Biblical corruption as more removal than anything else. Hence, an LDS person can accept any Bible verse you care to quote as scripture. In addition, we teach all generally accepted (nonCatholic) New Testament books and there is nothing in the New Testament that is in conflict with LDS doctrine.

I was never taught anything in LDS classes having to do with the Disciples preaching the gospel after Christ's Crucifixion or the Disciples own hardships or deaths.

I would hazard that you never attended many classes in the first place.

[_Buffalo]

[

In addition, we teach all generally accepted (nonCatholic) New Testament books and there is nothing in the New Testament that is in conflict with LDS doctrine.

18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[d]? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

[_bcspace]

That is correct. By the time of the resurrection, it is too late to marry. The Sadducee's incomplete use of this story form Tobit also is a good indication of their knowledge of ancient teaching of marriage in the afterlife.

[_Buffalo]

That is correct. By the time of the resurrection, it is too late to marry. The Sadducee's incomplete use of this story form Tobit also is a good indication of their knowledge of ancient teaching of marriage in the afterlife.

There was no first century belief in eternal marriage.

[_bcspace]

There was no first century belief in eternal marriage.

Sure there was. 1 Cor 11:11, 1 Peter 3:7, etc. etc.

[_Buffalo]

There was no first century belief in eternal marriage.

Sure there was. 1 Cor 11:11, 1 Peter 3:7, etc. etc.

Your dishonest misuse of scripture is noted.